Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Michael Karas
02/01/12 20:52
Read: 281 times
Beaverton Or
USA


 
Msg Score: +1
 +1 Good Answer/Helpful
#185771 - Into The Frying Pan
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Adam, Adam, Adam!! Are you Blue because you always keep spouting the same stuff without taking time to catch your breath and pausing to think through just what you are saying? You really should take heed of what some of the oldsters in this MCU business are trying to tell you. Fail to do that and you'll find your self sitting right in the middle of the frying pan with hot oil and sausage all around.

The "power on problem" you are having is only a problem because you did not take proper steps in the design of your circuitry. Do it properly and there will be no "power on problem".

Virtually all MCUs in the market place have their pins power up in "input mode". Some like the 8051 family of legacy compatible parts have internal weak pullups on the pins to keep them in a defined state during the power up sequence. That is actually a very good thing because it means that I/O pins can be left open if they are not in use. Other MCUs have pins that are simply just inputs at power up and it behooves the designer to add the necessary other components to the design to make sure that the inputs do not float around and cause problems.

There are a wave of newer large devices that the chip makers have decided to also add weak pullups or pulldowns to their GPIOs which default as inputs. The choice of what you may find on a particular ARM controller, system I/O chip or SOC may vary. Some of the Intel system chips have some GPIOs default with some pins with pullups and others with pulldowns. Some of the fuse or flash cell programmed FPGAs have programmable selection of adding an onchip pullup or pulldown to help with input pin state at power on.

It is rather rare to find a general purpose MCU that has fuse or flash config bits for enabling power on enabled pullup or pulldown resistors on board the chip. I have encountered a few that had such feature but it was normally a single global config bit that applied an optional pullup to ALL the I/O pins. And many of those were not even non-volatile and wouldn't take effect until the software started to run and configure the register.

In the past I sometimes used things like relay or lamp drivers that had a potential for a "power on problem" that was circumvented via a single enable pin on each package. A properly designed circuit from a port pin could hold off the drivers until software could come and enable all the drives after the normal port pins that go to the drivers are setup and active in the way they have to be. In the case of the 8051 if the enable pin to the driver was active low (most common) one can hook this directly to a port pin along with maybe a pullup resistor to hold off the chips. If the driver has a high true enable you can get by with a single PNP type circuit to the enable instead of having to put one at each individual driver.

You keep crowing about how some PIC does not have the problem that you have experienced with your 8051 design. You should really take the time to evaluate and then explain why this is the case. At least provide a PIC MCU part number in the discussion to add credence to your claims.

Save your self soon. Otherwise you'll be getting pretty crispy.

Michael Karas


List of 34 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Power-On Port Status Problem      Adam Blue      01/30/12 08:42      
   Wrong idea      Per Westermark      01/30/12 08:48      
   you will not      Erik Malund      01/30/12 08:49      
   you are not the only one      Erik Malund      01/30/12 09:18      
   ATMEL be ashamed      Adam Blue      01/30/12 15:05      
      No, YOU should be ashamed...      Kai Klaas      01/30/12 16:15      
      Nonsense!        Andy Neil      01/30/12 16:46      
      PIC Does so      Neil Kurzman      01/30/12 23:08      
         Oh really??      Michael Karas      01/31/12 07:46      
            "Glitch" in the sense of kind of "setback in a plane"?      Kai Klaas      01/31/12 10:19      
   Try These Ideas        Michael Karas      01/30/12 17:21      
   "Glitch"      Adam Blue      02/01/12 13:12      
      what is not “ATMEL true”.      Erik Malund      02/01/12 13:37      
      I think you are making excuses      Erik Malund      02/01/12 13:41      
      Oh, boohoo!        Rob Klein      02/01/12 14:04      
      What a bunch of fatty sausage...      Michael Karas      02/01/12 14:59      
      "very easy problem"      Andy Neil      02/01/12 15:02      
   Power-On Glitch      Adam Blue      02/01/12 15:40      
      Nonsense - again      Andy Neil      02/01/12 16:28      
      Please explain what the "power-on glitch" is ...      Richard Erlacher      02/01/12 19:26      
      Into The Frying Pan        Michael Karas      02/01/12 20:52      
      Power-on problem...      Kai Klaas      02/02/12 05:55      
      You are still blaming the tools      Per Westermark      02/03/12 05:55      
   Design the hardware first.      David Prentice      02/02/12 07:21      
      do not Design the hardware first.      Erik Malund      02/02/12 07:30      
   Power-On Glitch      Adam Blue      02/02/12 15:07      
      that you had the worst possible reset circuit      Erik Malund      02/02/12 15:59      
      RC-reset...      Kai Klaas      02/02/12 17:20      
      Sorry, double post, don't know why...      Kai Klaas      02/02/12 17:21      
         No, you're not the only one      Richard Erlacher      02/02/12 21:12      
      Would I Hire?      Michael Karas      02/02/12 22:44      
         incidentially      Erik Malund      02/03/12 07:09      
   Power On satus Problem      Satish S Munot      02/29/12 10:16      
      echo, echo, echo      Erik Malund      02/29/12 10:30      

Back to Subject List