Hello once again!

Go To Last Post
28 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Just after a bit of advice really.

 

Let me state a few things, I am not a programmer, in that I only do this for a bit of a challenge to the Gray matter somewhere at the top of my body, it is good when things work however.  When recently playing with some old IFR test gear I am again finding most things are processor based and this has led to me digging out old projects of many years ago.

 

I have two Atmel devices I am interested in  the 8951/2 series, i have a few chips left over and boards lying around so planning to play with them.

 

A couple of TUXGRAPHICS boards that use the Atmega328, so nothing of any real power.

 

The last time I touched the 51 stuff was in 1997/8 all done in assembler AESM51 and I used Equinox Micro ISP for test debug and an old parallel port programmer for final programming. which I still have the hardware, but the old computers that used to run them like Win 3.11 and Win95 have long gone.

 

For the Atmega,  I did have Studio 4 at one time so must have made it up to C programming and used some form of In circuit programmer, an SKT500 thing?  that I am still looking for.

 

I use Suse Linux computers at home so would like a Graphical IDE that would run in linux, but if needs be can use windows as I still have XP and even Win10 although I hate with a passion the screen layout and yearn for the old 95/98 desk tops and stuff of years gone by.

 

So anyway getting down to it.  What would you suggest for an old f**t like me and an 'old peoples home' is not the answer I am looking for! by way of programming tools and debuggers.

 

Cheers

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

Arduino! Dirt cheap and the programming software is free. Gobs of add-on boards (shields), many of which do not cost very much. Lots of sellers.

 

Jim

Jim Wagner Oregon Research Electronics, Consulting Div. Tangent, OR, USA http://www.orelectronics.net

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

To chime along the same lines as West Coast Jim.....

 

Take the kit(s) you have and S C R A P them.  Not worth it.  You can get arduino kit off Ebay for extremely low prices.  Atmel Studio 7 can work with them, and you can use the Arduino IDE if you wish as well.  

 

Plenty of Arduino libraries to use to get you going as well.

 

East Coast Jim

If you want a career with a known path - become an undertaker. Dead people don't sue! - Kartman

Please Read: Code-of-Conduct

Atmel Studio6.2/AS7, DipTrace, Quartus, MPLAB user

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

jgmdesign wrote:

Take the kit(s) you have and S C R A P them

 

Ahhhhh sacrilege!  But I get what you say.  but looks like unless I use AVRdude in command line I am using Windows with Studio 7, or as you say the Arduino IDE.

 

I will go Studio 7 that way I should be able to pull my files from Studio 4 back into use.

 

Thanks

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

It is hard to give good advice that fits with your personal situation if all I have to go on is the info of a single post.

I very briefly skimmed through the titles of your old posts.

 

Back in 2008 a bit of 8051 and asm related stuff.

ASM has it's place in a few niches, but it is a far to big pita for general software development.

Use C or C++ There are plenty of online tutorials, The good old Kerninghan & Ritchie is still a good book if you are a dead tree carcas lover.

 

I agree with all of the above that the old xx51 boards are probably best simply thrown away.

The 8051 stuff is now an 40 year old architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MCS-51

Just having a bit of hardware lying around is not a good reason to invest a lot of time in it.

The biggest value is in the knowledge you gain while working with some kind of silicon.

If I see your sporadic dab into uC related stuff, then my conclusion is that you do not want to split your brain over 2 different uC architectures.

Combine that with the prices of hardware nowadays, and you will see that the value of the hardware you have is negligible.

Almost all the value is in the knowledge you build up in working with the hardware of some black box uC.

(If you do want to stick with this, I recommend using SDCC, which stands for Small Device C Compiler).

 

===============

The atmega328  has a lot to say for it. It is well supported by GCC (C compiler) and there is plenty of hardware based around it, including a lot of the "arduino" boards.

You can buy boards with this processor for < USD 2 from Ali / Ebay.

https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?SearchText=arduino+mega328

I do not like the big / wide arduino boards, but there are a lot of different boards which fit on it and if you want to do a project in which this fits then it's OK I guess.

The smaller "arduino" boards are usually made to fit on a breadboard to start with, or put on vero board for more permanent projects.

It is quite common that the headers are not soldered if you buy them from Ebay/Ali (Cheaper, and they won't bend in the post) and this also gives you an easy option to directly solder wires to the board. Buy a bunch of them. You will need several if you want to do more projects, and it also makes it easy to simply swap a uC board if you suspect there is a hardware problem.

With search terms such as below you have a pretty solid base for a lot of experimentation:

https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?SearchText=sensor+kit

https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?SearchText=arduino+starter+kit

There are a lot of books / tutorials / websites with example projects for sensor kits such as the above.

For more specific projects it is always a good idea to start searching for example code on github.

Github has (almost?) all the code written in the world collected in a huge database (I mean really huge), but it is not indexed well by "regular" search engines.

But github has it's own search engine to search through it's own database of projects.

 

I have very mixed feelings about "arduino". Things I do not like are the connector spacing on the wide arduino boards and the java contraption they call an IDE.

Good things about "arduino" is a relatively coherent bunch of libraries which make it almost trivial to write simple projects in C / C++.

The programming language used in "arduino" is 99% a mix of C and C++ (not very neatly written, but it works), and on top of that they put something called "wiring", which is mostly a thin layer to make it a bit easier for beginners to get started because it takes care of some of the "weird" parts of C C++. (Header files, order of declaration and such).

 

The "arduino" boards come with a bootloader built in, and you don't need extra hardware to program it.

But I guess you already have a programmer for the old AVR projects you have done.

There is an ISP header (or at least the holes for it) on most "arduino" boards. Any of the AVR based arduino boards can be used as an AVR development board without the "arduino" stuff.

 

"Atmel Studio 7" is a piece of windoze SW, and does not run (well) under Linux.

I find the "arduino" ide contraption abhorrent.

A solution which is probably very good for starters is platformio.

Platformio comes default with the "Atom" ide, which is quite usable, and platformio also takes care of installation of the complete tool chains such as the compiler and the "arduino" framework. Getting platformio going probably takes 10 more minutes than the "arduino ide", but it has a decent, usable and relatively modern IDE which will save a lot of time in the long run.

 

If you want to keep the setup for programming simple, you can easily get the packages "gcc-avr" "avr-libc" "binutils-avr" and use those to write C / C++ programs for AVR's.

This does mean you have to choose a text editor or IDE yourself and figure out how to put this all together. But I think you have done something similar before.

The packaged gcc-avr is ofthen a few years old, and there is nothing wrong with that if you use the uC's it supports. If you want to use the latest AVR's then Microchip maintains a separate toolchain for Linux (also based on GCC) and you can find that somewhere on their website.

(Installing programs with a single line of text becomes soo addictive after a while).

 

Another thing I have said many times before (Because I know how wonderfull it is) is to buy a cheap LA from Ali / Ebay. (Search for 24m 8ch). Such a USD5 piece of hardware, used with the Open Source project Sigrok gives such a tremendous amount of insight in what your hardware is doing that every beginner / starter with uC's should have at least one of them. Such a USD5 LA has more value for uC software development than an USD 300 oscilloscope.

Relatively recently I spent an hour or so in another post to make some screenshots and explanation on how I use it to debug uC software.

You can find the thread here:

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/led-indicator-software-debugging?skey=debugging%20led

 

Adrian_H wrote:
boards that use the Atmega328, so nothing of any real power.
This is true, but the good old 328 has plenty of power for a lot of your projects. A much more powerfull board would be the maple mini. This board is also supported by platformio and the arduino environment.

https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?SearchText=maple+mini

But because this board is a lot less popular / mainstream than the good old mega328 the chance you get into trouble with it is bigger, and there are less people around to help you solve problems with it. The extra power and speed of the processor used there comes also with a lot of added complexity. Getting to really know the STM32F103RBT processor needs a study of about 2000 pages of documentation. But with a bit of luck you can get an "arduino" blinking led project going on this processor board in 10 minutes with platformio.

Maybe I should not have written this last paragraph, but it is for "completeness" / reference. My best guess is that you are better of with an atmega328 board.

Paul van der Hoeven.
Bunch of old projects with AVR's:
http://www.hoevendesign.com

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Hello Paul and thank you for your in depth reply.  I will read through it a few times to let it all sink in.

 

My situation is probably a bit weird, a bit of history. 

 

Back in the days of The Nascom, and ZX81 computers I learned assembler, Z80 code for the old machines, I did a basic weather satellite receiver system for myself based on the apt transmissions of the time.

 

Later I moved across to  MCS51 as I was dealing with that technology, the old boards I still have sat on the shelves have serial comms, Liquid Crystal Displays, inputs and outputs, in-circuit programming, and external RAM storage.  They were built for me and used for two purposes, a very early  radio based message terminal and an aid to test a specificity modified piece of radio gear for a customer, as we repaired and tested headless radios as used on the Metro Porto Tram system.

 

Everything I did up to this stage was assembler based, for some reason I found it easier to understand. If I wanted to drive the pins I wrote a small section of code that served that purpose, I knew what registers to use.  I would define locations to store information, when needed I would push registers to the stack, do a call for the inputs, saved what I read to the location pop the registers from the stack and go back to a small loop awaiting an interrupt or other request to do something else.  Yes, I had to learn the architecture of the processors and understand the hardware of the peripherals as to what pins did what, how you drove them to do the things you wanted.

 

The Tuxgraphics boards were used driven by again an idea for radio deployment in the fire fighting field when they started to use mesh 2.4GHz devices.  We needed to report battery status, connection status and a few other points, as the Tux boards were in fact simple Ethernet connected boards  and could have a simple web server in software, would respond to pings and carry information back I used them, there was also a C library provided so that was my first and only venture into using C and the AVR studio.

 

What I did not understand  was the interfacing of the real world inputs/outputs to the program.  Yes I could load the libraries, for comms or displays, try not to fall foul of using unsigned bits, Chars, or what ever was needed, but I seemed to loose an understanding of how it was done, it was not clear to me how I would interface to a new piece of hardware,  how would I write the i/o routines if not doing it all in assembler?

I would like to understand the process not just use libraries written by others for a mass produced board.  I missed some learning steps somewhere down the line.

 

But I digress the main questions I had initially was to find a graphic IDE for linux if possible and looks that that is still a command line based thing, I am concurrently trying to install Studio7 but hitting issues with Win7 pro and drivers and Windows updates for my particular 'OLD' PC, but will see if it manages it.  If not I will go Win 10 and see what happens.

 

I already have a low end Logic Analyser 16 channel that uses the Saleae software, did I mentions the old IFR test gear, I could add to that and Old Rohde and Schwarz mobile tester HP gear and a few other old end bits of kit, being semi retired does tend to mean new kit is not available to me as this stuff could be upward from £20K and besides it's just to keep the grey matter working now.

 

Have fun

 

Adrian

 

Now where did I put those old Dunfield Development disks with a C compiler for the MCS 51 devices?

 

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

If what you are looking for is a GUI IDE to put on top of avr-gcc on Linux then the usual suspects are Eclipse (CDT), Code::Blocks or Netbeans. The things that AS7 has that they won't deliver is the simulator. It's also more work to get Atmel's JTAG / debugWire / PDI debuggers working smoothly.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Studio 7 seems to be nothing like what I remember from 4, but I guess I will have to start somewhere, like where the hell do I put my own .h and .c files from TUX to be included?

 

Anyway, before I go further I am re-installing AVRStudio 7 and going a bit smaller, rather than include everything that comes with it I am going to install just the basics for the 8 Bit chips.

 

On the MCS51 stuff as I have a purpose to achieve with the old hardware, so I will go back to AESM51 assembler using notepad+ just to get that out of the way, then I will print off and read docs on the studio, I hope I can still print it off as a book to read through.

 

So thanks for your inputs, let me try and make some form of start and it is a pity none of you are just around the corner to guide me and answer questions.  I have 10 years to catch up on and a lot to remember and some old ways to forget.

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

As you seem to be attached to your old MCS51 hardware, have you tried "SDCC" on Suse? It's probably in your package manager, no need to search for CD's.

The very old  avrstudio was a custom atmel product. The newer AVR Studio's are a copy of microsoft visual studio with a bit of Atmel stuff on top, (Or at least, so I have heared, but don't ask me about Atmel Studio X though. I only use stuff that comes wit (runs on) my linux box.

Paul van der Hoeven.
Bunch of old projects with AVR's:
http://www.hoevendesign.com

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
... the main questions I had initially was to find a graphic IDE for linux if possible and looks that that is still a command line based thing, ... for my particular 'OLD' PC, but will see if it manages it.
Microsoft Visual Studio Code is relatively lightweight and Microsoft has an Arduino extension for it (ie Visual Studio Code in lieu of the Arduino IDE)

Visual Studio Code with AVR extensions might be considered instead of AVR Studio 4 but there's no AVR debugger in Visual Studio Code (though there are two GDB client extensions)

Morten's Visual Studio Code extension is for the AVR simulator in Atmel Studio 7 atbackend.exe; expanding Morten's extension would be useful though would need a Windows PC to serve atbackend to remote PC.

 

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/supporting/requirements

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/avr-studio-mac-linux#comment-2440271

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/linux-toolchains-debugging-and-ides#comment-2160496

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Again thanks

 

I am going to use AESM in linux that will do for now, create the .hex file stick in a programmer and program the chip, try it out & redo as required.

 

The re-install of studio is not going well, I have this thing where I tend to dislike windows for this type of reason.

 

I am attached to old hardware because the gear I still enjoy working with, uses hardware from the same era.  I have around 30 boards from Philips stuck in a drawer at work that are based on Philips 80C31 they were used in two way radios that have still a good following in the radio amateur scene.  The hardware is good to play with and can be thrown away if it does not work.

 

 

Adrian

 

Can I still get AVRStudio4?  <<<scap that comment just found it in the archives on what is now the Microchip site.

Last Edited: Sun. Apr 15, 2018 - 02:54 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
Can I still get AVRStudio4?
Maybe AVRstudio 4 still runs on windows 2.0...

microsoft has had a long history of obsoleting as much as they can with each windows version, which is one of the reasons I don't like microsoft much.

AVR studio 4 is probably > 15 year old now.

 

Have you tried running AVR Studio 4 in Wine? That might still work.

 

What is "AESM"? I see some references to AVR and ASM, but not sure of the link.

https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=%22aesm%22+atmel

(Mehh, doesn't matter much, I'm not going to use it anyway).

Paul van der Hoeven.
Bunch of old projects with AVR's:
http://www.hoevendesign.com

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Sorry Paul you are answering a bit fast for me, I have found Studio 4.19 they are all there including some Linux builds for AVR and some tool chains, (what ever they are) on the Microchip site under software tools

 

http://www.microchip.com/avr-sup....

 

It should also be ASEM that is my fingers available in the Suse package manager.  asem51 - 8051 Macro Assembler ASEM-51

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Paulvdh wrote:
If you want to use the latest AVR's then Microchip maintains a separate toolchain for Linux (also based on GCC) and you can find that somewhere on their website.
3.5.4 :

Microchip Technology Inc

Microchip Technology

AVR and ARM Toolchains (C Compilers)

http://www.microchip.com/avr-support/avr-and-arm-toolchains-(c-compilers)

 

3.6.1 :

http://distribute.atmel.no/tools/opensource/Atmel-AVR-GNU-Toolchain/3.6.1/

 

3.6.0 is in Debian :

https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc-avr&searchon=names&suite=all&section=all

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Paulvdh wrote:
Maybe AVRstudio 4 still runs on windows 2.0..
XP with several threads here for 7, 8.1, and 10, or, XP on Linux :

Linux Mint with Win XP in Virtual Box

by Plons

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/linux-mint-win-xp-virtual-box

Paulvdh wrote:
Have you tried running AVR Studio 4 in Wine? That might still work.
Mostly functional though USB may be an issue from a read of some of the test reports.

IIRC, it's very simple to link the USB device file system from Linux into Wine so should be able to have a functional AVR Studio 4 with AVRISP mkII and AVRJTAGICE2.

Wine 3 adds USB HID and Windows 7 emulation so might be worth a re-try of Atmel Studio 7 on Wine.

WineHQ - AVR Studio / Atmel Studio

https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=402

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I tried to instal Studio 4 which I did but could not then seem to find a way to get the tool chains to be recognised, either I  installed them in the wrong place, which is very probable as they ended up in my docs?

 

So I went on again to install Studio 7 just with the 8 bit devices.

 

Just had a play and when I use my old USB prog device which was called at the time Avrusb500-smd  which is compatible with SKT500 v2.

 

I get this message

'The signature of the attached tool is AVRISP_2 which is unexpected'

 

A Search of Google shows that many have changed the firmware in programmers I assume to report the correct name for Studio 7

 

I doubt this old device could be changed now.

 

There is an Olimex.com prog unit a AVR-ISP-MK2 that I could pick up  That says Tested and working with AVR Studio 4, AVR Studio 5, ATMEL Studio 6.

 

So not sure if that would be an issue, I get the impression that Studio 7 is a bit more tied down to programming devices, maybe wrong.

 

I have sent an email to Tux about their old programmer and will await and see.

 

Trying to rack my brain as to how I got studio 4 working last time and what else I had to install with it, think it may have been WINavr but not sure any more, I think it all just took care of it self.

 

God I feel old.

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
I tried to instal Studio 4 which I did but could not then seem to find a way to get the tool chains to be recognised, either I  installed them in the wrong place, which is very probable as they ended up in my docs?
Atmel AVR Studio 4 and Microchip AVR GCC can be compatible though with some effort.

C-coding ATmega32 using AVR Studio4, on Windows 8.1 (64-bit)

by CRT13

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/c-coding-atmega32-using-avr-studio4-windows-81-64-bit

...

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/c-coding-atmega32-using-avr-studio4-windows-81-64-bit#comment-2004601

by N.Winterbottom

...

This is the most recent version of the toolchain that "Just Worked Well" with AVRStudio4. 

...

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Thanks for your response, can I just verify a few things before I try again.

 

Is is possible I installed to late a version of toolchain?

 

So what I need to do is use the Windows installer for AVR 8-bit and 32-bit Toolchain version 3.3.1/2.

 

Should that be installed before I re-install Studio 4 or after I install Studio 4.

 

One last thing I am struggling with in my mind, I thought when I first installed Studio 4 several years ago I also installed WinAVR-20080610, I have docs printed out for it so I must have (10 years ago, crap)

 

Is that what the toolchain installs or do i still need to find another package to install.

 

Sorry I have gone back to a total novices at this, if I can get the old stuff I had working again it will be a start for me and I can try to take things from there.

 

The bit on the ST500 I have now just downloaded the bundle as described and will try again once i have re installed.  There was one comment in the post about 4.18 and not using 4.19 is that only for 32 bit stuff?

 

Thanks

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
Is is possible I installed to late a version of toolchain?
Possibly as in that post some Microchip AVR GCC are a better match to AVR Studio 4 than others.

Adrian_H wrote:
Should that be installed before I re-install Studio 4 or after I install Studio 4.
IIRC, before; hope someone states how to change the toolchain in AVR Studio 4.

Adrian_H wrote:
I have docs printed out for it so I must have ...
WinAVR and AVR Studio 4 are like peas and carrots wink

Adrian_H wrote:
Is that what the toolchain installs or do i still need to find another package to install.
Microchip AVR GCC toolchain is not WinAVR though should work with AVR Studio 4 with a bit or some effort.

Adrian_H wrote:
... and I can try to take things from there.
The other tack is effort towards a goal in your original post as some are having joy with AVR and Linux.

ATTiny1614 linux support

by m.prebble

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/attiny1614-linux-support

Adrian_H wrote:
There was one comment in the post about 4.18 and not using 4.19 is that only for 32 bit stuff?
IIRC, AVR Studio 4.19 does not default on a toolchain (iow it's a bit more difficult)

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

OK, well with out digging or changing things from a fresh studio 4 install on Win7 Pro in case it makes any difference:

 

I am up and running and after crapping the fuses on one Atmega 168 device and managing to sort it, I am up and running I have programmed two units from Tuxgraphics to talk with each other with the programs from 10 years ago.

 

So a last bit of text editing and another program and I shall call it a night for today on these,.  Start again tomorrow and try and read the docs more..

 

Thanks everyone for your help, I will look in to the Linux stuff in a few days, but think I will enjoy this for a little while.

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
So I went on again to install Studio 7 just with the 8 bit devices.

Did that install successfully ?

If so then I recommend using Studio 7 over AvrStudio 4. Strongly recommend that is.

 

When I did that research on AvrStudio compatible compilers some time ago, I was on legacy hardware and Studio 7 was a bit heavyweight for the computer. However after upgrading the laptop I ibit-the-bullet and installed Studio 7 and honestly I've never looked back. It is a very good IDE that eats AvrStudio for breakfast.

 

You also benefit from a newer & better compiler which also optimises for size significantly better that the WinAVR-20100110 and others of similar age.

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

The install succeeded or at least it seemed to work but I could not get the ISP programmer to work because of the error mentioned, no one came back with a suggestion about the Olimex unit so I guess it was unknown.  So I went down to studio 4.

 

For the gear I am doing it will probably do until I drop., or until I decide to upgrade hardware etc.

 

Adrian

 

p.s. there is one thing I dislike about modern software in general, perhaps again I am uncertain as to how to produce it, But I would really appreciate to download a pdf on the software, that would allow me to print it out and use as a reference.

 

I struggle a lot when trying to use help pages on the screen and constantly flip between tabs to both read and change things.

 

Now perhaps the docs are available as a book in pdf form, I have found the user guide so that will do, I think I was looking in the wrong sections as I was looking at hundreds of titles for all sort's of things.

 

I am known as a grumpy old git!

 

 

Last Edited: Mon. Apr 16, 2018 - 09:14 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Well done!

What's the configuration?

Reason: identification of a known functional configuration.

 

Windows 7 SP1, update (type being security-only or rollup, date or KB number)

AVR Studio version

Atmel USB drivers version

AVR GCC toolchain - source and version (WinAVR or Microchip or FSF, version)

 

Thanks!

 


Microsoft

Windows Help

Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 update history

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4009469/windows-7-sp1-windows-server-2008-r2-sp1-update-history

Microchip Technology Inc

Microchip Technology

AVR and SAM Downloads Archive

http://www.microchip.com/avr-support/avr-and-sam-downloads-archive

http://winavr.sourceforge.net/

https://gcc.gnu.org/

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
no one came back with a suggestion about the Olimex unit so I guess it was unknown.
Your thread might not be either visible enough or around long enough to be searched through.

There are some Olimex AVRISP2 operators here; might try searching for that and browsing the search results.

A good sign is it's stocked by multiple world-wide distributors; the ones at distributors are annoyed with returns of functional tools and instruments.

Adrian_H wrote:
... or until I decide to upgrade hardware etc.
fyi, a STK500 AVRISP, and its documentation is very good :

https://www.avrfreaks.net/forum/avr-isp-mk2-vs-avrisp-mkii#comment-2448146

Adrian_H wrote:
Now perhaps the docs are available as a book in pdf form, I have found the user guide so that will do, 
Atmel Studio 7 has an operators manual in PDF that was significantly updated 2018-Feb.

 


https://www.olimex.com/Products/AVR/Programmers/AVR-ISP-MK2/open-source-hardware

http://www.microchip.com/avr-support/atmel-studio-7

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

Adrian_H wrote:

On the MCS51 stuff as I have a purpose to achieve with the old hardware, so I will go back to AESM51 assembler using notepad+ just to get that out of the way, ...

 

I am going to use AESM in linux that will do for now, create the .hex file stick in a programmer and program the chip, try it out & redo as required.

 

 

If you have the old programmers, you can still use your old 8951/52.

If you want to upgrade the 8951 chip, and still use the same PCBs,  look at the Atmel/Microchip AT89LP51xD2 series, and even AT89LP4052

 

You can  program those using avrdude, and SPI, and the AT89LP51xD2 series have a ROM bootloader, so a UART ISP is supported for very easy pgm download. 

 

See here for an avrdude at89lp.conf config file, for SPI pgm :

 

 https://github.com/PeterVH/Ardui...
 https://petervanhoyweghen.wordpr...
 [Ardunio + avrdude]
 avrdude -C avrdude-at89lp.conf -P /dev/ttyACM0 -b 19200 -c stk500v1 -p lp51 -U flash:w:knight-rider.ihx

 Supports:  AT89LP4052: 1EH 45H FFH   AT89LP51ED2 1EH 64H 65H 58H D7H ECH EFH devices.
 

 

 

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

gchapman wrote:

Well done!

What's the configuration?

Reason: identification of a known functional configuration.

 

Windows 7 SP1, update (type being security-only or rollup, date or KB number)

AVR Studio version

Atmel USB drivers version

AVR GCC toolchain - source and version (WinAVR or Microchip or FSF, version)

 

Thanks!

 

Eh!

 

Windows 7 pro service pack 1 It is up to date on windows only updates?

AVR Studio version version 4.19 Build 730

Atmel USB drivers version 7.0.888

AVR GCC toolchain 3.3.1.1020-Win32

 

If that is what you are after?

 

gchapman wrote:

Adrian_H wrote:
no one came back with a suggestion about the Olimex unit so I guess it was unknown.
Your thread might not be either visible enough or around long enough to be searched through.

There are some Olimex AVRISP2 operators here; might try searching for that and browsing the search results.

A good sign is it's stocked by multiple world-wide distributors; the ones at distributors are annoyed with returns of functional tools and instruments.

 

I can go pick up one of the Olimex and have it on my desk in two hours round trip if required, but as I am now back at Studio 4 and working any pressure is off for the time being and I have time to shop around.

 

I have downloaded the Studio 7 guide some 359 pages, it does have a 2018 date.  But as above, I need to get back into it before I commit a lot more time.

 

Who-me wrote:

 

If you have the old programmers, you can still use your old 8951/52.

If you want to upgrade the 8951 chip, and still use the same PCBs,  look at the Atmel/Microchip AT89LP51xD2 series, and even AT89LP4052

 

You can  program those using avrdude, and SPI, and the AT89LP51xD2 series have a ROM bootloader, so a UART ISP is supported for very easy pgm download. 

 

See here for an avrdude at89lp.conf config file, for SPI pgm :

 

 https://github.com/PeterVH/Ardui...
 https://petervanhoyweghen.wordpr...
 [Ardunio + avrdude]
 avrdude -C avrdude-at89lp.conf -P /dev/ttyACM0 -b 19200 -c stk500v1 -p lp51 -U flash:w:knight-rider.ihx

 Supports:  AT89LP4052: 1EH 45H FFH   AT89LP51ED2 1EH 64H 65H 58H D7H ECH EFH devices.

My old programmers for the 8951/2 are circa 1995, and are Win 3.11 devices up to I think 95 and use a parallel port, not many of them around today.

 

So when I have generated the Hex files I can stick then in a crappy Genius 540 and program the chips that way, it,s not that much of an issue, I have around 3 or 4 chips 8951 or 52 still available, even still got  a ICE for the 8951 series that may work with the Olimex  who knows?

 

I am happy I have got things working again, that will do for me for now.  When I next start a thread it will probably be in the correct section for questions on how to and be more related to I have a problem or how do I?

 

Again thanks for the support from all.

 

Adrian

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

gchapman wrote:
IIRC, AVR Studio 4.19 does not default on a toolchain (iow it's a bit more difficult)
The situation is this. WinAVR and Studio 4 always used to work nicely together. It did not matter which order you installed them in as Studio was apparently looking for a shared location in the repository where WinAVR recorded where it was installed. So as soon as you had both installed and ran Studio it would "see" the avr-gcc delivered by WinAVR. That worked nicely in every version up to 4.18. But from about 4.16 or 4.17 onwards it was the case that Atmel had started to make their own "toolchain" releases which were effectively in "competition" with WinAVR. At the time the advice usually given (and ALWAYS by me) was "ignore Atmel Toolchain and always use WinAVR". I said that becaus Atmel were clearly just learning about building releases of avr-gcc and each one they made had some howling error so you could not rely on the thing to work. Conversely WinAVR was "solid" and could be relied upon totally. It seemed in those later versions of Studio up to 4.18 that it was looking for TWO different keys in the registry. One to tell it the location of WinAVR if it were installed and one to tell it the location of "Atmel Toolchain" if it were installed. It would find and start to use either (never knew what happened if you had both but I'm guessing they checked for the Atmel one first!)

 

Now I don't know was just an accident or some kind of deliberate spoiling tactic but when they released 4.19 (which turned out to be the very last Studio 4 before the Studio 5 and 6 debacle) it seemed it lost the ability to auto-detect WinAVR. I always suspected a spoiling tactic. Presumably they were keen to ween people off reliance on WinAVR and start to use their own releases.

 

As the sticky thread (that remains to this day) at the top of the "Studio (AVR)" forum shows it's quite easy to fix it. The project setup for C projects has just two fields that need to be filled in. One is to to tell the IDE the path to the avr-gcc.exe to to be used and one is to tell the IDE the path to the make.exe to be used. So if you get a 4.19 and install WinAVR and then you create a C project and look at the properties if the fields that have path to avr-gcc and make are empty then you just need to edit them manually. You would have to do this every time you create a project but there is a "feature" in AS4 that if you have a C project loaded and then create a new C project it "inherits" the previous settings. So you can use this to copy in the pre-set paths each time.

 

The two text fields to be set are the two text edits at the bottom of this dialog...

 

Image result for avr "studio 4" set path to avr-gcc

Set them to the location where you actually have WinAVR.

 

(I just culled that picture from Google Images so it might not be 100% the same as that in 4.19)

 

It's my belief that even to this day the issues of "Atmel (or is it Microchip?) Toolchain for Windows" should still be setting the registry key (or whatever it is) so that Studio 4 can "see" them. So you aren't necessarily limited to 10+ year old compilers. You should be able to pull a modern one and have it "seen". Even if it is not seen automatically by AS4 you just do that same thing I just said. Make sure those two boxes with paths to avr-gcc.exe and make.exe are filled in and it should be able to launch whatever version of avr-gcc anyway.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Adrian_H wrote:
If that is what you are after?
Yes and thanks!

 

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller