Programmer for the new ATTiny10

Go To Last Post
111 posts / 0 new

Pages

Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Dear AVRFreaks

I have just read about the new Attiny10 with TPI programming interface, and was wondering what programming tool could be used. I have tried to see if www.ic-board.de had one with TPI interface but couldn't find any. For those who already have tried programming the new ATTiny10, how did you do it? What tool did you use?

Best regards
Pindsen

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

STK600 is the officially listed programmer. Though I suspect the STK500 and AVRISPmkII firmwares could be adjusted to support it as well.

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Pindsen wrote:
For those who already have tried programming the new ATTiny10, how did you do it?

I don't think anyone has received any samples yet, so nobody has probably had their hands on the ATtiny10 yet, let alone tried to program it.
If any AVRfreaks member had received a sample yet, I'm think we would have seen a post about it.

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

It's intriguing isn't it that if you run the AVR programmer dialog in "disconnected mode" for STK500 and pick any particular AVR you get offered various programming methods like "PP/HVSP", "ISP", etc. Meanwhile, though "tiny10" appears in the list if you select that the program method box is blank.

On the one hand it's interesting that the STK500 apparently "knows" about the tiny10 but on the other it doesn't know how to communicate.

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

Quote:
On the one hand it's interesting that the STK500 apparently "knows" about the tiny10
Remeber that the old Tiny 10 has been around for about 10 years!! So my OLD ICE200 "supports" it. :roll: From the ICE200 help file in Studio:
Quote:
Using the ATtiny12 Adapter for Emulating the ATtiny10/11
The ATtiny10 and 11 are both subsets of ATtiny12. Therefore it is possible to select the ATtiny12 device when configuring the ICE200 to support either ATtiny10 or ATtiny11. These devices all have the same pinout, but ATtiny10/11 does not have the following features :

Also the old AVR910 programmer "supports" it. :roll:
Quote:
;ATtiny11
.db 0x50,0
;ATtiny10
.db 0x51,0

;ATtiny12
.db 0x55,0
;ATtiny15
.db 0x56,0

Oh what a tangled web we weave... Have I mentioned how stupid the whole thing is?? Maybe once or twice.

John Samperi

Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.

www.ampertronics.com.au

* Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly

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

> Remeber that the old Tiny 10 has been around for about 10 years!

Did anyone see any real parts of them, ever?

But I agree, re-using a part number isn't a good idea (IMO).

Jörg Wunsch

Please don't send me PMs, use email if you want to approach me personally.

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

The ATtiny10 is roughly half the cost of the ATtiny12, so it is very appealing if you only need the 4 I/O pins. Unfortunately, getting info on the development tools is time consuming and overall, very difficult. I'm a newbie and I had hoped to use the AVRDragon, but it doesn't support the 10.
I've spent too much time on the website trying to figure out which h/w platform to order.

Studio 4 supports it, but I haven't ordered any hardware platform yet. Developing on the Tiny12 seems like a good idea, but does anyone have any good ideas which development platform will allow development on the Tiny12 then move the code to the Tiny10 later?

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

Quote:

I had hoped to use the AVRDragon, but it doesn't support the 10.

As the announcement of this Tiny10 seems to have been several months after the most recent Studio 4.16.628 was released then how do you know that the Dragon won't support it when the next, Tiny10 aware version of Studio next surfaces? Atmel have certainly added new devices to the STK500 and Dragon and JTAGICEmkII and AVRISPmkII in almost every previous iteration of Studio.

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

bb56 wrote:
I've spent too much time on the website trying to figure out which h/w platform to order.

Yet the STK-600 and associated programming adapter are mentioned right in the news release for the tiny10.

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Quote:

I had hoped to use the AVRDragon, but it doesn't support the 10.
I've spent too much time on the website trying to figure out which h/w platform to order.

That will be the least of your worries, unless Atmel's development chain is much improved. I wouldn't expect to see a real chip for some months, and by that time the ISP tool situation should be clarified.

Quote:

The ATtiny10 is roughly half the cost of the ATtiny12, so it is very appealing

How many kazillion widgets are you going to build, such that the cost difference will become meaningful?

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

bb56 wrote:
Developing on the Tiny12 seems like a good idea, but does anyone have any good ideas which development platform will allow development on the Tiny12 then move the code to the Tiny10 later?

I wouldn't try developing for the tiny12 as it has no SRAM while the tiny10 has 32 bytes of it. I would suggest using the tiny13, as it does have SRAM (64 bytes). It also has EEPROM, but you don't have to use it.

Take a look at the parametric product table: http://atmel.com/dyn/products/param_table.asp?family_id=607&OrderBy=part_no&Direction=ASC#791

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
-- Douglas Adams

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

Use a "real" AVR like the Tiny25, IMO. For sample quantities it is a few pennies more and offers much more.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

Quote:

I wouldn't expect to see a real chip for some months

Perhaps we should open a book. I'm guessing no one's actually going to have a Tiny10 in their hand before 1st Jan 2010. Anyone else feeling braver?

PS "no one" means a contributor to this board who isn't an Atmel employee.

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

Quote:

Perhaps we should open a book.

LOL--I proposed that in the other thread. I put in for samples the first day, so I should be early, right?

Cliff, I'd guess you could get a couple if you tell Atmel it is between the Tiny10 and the PIC10F for a kazillion of your widgets. Heck, they'd re-label >>some<< kind of SOT-23 device just to show you silicon. ;)

https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.p...

Quote:
Quote:

Also says samples available now, and production quantities in May.

LOL--shall we start a pool? Lessee, a prize to the first person that actually receives a sample (and maybe we should qualify that to be the first one to get a blinky running, which would imply availability of a programmer and a toolchain). And a prize for the closest date to when the Atmel North American Stock Check shows at least one distributor with stock.

I've got to see what I could offer. Perhaps a printed 1997 AVR databook--the kiddies have prbably never >>seen<< a printed databook. Wink

Lee


I think the blinky-running is a good criterion, as that implies a real chip, a dev toolchain, and a programmer. I can hunt up some prize I suppose. I just hope I don't have to send it via $100 shipping. ;)

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

oh come on Lee, getting the chip is enough, as we ALREADY HAVE the development tools. The assembler is the same as we already use. AVR Studio/simulator2 supports the tiny10, and the stk600 is said to support the programming mode. So Given that, it would only take a couple of minutes to get a "blinky" program running on a real chip. I don't see how doing that makes it any more real than having the chip itself.

If you wish to test the tools, you can do so now. (less the TPI programming interface of the STK600)

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Quote:
I don't see how doing that makes it any more real than having the chip itself.

I completely trust theory also.

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

Who said anything about theory. With the exception of TPI, it is all verifiable now.

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Quote:

the stk600 is said to support the programming mode.

Hmmm--I must have missed an AVRStudio (for the STK600 info in the Help) version--my 4.14 has no mention of Tiny10.

[edit]128MB of AVRStudio 4.16 download, there it is! Right in the STK600 section: "ATtiny10 STK600-ATTINY10 TPI " with a promised socket card.

Quote:

I don't see how doing that makes it any more real than having the chip itself.

Easy now, glitcher. My proposed test is to ensure that it is in fact a "real" functioning chip. As far as the toolchain, I'd like/expect the [Atmel] assembler to have the appropriate include file, XML file, whatever to disallow the low registers etc. Is that there now? I guess as CodeVision has support, that means a toolchain is available.

It is kind of ironic that the "touts" of the Tiny10 in the other thread put forward the cost savings of the Tiny10 over the Tiny25. Let's say it is $0.10 in moderate quantity. STK600 is $200 so with the numbers above you'd need to have a build of 2000 pieces to break even.

Hopefully, the ATAVRISP2 will get an update to support its claim of being able to handle all 8-bit AVRs.

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

I can say, that the XML files for the tiny10 list both simulator2 and the STK600.

As for the assembler, I don't see anything that would disallow the low registers, but may be implied by the following pragma.

#pragma AVRPART CORE CORE_VERSION AVR8L_0

[There are no working register definitions in the inc file, so they must be coming from somewhere else]

Also note that I'm running 4.16, which lists the t10 as supported by the STK600, and also has a section on TPI programming in the STK600 help files.

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Then some of us should have all the needed toyz when we get the little bugger into our sweaty palms. So, if Cliff is going for "Tiny-Ten in Twenty-Ten", what's your guess? I'll guess that Atmel really messed up on the Xmega and this will be better. I'll go with 18-July-2009.

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

AAAAIIIIIYY, glitcher--did you see this in the TPI section?

Quote:
Note: TPI is only supported on-board, i.e it is not possible to program a device on an external board through the TPI interface.

So in addition to a $200 STK600, we need a $100 adapter kit. And then put the tiny little beastie into the adapter and program it.

Then what do you do with it? Solder the SOT-23 into your app and run. Now, better be right the first time, or you have to unsolder it and put back into the adapter?!? [Am I missing something here?]

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

And you save exactly how many cents at the end of the day? I'd have to have a pretty compelling reason (maybe a 1,000,000 plus application?) to bother with this and it's half-baked 16 register set which is pretty much going to limit it to Asm use.

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

The announcement lists the STK-600 at $159, Tiny10-STK600 adapter $49.

Though everyone seems to be selling the STK-600 at $199, and the adapters at $99. Perhaps this is indication of an upcoming price-drop?

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Thanks for the helpful posts everyone :). Judging from the responses, it seems like I'm ahead of the curve looking at the ATtiny10 (and behind the curve with development tools).

Having no experience with Atmel, I didn't expect the uncoordinated release of vaporware. I'll look at the ATtiny25 at Lee's suggestion.

A little background is probably in order:
I figured I would start the project using the AVRDragon since this is all on spec. I went for the low cost tool instead of the STK600 which will be my own expense. My initial choice was the PIC10F family (no offense!) until I came across the ATtiny43U 0.7V announcement. I needed the low voltage performance, but even after putting the boost circuit components in, it provides only 30mA to peripherals -not enough (and it had way too many more pins than I needed). So I decided to go for a separate boost converter and the Tiny10. Cost was still below that of PIC10F or the 43U.

My product is extremely cost sensitive, so the more $ I take out during the initial design effort, the better. My total target cost is under $3 so $0.30 less for the Tiny10 is a big savings.

To Lee: Yes - I'd like to make a kazillion of these, but I've got to prove that it works as I think it should.

As a newbie to both the PIC and the AVR, I found the PIC website so much easier to find what I needed - including budget pricing. Is there budget pricing on Atmel's site? WHere?

Thanks to all,

Bob

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

clawson wrote:
I'd have to have a pretty compelling reason (maybe a 1,000,000 plus application?) to bother with this and it's half-baked 16 register set which is pretty much going to limit it to Asm use.

Given that it only has 512 instruction words of flash, I don't see that as a downside. With the small size, the types of applications here are going to be small and simple, and likely written in assembly anyway.

It is more likely the limited 32 bytes of RAM, and not the limited registers that's going to preclude a C compiler (or any other language). There is no reason why a compiler couldn't be constrained to use the fewer registers. Or are you specifically referring to GCC?

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Quote:

likely written in assembly anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. I compiled a test program with CV, and it seemed to go OK. I didn't look at the prologue; with the limited flash and limited features one might want to strip it down to be purpose-built. That would be the same as with your ASM program. One would use few if any library routines anyway, unless the payback is there. In that case, the compiler's C library routines are usually pretty tight and should compare with hand-built equivalents.

The dual-stack model of CV is gonna be real scary with that little SRAM. I write big mains anyway so it may not bother my style much.

If GCC with its sing;e-stack model and aggressive inlining can be coerced into a good register model it could do fine. The stumbling block might be the "zero" register stuff throughout.

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

bb56 wrote:
I'll look at the ATtiny25 at Lee's suggestion.

Either that or the ATtiny13A.
The ATtiny13A might be a bit cheaper than ATtiny25, but ATtiny25 has more Flash, EEPROM, SRAM and peripherals.
ATtiny13A has the same Flash size as ATtiny10 but more SRAM. ATtiny13A is probably the current AVR with peripherals most similar to ATtiny10.

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

Samples I got, information on the STK600 adapter I cannot find. The user guide notes you need to use two 6-pin connectors, possibly as the reset signal is left off the TPI connector. But as noted above, no off board programming. Why do I feel the support for this part is rather ragged?

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper.

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

Just as a general FYI, I was quoted 16weeks lead-time for production quantities.

I've requested samples, will see how long it takes till I get them. Don't have a STK600, going to try and make my own TPI programmer using another AVR.

Writing code is like having sex.... make one little mistake, and you're supporting it for life.

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

Quote:

But as noted above, no off board programming.

That makes no sense to me, either. If the signals can be routed a few inches with jumper headers and routing cards and the like on the STK600, what possible "problem" could there be doing the same thing to your own board mounted closeby?

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

Quote:

Samples I got,

LOL--have you done the blinhky-LED yet to win the "contest"? Cliff pooh-poohed the blinky-LED requirement for the winner as being trivial.

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

I suppose that I could do it with simulation, but nothing says success like having a piece of hardware to demo.

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper.

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

Quote:

Cliff pooh-poohed the blinky-LED requirement for the winner as being trivial.

I think you'll find that was glitch

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

Quote:
I think you'll find that was glitch

Opps--right. It was on a previous page and 'Freaks was acting up a bit so I didn't want to page back:
Quote:
oh come on Lee, getting the chip is enough, as we ALREADY HAVE the development tools.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

FWIW, I checked Studio 4 and while you can set up a new ASM project based on Simulator 2 and ATTiny10, none of the other programmer/debug platforms allows that ATTiny10 exists. STK600 documentation knows about the programming interface, but until the S4 knows to program the hardware, burning parts through Studio 4 isn't in the cards.

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper.

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

> Or are you specifically referring to GCC?

GCC might even have an advantage here over the entire "competition". As Lee
already noticed, all other compilers are using a dual-stack approach, while GCC
(in its Unix tradition) uses a single stack for both, the return PC addresses
as well as parameters (only if needed, of course). With a one-stack model, you
can always grow the stack from top of RAM, and static allocations from bottom
of RAM, gaining the largest possible stack size. With a two-stack model, one
of them has to be preallocated large enough, and only the second one can be
automatic in size.

The bigger issue is that the different register model requires a complete rewrite
of the backend code for that processor, regardless of which compiler you are using.
That's a lot of work for just a single CPU type (the more, given the likelihood
users will prefer programming it in assembly anyway due to its constrained resources).

Jörg Wunsch

Please don't send me PMs, use email if you want to approach me personally.

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

Quote:

The bigger issue is that the different register model requires a complete rewrite
of the backend code for that processor, regardless of which compiler you are using.

That is somewhere between a large exaggeration or simply not true as CodeVision already has support and I would think very little "complete rewriting" was needed, as the low registers are generally global register variables (including "bit") so that is the feature that is lost.

Re the stack: With that few bytes of SRAM each location is precious, and it will be like "cycle counting": regardless of single/dual stack model, stack usage will need to be calculated very closely.

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

> as the low registers are generally global register variables
> (including "bit") so that is the feature that is lost.

OK, if the compiler could never use the lower registers anyway (except where
requested explicitly by the developer), that's true. But then, you lose
about half of the valuable registers for everything but the ATtiny10...

Jörg Wunsch

Please don't send me PMs, use email if you want to approach me personally.

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

Quote:

But then, you lose
about half of the valuable registers for everything but the ATtiny10...

Now, everyone's apps are different. IME easy use of global register variables, whether single bit or 8-bit or 16-bit, is what allows me to make tight and fast AVR apps especially in the Mega8-class. I've posted a couple of ISRs that I don't think can be approached, much less bettered, with other compiler's code generation models. I consider nothing "lost" with my straightforward simplistic C style. True enough, there are certain tight-loop sequences where the GCC sophisticated code generator can generate optimal or near-optimal code sequences that CV can't obtain. I don't run into them that often with my simplistic style.

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

ATtiny10 Programmer question to Atmel support:
No responses from the AVR Support folks (avr@atmel.com) except for the acknowledgement email and a case number. No call from the FAE either. How long does Atmel usually take to respond to support questions?

With little info to go on, I don't plan to spend the $200 on the STK600 - plus whatever $99 adapters are needed. I'm not convinced that it will all work yet anyway. I really liked the features of that little chip, but since I have everything I need for the PICF206, I'll probably start there.

I will post when I hear from the AVR support folks...

Bob

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

My guess is that other matters are keeping support for this part a little slow, like nobody proposing a $1M contract, in which case of course we will answer your question now. Not that Atmel is snubbing us, it is just that they have business realities in a nasty world economy to pay attention to. Said that, I still want to play with my new toy and my boss isn't footing any expense without a good justification. Curiousity doesn't come under that heading. :-(

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper.

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

I don't think they are snubbung us either. The "other matter" is more likely that they are trying to figure out how to deal with the Tiny10 themselves. I've seen bleeding edge first release products that simply don't work the way you expect them. My guess is that they simply have bugs/problems with it.

Bob

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

Would the ATTiny10 be capable of handling SPI or I2C? I didn't see anything mentioned in the docs.. but that's hardware support I guess. I imagine these could be implemented in software?

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

received attiny10 samples this morning. they're very small and only marked with T 10 C. I will be etching a board and eagerly awaiting both programming and compiling instructions! Has anyone successfully programmed one of these yet? -Bob

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

Quote:

received attiny10 samples this morning.

You are then in the running for the "blinky LED off of Tiny10" prize. (and someone told me that the blinky-LED part was trivial, that the toolchain was in place, ...)

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

theusch wrote:
Quote:

received attiny10 samples this morning.

You are then in the running for the "blinky LED off of Tiny10" prize.

oh yeah? what are the stakes?

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

santacruzbob wrote:
received attiny10 samples this morning. they're very small and only marked with T 10 C. I will be etching a board and eagerly awaiting both programming and compiling instructions! Has anyone successfully programmed one of these yet? -Bob

Grrrr - I go through hundreds of AVRs a month and I've not even -heard- back from Atmel about my sample request from ages ago :x :x :evil:

These chips will completely change the setup of my production and I'm eagerly wanting to get them in 250+ quantities to start out with, but ooooh no, Atmel isn't interested in talking to me :( *jealous*

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

Quote:
Atmel isn't interested in talking to me
Must not like Qldrs... :wink:

John Samperi

Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.

www.ampertronics.com.au

* Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly

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

Is this topic still open?

I believe that I have achieved a "blinky" on an ATTiny10.

Samples arrived early last week from NuHorizons, have been making progress each evening until success about 15 minutes ago :-)

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

Technology chain:
Avr Studio 4.16 (assembler 2)
-> Avr Dragon over USB
-> AtTiny2313 over DebugWIRE
-> AtTiny10 over TPI
-> LED

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

Cool! I'll have to dig into my "junk bin" for a suitable reward. Send me a PM if you care to.

Let me get this straight: Did you write a '2313 program to implement TPI, and then sent Blinky to the '10 from the '2313? Or am I misunderstanding?

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

Pages