| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.hardware.texas-instruments.msp430.discuss |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
tested by whom? do you trust just anybody to develop libraries. Ti
rarely get it right, and they should be the goto people. In this
specific example the guy who posted the UART example code actually
states that it is untested.
Al
On 18/02/2015 9:51 AM, Jake Grajewski [email protected] [msp430] wrote:
>
>
> Touche, but a good software developer /*never */uses untested
> libraries, now that would just be silly. ;-P.
>
> Caption this picture
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Onestone [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> [msp430] <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Wrong, totally. the first rule of software development is that the
> best code is the one that you personally know has been fully
> debugged, and usually that is one that you wrote. If you trust
> others to write better code than you then you are asking for a
> world of grief.
>
> Who says I'm a bear? Anyway it's 'built in' not 'build in'. :-P
>
> Al
>
>
>
> On 18/02/2015 9:38 AM, Jake Grajewski [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> [msp430] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> First off, The first rule of software development is that the
>> best code is the one you didn't have to write ^^.
>>
>> I agree with Al here, why aren't you using the build in UART tool
>> in the microprocessor. It is build to be used in this way, and
>> the only reason ever not to is if you have to use a certain chip
>> and you have run out of UART ports to use.
>>
>> @Martin: Now you are just poking the bear aren't you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jake
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Onestone [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]> [msp430] <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Why oh why are you bit banging this when the MSP430 has an
>> extremely simple UART in hardware. Are interrupts that
>> fightening?
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/02/2015 2:21 AM, [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]> [msp430] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello, I'm trying to communicate with my RF module through
>>> UART interface. However, I get many errors even with low
>>> load. I suspect that I have an issue with the way that I
>>> configure the clock or the UART.
>>>
>>>
>>> Basically, for the UART functionality I use
>>> http://glitovsky.com/blog/?p=300
>>>
>>> (I configured the connection as 8N1 at 115200).
>>>
>>>
>>> The clock configuration below is used with MCLK = 25 MHz (
>>> when I use it with MCLK=16 MHz I cannot communicate with the
>>> UART module at all ) .
>>>
>>>
>>> P5SEL |= 0x0C;
>>>
>>> /* Select REF0 for FLL reference. */
>>>
>>> UCSCTL3 &= ~SELREF_7;
>>>
>>> UCSCTL3 |= SELREF_2;
>>>
>>>
>>> /* Set ACLK to use REF0CLK.
>>>
>>> * Set SMCLK to use the DCO.
>>>
>>> */
>>>
>>> UCSCTL4 &= ~SELA_7 & ~SELS_7 & ~SELM_7;
>>>
>>> UCSCTL4 |= SELA_2 | SELS_4 | SELM_4;
>>>
>>> /* Initialize FLL. */
>>> Init_FLL_Settle(mclk/1000L, mclk/32768);
>>>
>>> XT2_Start(XT2DRIVE_0);
>>>
>>> UCSCTL4 &= ~SELA_7;
>>> UCSCTL4 |= SELA_2;
>>> UCSCTL8 |= SMCLKREQEN | MCLKREQEN | ACLKREQEN;
>>> /* Enable interrupt for TBCCR0. */
>>> TBCCTL0 = CCIE;
>>> /* Number of ticks per millisecond. */
>>> clock.aclk = 32768;
>>> clock.ticks_per_interrupt = clock.aclk / 1000;
>>> TBCCR0 = clock.ticks_per_interrupt;
>>>
>>> /* Use ACLK, set timer to up-count mode, and start timer
>>> at zero. */
>>> TBCTL = TBSSEL_1 | MC_2 | TBCLR;
>>>
>>> /* Enable interrupts. */
>>> __bis_SR_register(GIE);
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas J. Grajewski
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Grajewski
>
>
>
>