the land of sun+snow
Offline
Edison Member
Karma: 80
Posts: 2121
|
 |
« on: February 06, 2013, 03:55:48 pm » |
I have my new atmega1284 pcbs, and they're working well with my 1284P chips. Am uploading my 84 Kbyte sketches and seen no problems, as mentioned on the other threads. I am still using the low-fuse 0xFF setting.
So, I am wondering if anyone has a spare DIP40 1284P chip that was giving them upload problems per the other threads, and that I might borrow TEMPORARILY just for test purposes. I assume the problem chips came from batches manufactured at least a few months ago. My chips have data code 1247, and are apparently from very recent batches.
Given the previous threads, I included guard rings around both crystal and RX0 pins, as well as an RC filter on RX0, just in case they're all needed. I'm not using the RC filter at present. I feel like Buzz Lightyear over here!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 04:42:40 pm by oric_dan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Belgium
Offline
Full Member
Karma: 0
Posts: 220
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 04:12:53 pm » |
I have had 2 pcb's made for the ATmega1284P-PU. On both PCB's I put the crystal and caps inside the socket. Never had any problems with uploading sketches. One of the PCB's I use in a small robot. I have uploaded hundreds of sketches to it while testing. I have 4 1284P-PU chips in use at the moment all with datecode 1216. I now very little about designing PCB's. Is putting the crystal and caps inside the socket a bad design?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
the land of sun+snow
Offline
Edison Member
Karma: 80
Posts: 2121
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 04:17:59 pm » |
I'm not sure, but it works good for you! I can't see why that's a bad thing to do. I remember your pcb from the other thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Left Coast, CA (USA)
Offline
Brattain Member
Karma: 279
Posts: 15314
Measurement changes behavior
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 04:34:07 pm » |
I now very little about designing PCB's. Is putting the crystal and caps inside the socket a bad design? I don't either, but I would think anything that places those components close to the pins they are to and away from other signal traces would be a good thing. Lefty
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rapa Nui
Offline
God Member
Karma: 16
Posts: 888
Pukao hats cleaning services
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 05:31:27 pm » |
http://www.atmel.com/Images/doc8128.pdfAVR186: Best Practices for the PCB layout of Oscillators
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UK
Offline
Sr. Member
Karma: 9
Posts: 351
|
 |
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2013, 08:52:55 pm » |
Pretty rich advice from Atmel considering where they put the Xtal pins!!
Surely a better design would have been between nice solid DC lines, where capacitive coupling would be virtually eliminated (possibly a very tiny amount due to ripple or noise on the DC lines). Maybe between Vcc and Gnd, or less frequently switched input like Reset and Gnd?
Siting the low impedance Xtal pin right next to RX0 on the 1284 wasn't very bright was it?
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
the land of sun+snow
Offline
Edison Member
Karma: 80
Posts: 2121
|
 |
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2013, 09:19:25 pm » |
Siting the low impedance Xtal pin right next to RX0 on the 1284 wasn't very bright was it? That's about what we're all thinking too. I've been continuing to test my new pcb layout. So far, no problems using the atmega1284P chips with data code 1247 - apparently very recent batch. I do have guard rings around the xtal and RX0 pins. Am now also running the 1284P at 3.3V with 16-Mhz xtal now [against all warnings, BTW], and not seen any problems uploading my large 86 KByte sketch. So, either I have a good pcb layout, or else the latest chips are less prone to glitching.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Global Moderator
Dallas
Online
Shannon Member
Karma: 118
Posts: 10147
|
 |
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2013, 09:20:26 pm » |
So, either I have a good pcb layout, or else the latest chips are less prone to glitching. Those two are not mutually exclusive. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
the land of sun+snow
Offline
Edison Member
Karma: 80
Posts: 2121
|
 |
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2013, 09:21:29 pm » |
Guess it should say "and/or else", LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UK
Offline
Sr. Member
Karma: 9
Posts: 351
|
 |
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2013, 04:44:22 am » |
Well, I've not taken any special precautions on my first version prototype PCB layout, so when they arrive I'll check them with both fuse settings and the exact same 1284P I currently have sitting on a breadboard.
I know this chip wouldn't upload via serial until I either added the 10k series resistor in RX0 or altered the fuse settings. If I repeat that on the PCB then it will also show if the problem manifests more profoundly when on a breadboard.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
the land of sun+snow
Offline
Edison Member
Karma: 80
Posts: 2121
|
 |
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2013, 12:50:05 pm » |
Well, I've not taken any special precautions on my first version prototype PCB layout, so when they arrive I'll check them with both fuse settings and the exact same 1284P I currently have sitting on a breadboard.
I know this chip wouldn't upload via serial until I either added the 10k series resistor in RX0 or altered the fuse settings. If I repeat that on the PCB then it will also show if the problem manifests more profoundly when on a breadboard. On my pcb, I also included the RC filter on RX0 [although not needed so far], in addition to the guard rings, but I never saw any problems previously even on my hand-wired proto testboard. BTW, what is the data code on your problem chips? Also, did using the full-swing oscillator fuse setting fix the upload problem, without using the RC filter?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UK
Offline
Sr. Member
Karma: 9
Posts: 351
|
 |
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2013, 01:03:03 pm » |
BTW, what is the data code on your problem chips? Also, did using the full-swing oscillator fuse setting fix the upload problem, without using the RC filter?
I have 5 x 1284P's and they are all date code 1247, which must be the latest as these were direct from Atmel/Digikey as engineering samples. Changing to Full Swing Oscillator totally cured the problem. I'm not using any RC filters at all now and I've not had a failed serial upload since changing the Fuses. Before the changes it was failing 100% on my attempts at a 23kB sketch.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
the land of sun+snow
Offline
Edison Member
Karma: 80
Posts: 2121
|
 |
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2013, 01:20:38 pm » |
Well, that blows another theory. I also have the data code 1247 chips in "P" version. I had thought maybe the newest batches were less susceptible, but your problems with them using the 0xFF fuse setting dispells that myth. I'm not sure why I've never seen any problems whatsoever, hand-wired or laidout pcb, bad fuse or good fuse, 5V or 3.3V, whatever else.
Maybe it's the dry climate I live in, and you guys in the UK live humid. We thought it might have been the phase of the moon, but I imagine you get the same phase over there, :-). OTOH, even on my protoboard I use a "guard ring" around the xtals.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 01:22:11 pm by oric_dan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UK
Offline
Sr. Member
Karma: 9
Posts: 351
|
 |
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2013, 01:14:45 am » |
The problems I experienced are when using a breadboard. Maybe hardwiring on proto board or a proper PCB eliminates the issue. I'd guess that capacitance just between adjacent pads on a proto board is probably neligible even when compared to that, between strips of 5 connections, on a breadboard?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|