CCS C Software and Maintenance Offers
FAQFAQ   FAQForum Help   FAQOfficial CCS Support   SearchSearch  RegisterRegister 

ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CCS does not monitor this forum on a regular basis.

Please do not post bug reports on this forum. Send them to support@ccsinfo.com

PIC18f priority interrupt enable bit

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CCS Forum Index -> General CCS C Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PicFan
Guest







PIC18f priority interrupt enable bit
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:16 pm     Reply with quote

I'm working with the PIC18F452 in a project and while monitoring the RCON register (reading at startup and displaying with a printf), I noticed that the Interrupt Priority Enable bit (IPEN) is set to '1' at powerup. The data sheet (table 3-2 on pg.27) indicates that it should be set at '0' on a power-on reset.

I'm only using one isr for serial comms but I've read in the errata that some problems are associated with using interrupt priorities and I already have enough problems without adding these on top.

1. Is setting the interrupt priority bit to '0' (disabled) required manually to avoid enabled by default?

2. Does the compiler provide an alternate means to disable interrupt priorities or is a direct register write to clear this bit the only way to do this?

Thanks in advance for your help!
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12445
PicFan
Guest







Re: PIC18f priority interrupt enable bit
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm     Reply with quote

:=I'm working with the PIC18F452 in a project and while monitoring the RCON register (reading at startup and displaying with a printf), I noticed that the Interrupt Priority Enable bit (IPEN) is set to '1' at powerup. The data sheet (table 3-2 on pg.27) indicates that it should be set at '0' on a power-on reset.
:=
:=I'm only using one isr for serial comms but I've read in the errata that some problems are associated with using interrupt priorities and I already have enough problems without adding these on top.
:=
:=1. Is setting the interrupt priority bit to '0' (disabled) required manually to avoid enabled by default?
:=
:=2. Does the compiler provide an alternate means to disable interrupt priorities or is a direct register write to clear this bit the only way to do this?
:=
:=Thanks in advance for your help!


I'm using V3.130 of the PCWH compiler.

After taking a look at the asm list file, it appears that the compiler is setting the priority bit (IPEN) to '1' without being requested to do so?


.................... #zero_ram
.................... void main(){
*
53E2: NOP(FFFF)
53E4: CLRF FF8
53E6: BCF F9F.5
53E8: BSF FD0.7 <------ THIS LINE SETS PRIORITY BIT?

Or is there a built-in way to request that it doesn't set this bit to '1'?


Any help is much appreciated!
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12446
Woody
Guest







Re: PIC18f priority interrupt enable bit
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 2:32 am     Reply with quote

I believe this was changed in PCWH version 3.137 ??? of the compiler when the FAST compiler directive was introduced.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12454
PicFan
Guest







Re: PIC18f priority interrupt enable bit
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 11:54 am     Reply with quote

:=I believe this was changed in PCWH version 3.137 ??? of the compiler when the FAST compiler directive was introduced.


Thanks for the info, seems to do the trick...

regards,
PicFan
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12460
Trampas
Guest







Re: PIC18f priority interrupt enable bit
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 3:11 pm     Reply with quote

Be careful I thing the 18F8720 has a silicon bug with the GIE bit, it is not documented or acknologed by Microchip yet...

Trampas


:=:=I believe this was changed in PCWH version 3.137 ??? of the compiler when the FAST compiler directive was introduced.
:=
:=
:=Thanks for the info, seems to do the trick...
:=
:=regards,
:=PicFan
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12466
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CCS Forum Index -> General CCS C Discussion All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group