ARMBasic added function

What products would you like to see?
Post Reply
olzeke51
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:22 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

ARMBasic added function

Post by olzeke51 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:08 pm

Yo'

with the LPC8xx series, they have a boot rom API that has routines for
several built in peripherals . DO the other chips have this API available?

Is there a way to CALL them ?? I2C is one I had in mind - but it requires
a buffer pointer to be passed to it (along with other variables), I figure
the INTERRUPT SUB could process the buffer contents -
a string (array) of 512 bytes could be chopped up

Bit-banging would seem to take more time , especially if this data is
being passed to other serial devices -- 'course Real World Time is a
lot slower than microcontroller time !!!!!

Just a thought -- olzeke51



basicchip
Posts: 856
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

Re: ARMBasic added function

Post by basicchip » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:03 pm

Between __ASM__ and CALL (expression) and knowing that when you assign a variable the last value is left in R7, yes

I have used them to make IAP calls, which are different than API calls. Some of the API calls are poorly documented from NXP.

olzeke51
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:22 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: ARMBasic added function

Post by olzeke51 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:17 am

thanks for the info --
__ASM__ doesn't show up in the help.chm file (Search tab) - I found it online in the basicchip doc
I overlooked CALL in the SUB information - (using the 'search' tab - CALL isn't explicitly defined) - I tend to use this alot vice index tab or 'KEYWORDS'
it shows up in the contents tab[the language / Simple Statements & Alphabetical KEYWORDs] , but not the index tab !!!
looks like CALL has replaced the old USR(xxx) function !!!!
************* using __ASM__
do I need an #include file (say from the MakeItC files)?? I got this error -- and it still flashes the chip !!!
I did "nop" and also "NOP" - same results [I checked one .edu website on ARM instruction and it seemed valid
**
updated - 6/07 -- I did create an 'assm.bas' file with #defines and that seems to clear up the 'need constant' error
but it still flashes it appears
**

Analyzing C:/Coridium/basic/BASIClib/ACMP03.bas
C:/Coridium/basic/BASIClib/ACMP03.bas:13:1: warning: "LPC812" redefined
<command line>:1:1: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
Programming Flash 0812...

__ASM__ nop
-ERROR C:/Coridium/basic/BASIClib/ACMP03.bas: 134: Must be a constant, found nop


__ASM__ nop
-First ERROR at line :134

basicchip
Posts: 856
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

Re: ARMBasic added function

Post by basicchip » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:11 pm

The __ASM__(opcode) treats opcode as a number, we don't do symbolic assembly and have no plans to do that now.

I see that the help file entry needs some further explanation. As I know it can be hard to find an actual document from ARM that shows what the bit fields of the Thumb instructions do, we will copy one of those and add a link to it.

olzeke51
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:22 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: ARMBasic added function

Post by olzeke51 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:54 pm

Okay, but it still reported that it was flashing the device, did it??
"Programming Flash 0812..."

My progrram didn't have any user output or debugging in it.

OR is it only programmed when you get this:
Programming Flash 0812...
ARMbasic[9.32c] on the PC Copyright 2014, Coridium Corp.
*+*+

basicchip
Posts: 856
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

Re: ARMBasic added function

Post by basicchip » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:05 pm

No it did not finish compiling.

Programming Flash xxxx... sent by BASICtools when it starts compiling
ARMbasic[x.xx] on the PC ... sent from PC compiler when it starts
* sent by BASICtools to indicate a block of memory has been sent to the device
+ send by device when it finishes programming a block

if you post the source I'll take a look, haven't seen something that causes the compiler to hang for a while, but it is possible

Post Reply