Re: How to choose a firmware partner

robin.pain_at_tesco.net
Date: 06/03/04 

Date: 3 Jun 2004 00:45:31 -0700

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<hbPtc.24674$lY2.15714@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
> <robin.pain@tesco.net> wrote
>
> > We have to enable WDT to conform. I hate it because the only post
> > production failure we had was WDT induced:
> >
> > At cold temperatures the (CR) period of the (independent) WDT reduces
> > by 20%. I did not realise this. I set all WDT reset-times at the most
> > infrequent possible (at room temperature).
>
> It's worse than that, read on.
>
> > At low temperatures, our system became locked in a constant re-boot
> > cycle.
>
> So what you seem to be saying is, "I don't read datasheets and when
> things go wrong for me it's the manufacturers fault". If you think it
> can only vary by 20% then you will be rudely educated again. For
> example on a 16F628 the acceptable limits (according to the data***)
> is 7 - 33mS with 18mS being "typical" (no prescaler assigned). I'm
> really not trying to be an ass, but you absolutely have to RTFM when
> working with these things.

No, I do read data sheets but I have a small attention span and a bad
memory so I expect to make mistakes.

Therefore the simpler the system, the more likely it will work (for
me).

The more sensible the job the more likely it will fascinate my brain.

The sillier the job the more likely my brain will wander, and make
mistakes.

Therefore I expect to make more mistakes implementing e.g. <wdt>
types. It may be that I am unique but I doubt it. I think some others
do likewise and I think the sheer dullness and difficulty
(impossibility) of optimising the placement of the wdt_resets
(ignoring future maintainability horror) will likely lead to wholesale
sloppiness sooner to later and agressive management or timescale
pressure will guarrantee it.

Cheers
Robin