Re: [avr-gcc-list] Butterfly RS232?

[Mike Young]

Thanks. The pin is completely dead when I probe it with a scope. It can 
hardly be hardware in this day and age. Right?

The gcc-port code looks as follows. Connection settings on the PC are 19200, 
8N1, no handshake. Receive works just fine, else I wouldn't be bothering you 
with it. I know for certain the code gets to the _Tx function when it 
should. It hits breakpoints in the debugger, and I've added that annoying 
PlayClick in the callers.

void USART_Init(unsigned int baudrate)

{

   // Set baud rate

   UBRRH = (unsigned char)(baudrate>>8);

   UBRRL = (unsigned char)baudrate;

   // Enable 2x speed

   UCSRA = (1<<U2X);

   // Enable receiver

   UCSRB = (1<<RXEN)|(0<<TXEN)|(0<<RXCIE)|(0<<UDRIE);

   // Async. mode, 8N1

   UCSRC = (0<<UMSEL)|(0<<UPM0)|(0<<USBS)|(3<<UCSZ0)|(0<<UCPOL);

}



void Usart_Tx(char data)

{

   while (!(UCSRA & (1<<UDRE)));

   UDR = data;

}

char Usart_Rx(void)

{

   while (!(UCSRA & (1<<RXC)));

   return UDR;

}

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Franks" <address@hidden>
To: "'Mike Young'" <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc-list] Butterfly RS232?


> Mike,
>
> I've done it, seems to work fine for me.  Hooked up DB9 directly to the 
> pins
> on the butterfly.  Will try to remember to send code when home this eve.
>
> Steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Young [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:15 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Butterfly RS232?
> >
> >
> > Looking at the schematic for the Butterfly, it's not readily
> > apparent how it
> > manages to translate levels for outbound data. The docs seem
> > to say it's
> > supposed to work, but my primitive understanding of
> > electronics matches the
> > results: non-receipt of "transmitted" data. It could also be
> > my primitive
> > understanding of the mega169's usart that's at fault. Is the
> > ported gcc
> > Butterfly usart code supposed to work?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> > Mike.