I have a MEB, and I used a pre-existing demo designed to run on it.
But it's useless if you want to design your platform:
not only does the MEB use either SPI1 or SPI2 (don't know which, but it's non-important), moreover it uses a CPLD.
So it doesn't simplify anything.
I'm working with a pre-existing carrier board, and using available pins.
SPI2 is taken and SPI1 doesn't exist, so I'm stuck with SPI3.
When referring to "useless things" I meant that I couldn't find a bare-minimum Microchip suggested project-tree, depicting the minimum source files necessary to get the stack working.
To be safe I included most of the TCPIP stack and this surely bloated the project and inflated its size.
Given there is not 18F with 256KB flash, I suppose this isn't the absolute minimum stack size.
So I'm not narcisistic about my project, I'm finding another black hole in the MCHP documentation:
-you have no way of knowing how the MRF24WB0M should be configured
-you have no way of knowing how the stack should be included.
Surely trial&error would give those information, but I better read them somewhere then loose my time with hit&miss. Off Topic
Also, regarding multi-platform support: sometimes it gets stupid.
Supporting technologies spanning different ages with the same product may lead to suicide.
What's the point in using PIC18 definitions and architecture on a PIC32?
It's so much more powerful than a 18 that this looks like a waste.
Remember Microsoft with its win95 through winXP?
Bringing dos along didn't do that much a favor.
Same goes for the Flight Simulator brand: from FS98 which first introduced 3d mesh support, it got bloated and bloated through fs2000, fs2002 and finally fs2004. All to support every possible incarnation from fs5 to fs2004.
The product didn't run smoothly even on machines produced 2 years AFTER the software!
Sometimes you have to make hard decisions... /Off Topic
post edited by erupter - 2012/04/16 02:33:26