PIC16F690 portB change interrupt???

[mr.gone]

Resolved PIC16F690 port B "IOC"

Just thought I'd let you all know the solution. It was the I/O. It turns out on port B you must clear ANSELH which is in Bank2 address 1F. I can now see the internal pullup on the pin and my push button switch will pull it down. Everything works now!

 

[William At MyBlueRoom]

You should use labels instead of the actual address.
example

bcf  0x1, 0x7         ; vague tough to read, may not be the same on all PICs
bcf  OPTION_REG, RBPU ; more readable

 

[Pommie]

Just thought I'd let you all know the solution. It was the I/O. It turns out on port B you must clear ANSELH which is in Bank2 address 1F. I can now see the internal pullup on the pin and my push button switch will pull it down. Everything works now!

If you had posted your souce code someone would have spotted that 3 days ago and saved you a lot of time.

Mike

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

You should use labels instead of the actual address.
example

bcf  0x1, 0x7         ; vague tough to read, may not be the same on all PICs
bcf  OPTION_REG, RBPU ; more readable

It's not that ne's not using labels (presumably?), it's that he's not posting the SOURCE code - he's only posting the MPLAB disassembly of the HEX file.

I asked him to post it twice, but he completely ignored me?. As Pommie says, if he'd posted properly he would have got an answer quickly - as it was, I couldn't be bothered, and probably no one else could either?.

 

[mr.gone]

It's not that ne's not using labels (presumably?), it's that he's not posting the SOURCE code - he's only posting the MPLAB disassembly of the HEX file.

I asked him to post it twice, but he completely ignored me?. As Pommie says, if he'd posted properly he would have got an answer quickly - as it was, I couldn't be bothered, and probably no one else could either?.

I only lost part of a day. Do all of you work over the weekend? Anyway I very much dislike that style of disassembly because it doesn't show the actual addresses or bits used. That's why I put the "source" code information in the comments and leave the mnemonics as is. I find it to be very clear and you get the best of both worlds.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I only lost part of a day. Do all of you work over the weekend? Anyway I very much dislike that style of disassembly because it doesn't show the actual addresses or bits used. That's why I put the "source" code information in the comments and leave the mnemonics as is. I find it to be very clear and you get the best of both worlds.

No, you get a confusing mess that people don't bother reading!!.

 

[William At MyBlueRoom]

I only lost part of a day. Do all of you work over the weekend? Anyway I very much dislike that style of disassembly because it doesn't show the actual addresses or bits used. That's why I put the "source" code information in the comments and leave the mnemonics as is. I find it to be very clear and you get the best of both worlds.

You're supposed to use the mnemonics not the addresses. Generally nobody memorises or generally cares what the address is for the SFRs. It's good advice and programming practice.
You're not MSTECHA are you? Lets see he leaves you appear hmmm... Na he wasn't a programmer... or was he?

PS me thinks that ugly mess is his source code! Its got comments with line numbering and machine code turned on. He will rule at reverse assembly if he can read that and remember what it's supposed to do.