Talk:In-system programming

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Electronics

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microchip free publicity

Shouldn't references to Microchip products be avoided? This looks like free publicity.

Merge with In-circuit serial programming

In-circuit serial programming and In-system programming seems both talk of the same topic from a slightly different point of view. IMO the former should be merged in the more generic In-system programming which already has references to other ISP protocols (JTAG).

Or In-system programming should concentrate on the concept of ISP whereas In-circuit serial programming should focus only on the use of SPI to program in-site AVR micro-controllers?

Sylvain Leroux (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, it appears all three cited references are now dead (squatted on or empty):

NeatInfo.com
TurboCube.com
Astrohex.com

--Roens (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. ISP and ICSP may not be the same. I searched the Atmel.com, there are a lot of things about ICP and something about ICSP. I think they are too similar and we often make mistakes.

--JiangXueqian (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--[Monnie Holt, P.E.] 12:10 24 February 2014 (EST)

ICSP was trademarked by Micro C Technologies, but it was abandoned as a Trademark in 2002. IMO, ICSP is one particular method/protcol for ISP. However, from what I see in industry, the two terms are interchangeable. I do not think they should be merged due to the technicality I mentioned in my opinion statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PICkit 3 pin 6

Pin 6 is actually the LVP pin, for low-voltage programming enabled PIC chips. See http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/PICkit_3_User_Guide_51795A.pdf BFeely (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google search

I couldn't help it, I took out this comment: "They are easily found using a Google search," regarding information provided by chip manufacturers. A Google search brings people here looking for help sorting through the overwhelming information, they don't want to be flippantly directed back to Google. Badmuthahubbard (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wretched

This article needs to be completely rewritten. Wikipedia:OR problems all over. The lede introduces the topic as a method of programming PIC, AVR, and Propeller devices, but these in fact use three different, incompatible programming methods. ICSP is a specific method for PIC microcontrollers that uses a two-wire protocol. ISP is the corresponding method for AVR microcontrollers, that uses a protocol similar to SPI. Propeller chips do not have any Flash memory; so it would not be accurate to say they can be programmed in the sense of programming a Flash memory. They are able to load programs over an asynchronous serial port with their bootloader, which is really an entirely different subject. The present article is extremely confusing because it confounds these different topics together. The discussion of parallel ports vs. serial ports is also not relevant to the subject of ICSP, and would be better placed in a general article on device programmers. Yet it is totally confounded again: Whether a programmer is connected to its host via a parallel or serial port, or completely standalone, is not related to having a device socket. The presence of an Wikipedia:OR graphic (about RJ-11) doesn't help matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.119.26 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus RJ-11 is a phone protocol and like the other modular connectors called RJs has no place outside of phones. Kenif (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's far too much detail about Microchip specifically. I would take the view that In System Programming was a generic term for any case where a programmable device can be fitted first and then programmed. Example from Maxim: "Many members of the Maxim 8051-based microcontroller family support in-system programming via a commonly available RS-232 serial interface. In-system programming means that the program and/or data memory can be modified without disassembling the embedded system to physically replace memory. " NXP give a similar description.

In my opinion the term should be restricted to devices that may be programmed from their blank state via an ISP process, so a bootloader would only consitute ISP if it was present in the "blank" device e.g. mask programmed.

ICSP appears to be "owned" by Microchip but that is not the article title. ARM-based microcontrollers can be programmed in-system using SWD. Many devices can be programmed via JTAG. Some NXP parts can be programmed via USB. The connector is only relevant if clearly documented.

I seem to recall that the 8052 microcontroller (8051 mask-programmed with a BASIC interpreter) could be used to program 2764 EPROMS in system provided the circuit board was equipped with a Vpp generator. That technique would have dated back to the mid 1980s. Unfortunately I don't think I have the relevant databooks any more. 212.159.121.228 (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, microcontroller debugging articles are a mess. The articles need a major overhaul / regrouping / renaming. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly a search on the term:' "in system programming" history' threw up a paragraph in a book The In-System Configuration Handbook:: A Designer’s Guide to ISC By Neil G. Jacobson as follows: Lattice Semiconductor introduced what they called "In-System Programming" in 1996 That might be a good starting point if that is the first time the specific term was used. Microchip were not the first to have devices with a low pin count programming method. Unfortunately https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Motorola_68HC05 lacks specific citations for the information, if we can improve on "late 1980s" then perhaps that might count as earliest use? 212.159.121.228 (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be rewritten or deleted

This article is out of date and biased to the point of being actively misleading. There are multiple misused terms, a ridiculous slant toward Microchip, and newer chip architectures are not even mentioned. If there are no experts capable of doing a full rewrite of this page I would suggest it simply be deleted, as it serves no purpose currently other than to confuse the inexperienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hierophect (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]