Difference between revisions of "83Plus:Ports:15"
From WikiTI
(Noted that the TI-83+SE has an external RAM chip.) |
(Added note about the TI-84+CSE) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''Function:''' ASIC Version | '''Function:''' ASIC Version | ||
| − | This port reports the ASIC version from which the number of RAM pages and USB driver revision can be determined. This works for the TI-83+SE, but not the TI-83+, so first check bit 7 of port 2 before using this to check the HW capabilities. | + | This port reports the ASIC version from which the number of RAM pages and USB driver revision can be determined. This works for the TI-83+SE, but not the TI-83+, so first check bit 7 of port 2 before using this to check the HW capabilities. The TI-84+ and TI+84+SE use the exact same ASICs (44h, 45h, 55h); see port 21 for how to check how much flash there is. The TI-84+CSE uses the 45h ASIC. |
| + | |||
=== Read Values === | === Read Values === | ||
Revision as of 20:10, 19 February 2013
| This port only exists as a distinct port on the TI-83 Plus Silver Edition, the TI-84 Plus, and the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition. On the standard TI-83 Plus, it acts as a shadow of port 05. |
Synopsis
Port Number: 15h
Function: ASIC Version
This port reports the ASIC version from which the number of RAM pages and USB driver revision can be determined. This works for the TI-83+SE, but not the TI-83+, so first check bit 7 of port 2 before using this to check the HW capabilities. The TI-84+ and TI+84+SE use the exact same ASICs (44h, 45h, 55h); see port 21 for how to check how much flash there is. The TI-84+CSE uses the 45h ASIC.
Read Values
- 33 - TI-REF 83PL2M/TA2 - No USB driver and no on-ASIC RAM; the RAM is in a separate 128 K RAM chip.
- 44 - TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 - Uses old USB driver and has 128KB of RAM
- 45 - TI-REF 84PLUSB/TA3 - Uses new USB driver and has 128KB of RAM
- 55 - TI-REF 84PLC/TA1 - Uses new USB driver and has 48KB of RAM
Write Values
No effect
Comments
Even though this port is in the protected range, it can't be written to. So there's really no reason to call it protected.
