6 Replies Latest reply on Nov 1, 2016 1:06 AM by JoMe_264151

    CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

      Hi, I already have a CY8CKIT042 (not BLE) and some CY8CKIT049.


      If I buy a CY8CKIT-143 PSoC 4 BLE 256KB Module, will I be able to program it with a kit I already have? 


      Can I do something like what described in this article: 


      Using the CY8CKIT-049 to Program Another PSoC® 4 - KBA93541



      Thank you very much.

        • 1. Re: CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

          Welcome in the forum, Stefano.


          Safest is to buy a CY8CKIT-043 Prototyping kit and using the snap-off programmer for programming and debugging your PSoC target.





          • 2. Re: CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

            The miniprog3 is pretty useful if you are wanting something to program a large number of cypress chips

            • 3. Re: CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

              Thank you Bob, I see you are a top contributor, means you know a lot about PSOC. I like your idea, I hope to be good enough. Have you already tried? I saw in cypress website that says: "If the EZ-BLE PRoC Module and a switch (SW4) is added to the board,  KitProg can program and debug that module as well", but I never see any picture or example of this. I'll try anyway. Thx

              • 4. Re: CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

                Thank you e.pratt, I wanted to choose a cheaper solution, I'm an hobbyst I'll not plan to program a large number of chips, but knowing me I think before or later I'll buy miniprog3 anyway. ;-) Do you use it? 

                • 5. Re: CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

                  There are modules you cannot program using the kitprog but with the miniprog3 only: All PSoCs that haven't got (due to small pin count) an XRes pin need to use a method named "Power Cycling" which cannot be performed by the kitprog.





                  1 of 1 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: CY8CKIT042 BLE vs not BLE

                    I've been using it at work and it is pretty handy! It has the capability to power the chip on-board for the purposes of debugging/developing battery-powered devices (rather than running through dozens of batteries during development). 


                    As Bob mentioned, it also has various programming options for the various chips. I tend to use the Reset personally, but that is specifically because I've been working with an on-board battery, which wouldn't allow a power cycle obviously.


                    Especially as a hobbyist, I would (personally) pick this up over the other options as it is pretty easy to use and configure for the various chips I tested with.