If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Jeff Shirley on March 16, 2005, 12:23 pm
>> I'd like to compare Basic Stamps, DIOS, Atmel, AVR, etc etc...
> Terry, I'd like to suggest something we are about to come out with. We
> will shortly be offering a 1.0x1.3" board with a 24-pin dual inline
> header, somewhat similar to the stamps. However, we are targeting $29
> for a 60 MHz, 16/32bit ARM7 processor, with a fair compliment of RAM and
> FLASH. We think this board will come out on top of any comparison chart,
> for size, weight, processing power, and bang for the buck, etc. Plus
> learning on an ARM will be a very good choice for the future of the
> user, with access to many languages and development enviroments, and an
> upgrade path for ARMs all the way to some of the most powerful cores
> running.
Randy,
I use boards based on 8051-core processors now. Why use something modern when
you can do the same job with 25-year-old technology in twice the time with
twice the power consumption, right? ;^)
Seriously, though, I am starting to look at faster processors with more I/O.
You have experience with many processors, and I was hoping you could make a
recommendation based on the following requirements:
* Digital I/O
- General purpose
- PWM output (at least two channels)
- Timers/Counters
- Quadrature decoding (at least two channels)
- External interrupts (at least two)
* Analog I/O (at least eight channels)
* Interprocessor communication support (i.e. networkable)
* Serial program download (in circuit)
* C development environment (Linux, preferably)
Since I plan to use a network of processors, each dedicated to a set of
sensors or effectors, something less than $100 each would be preferable.
With all the *POD, AVR, ARM, HC12, and other products out now, I really do
not know what would be a good upgrade path from 8051s. And I welcome
suggestions from anyone (not just Randy), of course.
Thanks,
Jeff.
--
Jeff Shirley
spam-tacos@mindspring.com
"Bill Gates is filthy rich, but that doesn't mean I want to be married to him."
|
|
Posted by Randy M. Dumse on March 25, 2005, 10:44 pm
news:wYZZd.12324
> I use boards based on 8051-core processors now. Why use
> something modern when you can do the same job with 25-year-
> old technology in twice the time with twice the power consumption,
> right? ;^)
Well, there's lots to be said for getting the job done, and if you can
do it with what you know, there is a huge time saving on the learning
curve. But sooner or later, you get so far behind on the technology
curve, you start being out moded and out dated. Then it's time to
modernize once more.
> You have experience with many processors, and I was hoping
> you could make a recommendation based on the following
> requirements:
> * Digital I/O
> - General purpose
> - PWM output (at least two channels)
> - Timers/Counters
> - Quadrature decoding (at least two channels)
> - External interrupts (at least two)
> * Analog I/O (at least eight channels)
> * Interprocessor communication support (i.e. networkable)
> * Serial program download (in circuit)
> * C development environment (Linux, preferably)
That's almost an exclusive list. While many processors have two PWM's,
very few have Quadrature Decoding channels.
Okay, I asked around with the staff too. The only processor we know of
with Quadrature is the DSP56F80x series processors. That's not saying
there might not be a TI, AD or PIC DSP chip that also have some, but we
don't know of any.
So for hardware quadrature, that means DSP56F80x.
No GCC here. For C development that means Code Warrior (which with all
the amature nonsense we are routing out of their compiler and libraries,
I just cannot speak kindly about) or our Small C version. Pete Gray is
working on StatiC, which is a cut between C and IsoMax(TM).
The serial download to the DSP56F80x doesn't fit very well either. The
usual load method is via JTAG. We all use Winduz, except for Pete who is
Linux conversant, and the loading we do is by FLSH.
Networking of the DSP56F80x is by CAN, which is very sweet, and robust
enough for automotive environments.
If you give up the Quadrature, then the ARMs fit your list very well,
and picks up every other point I believe.
Most of the ARM's have and I2C and some both CAN and I2C. Development
for ARM's exist in plenty. GCC for ARM is mature.
> Since I plan to use a network of processors, each dedicated to a
> set of sensors or effectors, something less than $100 each would
> be preferable. With all the *POD, AVR, ARM, HC12, and other
> products out now, I really do not know what would be a good
> upgrade path from 8051s.
The European answer to this question is very loudly resounding: The ARM
is the new 8051. (This is a bit odd, given the ARM has 6502 roots. But,
you hear it often repeated.)
Now that we can buy a 32-bit 60-MHz ARM single chip for just over $3,
with 32K Flash 8K RAM on the low end, you have to assume the 8051 core
is past its prime. Then on the top end, you can easily find ARM variants
running 200MHz up. With host USB ports, etc.
Even Motorola has gone head long for ARM now with their MX1, with built
in CMOS camera interfaces, and Bluetooth accelerator interfaces.
Then further on the leading edge, 400MHz, 750MHz, and now even 1 GHz
ARM's are being made.
Seems to me, if you want to learn one core processor for a long life
duration, and applicability from lowend products up to high end super
systems, the ARM would be that candidate.
--
Randy M. Dumse
www.newmicros.com
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
|
|
Posted by Jeff Shirley on March 28, 2005, 10:40 am
Hi Randy.
[additional input snipped]
> Seems to me, if you want to learn one core processor for a long life
> duration, and applicability from lowend products up to high end super
> systems, the ARM would be that candidate.
The quadrature decoding is no problem on a fast processor, so I could drop
that requirement. GCC is a big plus for me, since I already use it for the
native Linux parts of the system.
Thanks for the excellent input.
Jeff.
--
Jeff Shirley
turkey-spam@mindspring.com
"Bill Gates is filthy rich, but that doesn't mean I want to be married to him."
|
|
Posted by Randy M. Dumse on March 31, 2005, 2:59 pm
> The quadrature decoding is no problem on a fast processor, so I
> could drop that requirement.
My Arrow technical guy, Peter Goad, got back to me with this link
http://www.microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/chart.aspx?branchID €1&mid&lang=en&pageIdu
Some of the new PIC DSP's have a quadrature channel.So there are
starting to be a few other options with Quadrature built in.
--
Randy M. Dumse
www.newmicros.com
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
|
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map