 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Which uController to learn?
There are 124 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 20 to 40.
|
Author: john jardineDate: 19:43 15-03-07
|
|
"martin griffith" <mart_in_medina@ya___.es> wrote in message
news:h0ijv2h8vq2u0nd8s0ntp9npi9bbo2p60i@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:11:02 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John E.
> <incognito@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your comments, Martin.
> >
> >> And be sure to practice your soldering skills/ interfacing techniques,
> >> this is very important compared with the Windoze World
> >
> >That's really why I'm interested in getting into the u-controller world.
To
> >interface hardware to the "real world".
> >
> >Soldering iron warmed up and at the ready...
>
> <sticking neck out>
> checkout:
> SPI interface, (realtime clocks, external eeproms etc.)
> I2C, the uberversal philips interface, same as SPI, but different, and
> pain in the neck IMHO
> logic fets
> H bridge
> opto isolators
> Reset and brownout detectors/ TL77xx etc from TI
>
> and the universal "why doesn't my 2*8 LCD work"
> Cos it takes many milliseconds to initialise, check the Fuckin* busy
> flag
>
> </sticking neck out>
>
> and get a decent bench/lab power supply with adjustable current
> limiting, and a scope
>
>
> martin
And the 1 by 16 LCD, is electrically still a 2 by 8.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 20:01 15-03-07
|
|
Anthony Fremont wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "John E." wrote:
> >
> >> PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using
> >> all brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it?
> >
> > 8051 family. You can't keep a good chip down. It's been going since
> > 1981 IIRC. NXP's (formerly Philips) variants do all sorts of useful
> > stuff with the 8051 core plus their RAM is static now so you can
> > reduce the clock to zero to save power. And the 8051 is multi-sourced
> > !
> >
> >
> >> What don't you like about others?
> >
> > PICs are indifferently documented so I've heard. I also heard
> > something about dodgy compilers.
>
> Oh gawd. The biggest problem I've seen with PIC documentation is that
> people won't read it. Almost every quirk and pitfall now gets fancy shaded
> background balloons complete with code examples.
>
> The only "dodgy" compiler I ever dealt with was SDCC for the 8052, what a
> POS. It may be better now, but a few years ago it sucked bad. Of course I
> don't even bother trying to use C on a PIC, it's just not desiged for it.
> The 18Fs are different though, they do C ok. FWICT, everyone seems happy
> with Microchip's ever-lasting "trial" C compiler for the 18Fs.
>
> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part, chips
> from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not "compatible"
> chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in place of another. Not
> to mention how vastly incompatible the code internals are for anything but
> the most basic peripherals.
>
> But that's just my opinion. ;-)
Eh ?
The various 8051 clones from various manufacturers are completely compatible in
every respect. That's one of the joys of the part. Such changes as have been
made are backwardly compatible even with no code change too.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: linnixDate: 20:03 15-03-07
|
|
> if you do *really* low power stuff then the MSP430 series is very
> popular.
You can also clock an Avr slowly and runs on uW.
The butterfly runs in stand-by mode for months on a single button
cell.
> If you want seamless migration from Flash to OTP to Mask ROM
> then PIC might be the way to go. If you want fast processing with a
> reasonable number of options then AVR might be the best bet.
But I would not call an Avr fast, not comparing to an Arm.
I have a 20MHz(50 Mhz max) Arm talking to a 8Mhz(16MHz max) Avr.
The Arm is around 5 to 10 times faster than the Avr.
They are roughly the same size, cost and complexity.
|
|
|
|
Author: mpmDate: 20:04 15-03-07
|
|
On Mar 15, 3:52?pm, John E. <incogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey John.
We're an "8051" Shop mostly.
And almost everything we do is in Assembler.
Right now, we're using Atmel and Phillips (NXP or whatever they call
themselves now).
What I like about Atmel is:
A - They're very responsive when you need them (which isn't often
because their documentation is some of the best I've seen.)
B - For programming their newer devices, all you need is $25 for their
AT89ISP adapter (and a target board - which you can make yourself or
just butcher one of your production boards and dedicate it as your new
"bench programmer" - which is what we did. No more spending $1,000's
on EPROM burners!!
C - Their product mix is varied enough (i.e., A/D conversion, # of
ports, Serial, etc..) that you can make most designs work. And
"Yes." it is a fine line between "hobbist" and "serious volume
production" sometimes. Or so we would all wish.....!!
For Phillips - I like their smaller stuff. 89LPC90x series.
They're a little flaky to get programmed (due mostly to poor
documentation and IMHO too many hobbiest in the mix), but we do use
them in production volumes.
The Keil EPM900 board is a good development board for the above, and
runs about $200.
Plus the cost of many, many, many phone calls to Keil to get an order
placed.
(Note: This company THRIVES on Voice Mail.)
But good stuff once you get it, and get it working.
The EPM900 will come with a 4K code limited Assembler, C-Compiler and
Debugger (in addition to the hardware emulator). All in all, a pretty
good value.
I looked at PIC's a few times and didn't like them.
Hard to say exactly why, I guess. Their basic stamp stuff seemed
overpriced and underpowered.
And really, I think those are out there for experimenters and
hobbyist, not serious production.
(Now everyone will beat up on me for saying that..?)
But I hope this (and the comments of others) gives you something to
ponder while making your choices. COBOL, huh?! Good for you!
Eventually all the other COBOL programmers will die out and you can
name your price!!
-mpm
|
|
|
|
Author: martin griffithDate: 20:04 15-03-07
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:28:28 -0500, in sci.electronics.design "Anthony
Fremont" <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote:
snip
>Ah grasshopper, but that's the whole problem. You can't check the busy flag
>when your doing initialization. At least it used to be that way. Most
>circuits I've seen hard-wire the R/W pin so that they can't even read the
>busy flag, they just do the delays. So sad, cuz some displays really haul
>ass if you do the busy flag thing.
>
>
years ago I was given a few lines or so of C for an 8051, that has
never failed me. But then I'm not a real programmer, most of my crap
is just a few switch statements,
Boil a FET
Nuke a motor,
LCD Prompt" do you need fries with that" etc.
but good enuff for me, does the job.
Maybe I should go and have another look at it?
grasshopper,
over and out
martin
|
|
|
|
Author: martin griffithDate: 20:12 15-03-07
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:27:53 -0500, in sci.electronics.design Spehro
Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:41:18 +0100, the renowned martin griffith
><mart_in_medina@ya___.es> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:11:02 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John E.
>><incognito@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for your comments, Martin.
>>>
>>>> And be sure to practice your soldering skills/ interfacing techniques,
>>>> this is very important compared with the Windoze World
>>>
>>>That's really why I'm interested in getting into the u-controller world. To
>>>interface hardware to the "real world".
>>>
>>>Soldering iron warmed up and at the ready...
>>
>><sticking neck out>
>>checkout:
>>SPI interface, (realtime clocks, external eeproms etc.)
>>I2C, the uberversal philips interface, same as SPI, but different, and
>>pain in the neck IMHO
>>logic fets
>>H bridge
>>opto isolators
>>Reset and brownout detectors/ TL77xx etc from TI
>>
>>and the universal "why doesn't my 2*8 LCD work"
>>Cos it takes many milliseconds to initialise, check the Fuckin* busy
>>flag
>
>Or just put some proper (debugged) delays in there and it'll work
>fine. And the second line of your 2 x 16 doesn't work because the
>memory map has a big frick'n hole in it...
>
>></sticking neck out>
>>
>>and get a decent bench/lab power supply with adjustable current
>>limiting, and a scope
>>
>>
>>martin
>
>
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany
Yep I agree, my system (that's a bit of an overstatement) would hang
if the LCD wasn't present. But if there was no LCD you coudln't use
the system, so the user was, well.....screwed.
so just put on another cup of coffee
martin
|
|
|
|
Author: John E.Date: 20:13 15-03-07
|
|
> I got my Rigol scope today. Oh man this is just way too cool. :-)))
Just looked at their web site. Top of the line is only EUR1800 (how the heck
do I make a Euro symbol...?), US$2376. Not bad. FInally a DSO the average guy
can afford. Keep us informed...
--
John English
|
|
|
|
Author: John E.Date: 20:15 15-03-07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 20:21 15-03-07
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:00:07 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"John E." wrote:
>
>> PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all
>> brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it?
>
>8051 family. You can't keep a good chip down. It's been going since 1981 IIRC.
>NXP's (formerly Philips) variants do all sorts of useful stuff with the 8051 core
>plus their RAM is static now so you can reduce the clock to zero to save power.
>And the 8051 is multi-sourced !
>
>
>> What don't you like about others?
>
>PICs are indifferently documented so I've heard. I also heard something about
>dodgy compilers.
---
Instead of writing about what you've heard, dumb ass, why don't you
stick with what you know?
Oh, I get it now... If you did you wouldn't have a whole lot to
write about.
--
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: Spehro PefhanyDate: 20:25 15-03-07
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:21:33 +0000, the renowned Brendan Gillatt
<brendan@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:52:06 -0700, John E. <incognito@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all
>>brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it? What don't you like
>>about others? Suggestions re. learning?
>>
>>I've programmed 68000 assembly and some higher-level languages (FORTRAN; some
>>BASIC; COBOL if forced to admit it), so no stranger to programming, per se.
>>
>>Thanks,
>
>You can't really say what one is 'best' - it depends on what you
>really want to do.
>
>Even with PICs it's hard to say which is best - from tiny 8 pin
>controllers to massive 44 pin processing beasts with hundreds in
>between.
Not to mention the 64, 68, 80 and 100-pin ones.
>
>PIC assembly is tiresome at the least. The instruction set is tiny
>which means that they take considerably more coding than, say, x86
>assembly.
There are several flavo[r]s to PIC assembly.
>Atmel micros are becoming popular too - though I haven't had any
>experience with them.
>
>Depending on what you want, you may look at *gasp* Basic Stamps, made
>by Parralax (sp?) if you know BASIC well - just don't count on amazing
>performance.
That thing is not 'a microcontroller'.
As to the original question.. it really depends on the application and
the peripherals you might need. If you need Ethernet and/or USB on
board, that's one thing (you'll almost certainly want something with a
decent C compiler and available protocol stack), if you just want to
diddle some bits fast, or do a relatively slow PID control that's
another. If you need 10, 12, or 24 bits of ADC, multiple PWMs,
quadrature input, direct display drive, etc. etc. that may play a
great role. The choice of core is only one consideration among many.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Spehro PefhanyDate: 20:27 15-03-07
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:41:18 +0100, the renowned martin griffith
<mart_in_medina@ya___.es> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:11:02 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John E.
><incognito@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for your comments, Martin.
>>
>>> And be sure to practice your soldering skills/ interfacing techniques,
>>> this is very important compared with the Windoze World
>>
>>That's really why I'm interested in getting into the u-controller world. To
>>interface hardware to the "real world".
>>
>>Soldering iron warmed up and at the ready...
>
><sticking neck out>
>checkout:
>SPI interface, (realtime clocks, external eeproms etc.)
>I2C, the uberversal philips interface, same as SPI, but different, and
>pain in the neck IMHO
>logic fets
>H bridge
>opto isolators
>Reset and brownout detectors/ TL77xx etc from TI
>
>and the universal "why doesn't my 2*8 LCD work"
>Cos it takes many milliseconds to initialise, check the Fuckin* busy
>flag
Or just put some proper (debugged) delays in there and it'll work
fine. And the second line of your 2 x 16 doesn't work because the
memory map has a big frick'n hole in it...
></sticking neck out>
>
>and get a decent bench/lab power supply with adjustable current
>limiting, and a scope
>
>
>martin
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, John E. <incogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PIC is king, I'm sure.
Be wary of certitude. PIC's bizarre fscked architecture is abhorred by
right-thinking engineers (of course, there are no absolutes, but this
is quite close to one).
If you have experience as you have enumerated, you will have little
difficulty learning almost any architecture; the choice of which is
"useful" depends on the "use" to which you intend to apply this
knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony FremontDate: 20:29 15-03-07
|
|
John E. wrote:
>> I got my Rigol scope today. Oh man this is just way too cool. :-)))
>
> Just looked at their web site. Top of the line is only EUR1800 (how
> the heck do I make a Euro symbol...?), US$2376. Not bad. FInally a
> DSO the average guy can afford. Keep us informed...
Bought the DS1102C (100MHz/2-channel) for US$999. So far so good, I like
it. :-)
|
|
|
|
Author: Lord GarthDate: 20:30 15-03-07
|
|
"Anthony Fremont" <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:12vjjg1qq8og2b4@news.supernews.com...
<snip>
> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part, chips
> from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not "compatible"
> chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in place of another. Not
> to mention how vastly incompatible the code internals are for anything but
> the most basic peripherals.
>
> But that's just my opinion. ;-)
>
They were interchangeable when we did them Anthony! We used the same
masks to make the chips!
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony FremontDate: 20:35 15-03-07
|
|
Eeyore wrote:
> Anthony Fremont wrote:
>> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part,
>> chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not
>> "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in
>> place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code
>> internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals.
>>
>> But that's just my opinion. ;-)
>
> Eh ?
>
> The various 8051 clones from various manufacturers are completely
> compatible in every respect. That's one of the joys of the part. Such
> changes as have been made are backwardly compatible even with no code
> change too.
Things must have changed then. Only the barest parts would be compatible.
As soon as you start adding extra peripherals (and these _are_ the chips
that get used in production, not the 8051 true clones) things change allot.
So it's true that you could probably get away with dropping an Atmel 89c52
in place of a vintage 8052, it likely wouldn't work the other way around
since the Atmel part has "extensions". As soon as people utilize the
extensions, compatibility disappears. no?
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 20:46 15-03-07
|
|
Anthony Fremont wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Anthony Fremont wrote:
>
> >> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part,
> >> chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not
> >> "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in
> >> place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code
> >> internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals.
> >>
> >> But that's just my opinion. ;-)
> >
> > Eh ?
> >
> > The various 8051 clones from various manufacturers are completely
> > compatible in every respect. That's one of the joys of the part. Such
> > changes as have been made are backwardly compatible even with no code
> > change too.
>
> Things must have changed then. Only the barest parts would be compatible.
> As soon as you start adding extra peripherals (and these _are_ the chips
> that get used in production, not the 8051 true clones)
I don't know about that. Some of the extra functions seem to be implemented both
by Philips and Atmel for example. Sure you can use an 89C51 with flash memory in
place of an 87C51 to take the simpler example.
> things change allot.
> So it's true that you could probably get away with dropping an Atmel 89c52
> in place of a vintage 8052, it likely wouldn't work the other way around
> since the Atmel part has "extensions". As soon as people utilize the
> extensions, compatibility disappears. no?
Manufacturers seem to have been careful about allocating the new SFRs. I've
never come across an example where a 'new' SFR didn't default to 'plain vanilla'
operation if left untouched.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Rich GriseDate: 21:02 15-03-07
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:52:06 -0700, John E. wrote:
> PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all
> brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it? What don't you like
> about others? Suggestions re. learning?
I'm prejudiced against the PIC because bank switching is Evil.
> I've programmed 68000 assembly and some higher-level languages (FORTRAN; some
> BASIC; COBOL if forced to admit it), so no stranger to programming, per se.
As a hobbyist: 6502, 6800/02/09, Z80; as a pro, 68HC11, Z80, 80186 ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony FremontDate: 21:31 15-03-07
|
|
Eeyore wrote:
> Anthony Fremont wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Anthony Fremont wrote:
>>
>>>> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part,
>>>> chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not
>>>> "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one
in
>>>> place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code
>>>> internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals.
>>>>
>>>> But that's just my opinion. ;-)
>>>
>>> Eh ?
>>>
>>> The various 8051 clones from various manufacturers are completely
>>> compatible in every respect. That's one of the joys of the part.
>>> Such changes as have been made are backwardly compatible even with
>>> no code change too.
>>
>> Things must have changed then. Only the barest parts would be
>> compatible. As soon as you start adding extra peripherals (and these
>> _are_ the chips that get used in production, not the 8051 true
>> clones)
>
> I don't know about that. Some of the extra functions seem to be
> implemented both by Philips and Atmel for example. Sure you can use
> an 89C51 with flash memory in place of an 87C51 to take the simpler
> example.
>
>
>> things change allot.
>> So it's true that you could probably get away with dropping an Atmel
>> 89c52 in place of a vintage 8052, it likely wouldn't work the other
>> way around since the Atmel part has "extensions". As soon as people
>> utilize the extensions, compatibility disappears. no?
>
> Manufacturers seem to have been careful about allocating the new
> SFRs. I've never come across an example where a 'new' SFR didn't
> default to 'plain vanilla' operation if left untouched.
That's true, but wasn't really my point. I'm saying that people use these
"special features" and then they narrow (or eliminate) their source options.
Where parts from different vendors do have similar extensions, they don't
usually implement the SFRs the same way. It's been a while since I looked
around, maybe vendors are getting on the same page now (why do I really
doubt that though ;-).
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony FremontDate: 21:33 15-03-07
|
|
Lord Garth wrote:
> "Anthony Fremont" <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:12vjjg1qq8og2b4@news.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part,
>> chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not
>> "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in
>> place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code
>> internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals.
>>
>> But that's just my opinion. ;-)
>>
>
> They were interchangeable when we did them Anthony! We used the same
> masks to make the chips!
Well now those should be compatible. :-) So you were making 805x true
clones?
|
|
|
|
Author: MikeDate: 00:02 16-03-07
|
|
In article <0001HW.C21F0006000A0C96F04886C8@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
incognito@yahoo.com says...
>
>PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all
>brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it? What don't you like
>about others? Suggestions re. learning?
In the early days, though I'm sure that has changed, the stack depth was way
too short for any reasonable level of subroutine coding, this also affected
the design of systems which needed multiple (flexiblely) prioritised
interrupt sources...
Since I had been using the 8051 and atmel variants which had far deeper
stacks and ease of changing returns and flexible control of interrupt
response I had never any need to revisit the PIC.
Oh and the code/data memoru separation I found to be irritating on odd
occasions,
>I've programmed 68000 assembly and some higher-level languages (FORTRAN; some
>BASIC; COBOL if forced to admit it), so no stranger to programming, per se.
From what I recall the 68000 series was the closest to a orthogonal instruction
set making for great compiler efficiencies, with the later generaton of PICS
there were, iirc, still many instruction exceptions which didnt allow compilers
to be as efficient could have been good for assembler writers but you really
dont want to stay in assembler as generally projects get more complex and we
do want to have a social life dont we ?
--
Regards
Mike
* VK/VL Commodore FuseRails that wont warp or melt with fuse failure indication
and now with auto 10-15 min timer for engine illumination option.
* VN, VP, VR Models with relay holder in progress.
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
