27c256 | 4K81H | 68HC11A1 | 68HC11P1 | 68hc24 | 68HC711E9 | 68HC811 | 8255 | A2D | ADC | ADC12138 | Am85C30 | BRCLR | Buffalo | CMOS | EEPROM | EPROM | Ethernet | EVB | EVBU | HC11E1 | HC11E9 | HC711E9 | Horray | ImageCraft | IRQ | Keypad | LCD | MC68HC11D0FN | MC68HC11E1CFU3 | MC68HC11F1 | MC68HC711E9 | MC68HC711E9CFN2 | Microcore11 | Microstamp11 | Minikit | NVRAM | PSD | PSD8xx | PSD9xx | PT1000 | RS232 | RTS | RXD | SPI | SRAM | TXD | Watchdogs | XIRQ

----- Original Message ----- From: "coolpix404" <> To: <> > I am re-designing a board that currently uses a MC68HC11A1FN but > apparently this part is obsolete. I am wondering if using the > MC68HC11E1CFU3 is going to be as simple as just putting this device > in the circuit board with proper footprint layout and it will work > just like the other device? Yes. > I don't see any major gotta's in the datasheet and it looks like it > is almost identical with more RAM on chip. Is this an accurate > assumption? I think there is an App Note (sorry, don't have a number) detailing all differences between the A and E series. There aren't many (from memory, something like: BPROT register is added, fourth IC added selectable as IC or OC, etc.) but study them in case they affect your design, especially if the default startup conditions are different for some pins. > I am also changing the NVSRAM from a Dallas semi DS1643AL to a > Semitech STK12C68-S45. There will not be a RTC on the new chip since > they want to keep the costs down and they have a need for a clock. I > believe it should work the same minus the clock and faster access > time. If the MCU isn't overloaded already, you can always implement the RTC in software, full with calendar and leap year calculations. If implemented correctly, the overhead is really minimal.

(You need to be a member of m68hc11 -- send a blank email to m68hc11-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )