Has anyone done a comparison between using the NE64 and
an external solution like the ENC28J60? I am worried about
having all my eggs in the NE64 basket when any of the HC12
processors could be used with the 28J60. Single vs. two chip
solution doesn't bother me and cost difference probably doesn't
amount to enough to worry about. Working sample code is nice though!
Thanks,
Steve
NE64 vs generic S12+MicroChip ENC28J60 for embedded web server
Started by ●June 14, 2006
Reply by ●June 14, 20062006-06-14
Hi Steve,
The ENC28J60 only handles 10 Mbps, which makes sense since it would be running over an spi port. You might look at an integrated solution from Microchip or Freescale since I suspect the vendor who is selling the part including the micro would have a stack available.
That said I'd probably even look at the latest Coldfire parts (IE MCF5223x family: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3YTLC00M98090) for a low cost part with a full upgrade path, a little more performance, and all available tools (much like the NE64, which unfortunately doesn't look like it will have a successor).
Regards,
Robert (Bob) McMillan
Technical Solutions Manager
Future/FAI Electronics
2431 37th Ave NE
Calgary, AB, Canada
T2E 6Y7
email: b...@futureelectronics.com
The information in this transmission contains information that is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
If the purpose of this transmission is to provide a quotation or to confirm or acknowledge an order or to provide information in relation to the Products and Services offered, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the FUTURE ELECTRONICS TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE exclusively govern the sale of Products and the provision of services by Future Electronics Inc. and its divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates and take precedence over supplemental or conflicting terms and conditions to which notice of objection is hereby given. The FUTURE ELECTRONICS TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE are available at www.futureelectronics.com and may be provided on invoices, packing slips, order acknowledgements or other method.
-----Original Message-----
From: 6... [mailto:6...] On Behalf Of Steve Letkeman
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:49 AM
To: 6...
Subject: [68HC12] NE64 vs generic S12+MicroChip ENC28J60 for embedded web server
Has anyone done a comparison between using the NE64 and an external solution like the ENC28J60? I am worried about having all my eggs in the NE64 basket when any of the HC12 processors could be used with the 28J60. Single vs. two chip solution doesn't bother me and cost difference probably doesn't amount to enough to worry about. Working sample code is nice though!
Thanks,
Steve
Reply by ●June 17, 20062006-06-17
Hi Steve
The ENC28J60 has taken a long time to get to market - it was announced
at about the same time the NE64 came out but a lot of people waited
probably an extra year and lost interest during that time.
Initially I was also one of those people but have long diverted
attention due to several reasons:
1. The 10M limit is really a limit. If your embedded system can't do
10/100 it is not respected very much and the ENC28J60 is limited to
10M.
2. The NE64, for example, requires 100mA from 3V3 to run at 10M and
about 200mA to run at 100M. The ENJ28J60 requires 200mA (according to
last specis I have seen but they may have improved in the meantime) at
10M. Then it needs a processor and so is rather power hungry.
3. The throughput is quite limited with SPI on the HC12 without DMA
support and so the Ethernet interface (SPI) will be a big burden for
the system. The NE64, for example, will generate an interrupt per
frame (upto 1500bytes) but the SPI will require 1500 interrupt to be
handled without DMA support, making copies using interrupts not very
realistic if throughput is an issue and thus this will probably be
performed in a loop feeding and receiving from SPI as fast as it will
go.
HC12 with an extended bus can always use a standard Ethernet
controller. The NE64 is a very efficient solution and don't forget the
Coldfire M5223X, which is its big brother - almost footprint
compatible, with loads of power and also an integrated EMAC and EPHY
(the EPHY is the same as in the NE64 and the EMAC is a lot more
powerful and flexible than the one in the NE64).
Then (if I may mention it here) there is the SAM7X from Atmel - with
EMAC, USB, CAN, 64k RAM and 128k or 256k FLASH at a price smaller than
the NE64 it is also worth looking at. It does need an external PHY but
these are quite small and better than the internal ones - they can
support for example automatic cross over.
If you don't know the uTasker take a look at an on-line demo and
references below. It is a project which runs on the NE64 or the
Coldfire or the SAM7X - target change with one compiler flag, is an
operating system with integrated TCP/IP stack and a unique real-time
simulator which allows the code to run on a PC as if the embedded
device were attached to the network (supports also the three named
processors). It is free for non-commercial work and has a growing user
community:
Regards
Mark Butcher
www.mjbc.ch
*********************************************************
Online demo:
On-line demo at http://212.254.22.36 and see the board via web cam at
http://212.254.22.36:8080 [demo of web server, ftp, telnet, smtp etc.]
Operating system info here:
http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/uTaskerV1.2.PDF
A tutorial can be found her, including code size comparisons between
various compilers:
http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/NE64/uTaskerV1.2-Tutorial.PDF
The following is a binary of the project which runs on the DEMO9S12NE64
http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/ETHERNET.s19 (Default address
192.168.0.3)
http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/WebPagesNE64.zip (web sides
which can be loaded by ftp - IE6 in non-passive mode)
See the simple licensing terms (with application for free educational
license) here:
http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/License.txt
A commercial, royalty free project license costs just $485 incl. 3
months personal email support.
*****************************************************
--- In 6..., "Steve Letkeman"
wrote:
>
> Has anyone done a comparison between using the NE64 and
> an external solution like the ENC28J60? I am worried about
> having all my eggs in the NE64 basket when any of the HC12
> processors could be used with the 28J60. Single vs. two chip
> solution doesn't bother me and cost difference probably doesn't
> amount to enough to worry about. Working sample code is nice though!
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
The ENC28J60 has taken a long time to get to market - it was announced
at about the same time the NE64 came out but a lot of people waited
probably an extra year and lost interest during that time.
Initially I was also one of those people but have long diverted
attention due to several reasons:
1. The 10M limit is really a limit. If your embedded system can't do
10/100 it is not respected very much and the ENC28J60 is limited to
10M.
2. The NE64, for example, requires 100mA from 3V3 to run at 10M and
about 200mA to run at 100M. The ENJ28J60 requires 200mA (according to
last specis I have seen but they may have improved in the meantime) at
10M. Then it needs a processor and so is rather power hungry.
3. The throughput is quite limited with SPI on the HC12 without DMA
support and so the Ethernet interface (SPI) will be a big burden for
the system. The NE64, for example, will generate an interrupt per
frame (upto 1500bytes) but the SPI will require 1500 interrupt to be
handled without DMA support, making copies using interrupts not very
realistic if throughput is an issue and thus this will probably be
performed in a loop feeding and receiving from SPI as fast as it will
go.
HC12 with an extended bus can always use a standard Ethernet
controller. The NE64 is a very efficient solution and don't forget the
Coldfire M5223X, which is its big brother - almost footprint
compatible, with loads of power and also an integrated EMAC and EPHY
(the EPHY is the same as in the NE64 and the EMAC is a lot more
powerful and flexible than the one in the NE64).
Then (if I may mention it here) there is the SAM7X from Atmel - with
EMAC, USB, CAN, 64k RAM and 128k or 256k FLASH at a price smaller than
the NE64 it is also worth looking at. It does need an external PHY but
these are quite small and better than the internal ones - they can
support for example automatic cross over.
If you don't know the uTasker take a look at an on-line demo and
references below. It is a project which runs on the NE64 or the
Coldfire or the SAM7X - target change with one compiler flag, is an
operating system with integrated TCP/IP stack and a unique real-time
simulator which allows the code to run on a PC as if the embedded
device were attached to the network (supports also the three named
processors). It is free for non-commercial work and has a growing user
community:
Regards
Mark Butcher
www.mjbc.ch
*********************************************************
Online demo:
On-line demo at http://212.254.22.36 and see the board via web cam at
http://212.254.22.36:8080 [demo of web server, ftp, telnet, smtp etc.]
Operating system info here:
http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/uTaskerV1.2.PDF
A tutorial can be found her, including code size comparisons between
various compilers:
http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/NE64/uTaskerV1.2-Tutorial.PDF
The following is a binary of the project which runs on the DEMO9S12NE64
http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/ETHERNET.s19 (Default address
192.168.0.3)
http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/WebPagesNE64.zip (web sides
which can be loaded by ftp - IE6 in non-passive mode)
See the simple licensing terms (with application for free educational
license) here:
http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/License.txt
A commercial, royalty free project license costs just $485 incl. 3
months personal email support.
*****************************************************
--- In 6..., "Steve Letkeman"
wrote:
>
> Has anyone done a comparison between using the NE64 and
> an external solution like the ENC28J60? I am worried about
> having all my eggs in the NE64 basket when any of the HC12
> processors could be used with the 28J60. Single vs. two chip
> solution doesn't bother me and cost difference probably doesn't
> amount to enough to worry about. Working sample code is nice though!
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
Reply by ●July 10, 20062006-07-10
thank you for your comments Mark, I wasn't aware of the Atmel
processor or uTasker, both are worth a look. I am currently
playing around with a Coldfire board running uClinux but the
trouble I have with it is the fact that you have to write drivers
for hardware or at least know enough about Linux to be able
to recompile the kernal with somebody else's drivers, not a
trivial task for a non linux person (or so it would seem). The
extra power of the Coldfire is nice but it comes with a cost
in terms of processor price and the fact that most of the versions
are only BGA packaged.
Steve
Steven D. Letkeman BSc.
President - Zanthic Technologies Inc.
403-526-8318
www.zanthic.com Embedded micro-controllers and CAN interfaces
www.brightan.com Automated lighting systems
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Butcher"
To: <6...>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: [68HC12] Re: NE64 vs generic S12+MicroChip ENC28J60 for embedded
web server
> Hi Steve
>
> The ENC28J60 has taken a long time to get to market - it was announced
> at about the same time the NE64 came out but a lot of people waited
> probably an extra year and lost interest during that time.
> Initially I was also one of those people but have long diverted
> attention due to several reasons:
> 1. The 10M limit is really a limit. If your embedded system can't do
> 10/100 it is not respected very much and the ENC28J60 is limited to
> 10M.
> 2. The NE64, for example, requires 100mA from 3V3 to run at 10M and
> about 200mA to run at 100M. The ENJ28J60 requires 200mA (according to
> last specis I have seen but they may have improved in the meantime) at
> 10M. Then it needs a processor and so is rather power hungry.
> 3. The throughput is quite limited with SPI on the HC12 without DMA
> support and so the Ethernet interface (SPI) will be a big burden for
> the system. The NE64, for example, will generate an interrupt per
> frame (upto 1500bytes) but the SPI will require 1500 interrupt to be
> handled without DMA support, making copies using interrupts not very
> realistic if throughput is an issue and thus this will probably be
> performed in a loop feeding and receiving from SPI as fast as it will
> go.
>
> HC12 with an extended bus can always use a standard Ethernet
> controller. The NE64 is a very efficient solution and don't forget the
> Coldfire M5223X, which is its big brother - almost footprint
> compatible, with loads of power and also an integrated EMAC and EPHY
> (the EPHY is the same as in the NE64 and the EMAC is a lot more
> powerful and flexible than the one in the NE64).
>
> Then (if I may mention it here) there is the SAM7X from Atmel - with
> EMAC, USB, CAN, 64k RAM and 128k or 256k FLASH at a price smaller than
> the NE64 it is also worth looking at. It does need an external PHY but
> these are quite small and better than the internal ones - they can
> support for example automatic cross over.
>
> If you don't know the uTasker take a look at an on-line demo and
> references below. It is a project which runs on the NE64 or the
> Coldfire or the SAM7X - target change with one compiler flag, is an
> operating system with integrated TCP/IP stack and a unique real-time
> simulator which allows the code to run on a PC as if the embedded
> device were attached to the network (supports also the three named
> processors). It is free for non-commercial work and has a growing user
> community:
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Butcher
> www.mjbc.ch
>
> *********************************************************
>
> Online demo:
> On-line demo at http://212.254.22.36 and see the board via web cam at
> http://212.254.22.36:8080 [demo of web server, ftp, telnet, smtp etc.]
>
> Operating system info here:
> http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/uTaskerV1.2.PDF
>
> A tutorial can be found her, including code size comparisons between
> various compilers:
> http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/NE64/uTaskerV1.2-Tutorial.PDF
>
> The following is a binary of the project which runs on the DEMO9S12NE64
> http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/ETHERNET.s19 (Default address
> 192.168.0.3)
> http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/WebPagesNE64.zip (web sides
> which can be loaded by ftp - IE6 in non-passive mode)
>
> See the simple licensing terms (with application for free educational
> license) here:
> http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/License.txt
>
> A commercial, royalty free project license costs just $485 incl. 3
> months personal email support.
>
> *****************************************************
>
> --- In 6..., "Steve Letkeman"
> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone done a comparison between using the NE64 and
>> an external solution like the ENC28J60? I am worried about
>> having all my eggs in the NE64 basket when any of the HC12
>> processors could be used with the 28J60. Single vs. two chip
>> solution doesn't bother me and cost difference probably doesn't
>> amount to enough to worry about. Working sample code is nice though!
>> Thanks,
>> Steve
>
processor or uTasker, both are worth a look. I am currently
playing around with a Coldfire board running uClinux but the
trouble I have with it is the fact that you have to write drivers
for hardware or at least know enough about Linux to be able
to recompile the kernal with somebody else's drivers, not a
trivial task for a non linux person (or so it would seem). The
extra power of the Coldfire is nice but it comes with a cost
in terms of processor price and the fact that most of the versions
are only BGA packaged.
Steve
Steven D. Letkeman BSc.
President - Zanthic Technologies Inc.
403-526-8318
www.zanthic.com Embedded micro-controllers and CAN interfaces
www.brightan.com Automated lighting systems
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Butcher"
To: <6...>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: [68HC12] Re: NE64 vs generic S12+MicroChip ENC28J60 for embedded
web server
> Hi Steve
>
> The ENC28J60 has taken a long time to get to market - it was announced
> at about the same time the NE64 came out but a lot of people waited
> probably an extra year and lost interest during that time.
> Initially I was also one of those people but have long diverted
> attention due to several reasons:
> 1. The 10M limit is really a limit. If your embedded system can't do
> 10/100 it is not respected very much and the ENC28J60 is limited to
> 10M.
> 2. The NE64, for example, requires 100mA from 3V3 to run at 10M and
> about 200mA to run at 100M. The ENJ28J60 requires 200mA (according to
> last specis I have seen but they may have improved in the meantime) at
> 10M. Then it needs a processor and so is rather power hungry.
> 3. The throughput is quite limited with SPI on the HC12 without DMA
> support and so the Ethernet interface (SPI) will be a big burden for
> the system. The NE64, for example, will generate an interrupt per
> frame (upto 1500bytes) but the SPI will require 1500 interrupt to be
> handled without DMA support, making copies using interrupts not very
> realistic if throughput is an issue and thus this will probably be
> performed in a loop feeding and receiving from SPI as fast as it will
> go.
>
> HC12 with an extended bus can always use a standard Ethernet
> controller. The NE64 is a very efficient solution and don't forget the
> Coldfire M5223X, which is its big brother - almost footprint
> compatible, with loads of power and also an integrated EMAC and EPHY
> (the EPHY is the same as in the NE64 and the EMAC is a lot more
> powerful and flexible than the one in the NE64).
>
> Then (if I may mention it here) there is the SAM7X from Atmel - with
> EMAC, USB, CAN, 64k RAM and 128k or 256k FLASH at a price smaller than
> the NE64 it is also worth looking at. It does need an external PHY but
> these are quite small and better than the internal ones - they can
> support for example automatic cross over.
>
> If you don't know the uTasker take a look at an on-line demo and
> references below. It is a project which runs on the NE64 or the
> Coldfire or the SAM7X - target change with one compiler flag, is an
> operating system with integrated TCP/IP stack and a unique real-time
> simulator which allows the code to run on a PC as if the embedded
> device were attached to the network (supports also the three named
> processors). It is free for non-commercial work and has a growing user
> community:
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Butcher
> www.mjbc.ch
>
> *********************************************************
>
> Online demo:
> On-line demo at http://212.254.22.36 and see the board via web cam at
> http://212.254.22.36:8080 [demo of web server, ftp, telnet, smtp etc.]
>
> Operating system info here:
> http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/uTaskerV1.2.PDF
>
> A tutorial can be found her, including code size comparisons between
> various compilers:
> http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/NE64/uTaskerV1.2-Tutorial.PDF
>
> The following is a binary of the project which runs on the DEMO9S12NE64
> http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/ETHERNET.s19 (Default address
> 192.168.0.3)
> http://www.mjbc.ch/software/uTasker/NE64/WebPagesNE64.zip (web sides
> which can be loaded by ftp - IE6 in non-passive mode)
>
> See the simple licensing terms (with application for free educational
> license) here:
> http://www.mjbc.ch/documents/uTasker/License.txt
>
> A commercial, royalty free project license costs just $485 incl. 3
> months personal email support.
>
> *****************************************************
>
> --- In 6..., "Steve Letkeman"
> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone done a comparison between using the NE64 and
>> an external solution like the ENC28J60? I am worried about
>> having all my eggs in the NE64 basket when any of the HC12
>> processors could be used with the 28J60. Single vs. two chip
>> solution doesn't bother me and cost difference probably doesn't
>> amount to enough to worry about. Working sample code is nice though!
>> Thanks,
>> Steve
>
