hamilton wrote:

> The compiler tools were/are the limiting factor with most of the clients 
> I see.
> 
> "We bought a 8051 compiler 10 years ago, why spend even $100s of dollars 
> on new tools."
> 
> hamilton
> 

In the 80c522 project, it was the legacy hardware platform that was the
trouble. Would estimate that it cost the client 30K+ ukp in added
development time, because they steadfastly refused to consider
a revised hardware platform. That cost is before you consider the cost of
software maintenance, time to market and end of life parts availability.
Once you start a job though, you have a duty to finish it, sigh.

Beancounters. Save pennies to waste 1000's pounds, just to keep the cash
flow books straight...

Regards,

Chris

One way might be Cypress FX2LP (pushing it) - had experience and the 
processor does not get in the way of the USB bulk transfers.  But limited 
peripherals (I2C CAN controller is a bit mucky).

I do not know of a USB peripheral chip that can pass-through the bulk 
transfer data (on EP1 for example)  to something like a DMA channel.

dsPIC are nice but they do not seem to have the parts.

Any recommendations?

TIA,
   Bill

PS The prcoessor does not have a lot to do, just looking after some set-up 
and then setting up the bulk transfer. 

On 02/03/2011 15:44, Roberto Waltman wrote:
> David Brown  wrote:
>>   wolf99 wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The reason for the speed is I am dealing with VHF level signals, so DSP
>>> logic is actually probably attractive.
>>
>> If you are talking DSP code, then a modern ARM Cortex M4 is probably
>> several hundred times the speed of an 8051, clock for clock.  I can
>> understand why some people like to use the 8051 - familiarity is a very
>> big factor in choice.  But you should definitely look elsewhere on this
>> project.
>
> Check also TI's OMAP/DaVinci processors.  They include an ARM core
> *and* a DSP.  (beagleboard, hawkboard)
>

The OMAP/DaVinci are also /much/ faster, /much/ more expensive, and 
/much/ harder to work with.

> My 8051 suggestion:  Not.

David Brown  wrote:
>  wolf99 wrote:
>>...
>> The reason for the speed is I am dealing with VHF level signals, so DSP
>> logic is actually probably attractive.
>
>If you are talking DSP code, then a modern ARM Cortex M4 is probably 
>several hundred times the speed of an 8051, clock for clock.  I can 
>understand why some people like to use the 8051 - familiarity is a very 
>big factor in choice.  But you should definitely look elsewhere on this 
>project.

Check also TI's OMAP/DaVinci processors.  They include an ARM core
*and* a DSP.  (beagleboard, hawkboard)

My 8051 suggestion:  Not.
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group.
  Return address is invalid ]

On 3/2/2011 5:44 AM, ChrisQ wrote:
> linnix wrote:
>
>>
>> PIC24 has GCC port, so don't care how ugly it is internally.
>> Actually, it's not too bad.
>
> My thoughts exactly about the 8051. Sometime you wonder how the compiler
> could generate so much code for seemingly simple operations.
>
>>
>> Sometimes, they are external non-technical factors.
>
> Like Tim and pic, I used to look down my nose at 8051 and an early
> project using existing client hardware (Philips 80C522, iirc) ended up
> at 6 code banks, most of which were data, convinced me even further.
> There's still a place for 8 bit though, in terms of rapid development,
> if you have time, effort and expense already invested. 8051 is not that
> bad, compared to some other architectures and continues to thrive,
> despite it. Oh yes, and the si labs kits come with the Keil ide, with a
> 4k limit, more than enough for some projects. (Dammit, they should be
> paying me for this :-)
>
> Times are changing though and the arm landscape is so broad now that you
> could in theory standardise on a single architecture for everything...
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
The compiler tools were/are the limiting factor with most of the clients 
I see.

"We bought a 8051 compiler 10 years ago, why spend even $100s of dollars 
on new tools."

hamilton

-jg wrote:

> 
> ADi also have ADuC series with '24b' ADC, and there were devices from
> BurrBrown
> (now MSC12xx series from TI, but with niche prices)
> 
> -jg

I bet they aren't as low cost, but probably better performance. The 24
bit spec of the si device gets knocked down quite a bit if you want
anything like a decent conversion rate.

The ad devices are the microconverter series, right ?. I think one of
that series uses an arm core, so we come full circle :-)...

Regards,

Chris

linnix wrote:

> 
> PIC24 has GCC port, so don't care how ugly it is internally.
> Actually, it's not too bad.

My thoughts exactly about the 8051. Sometime you wonder how the compiler
could generate so much code for seemingly simple operations.

> 
> Sometimes, they are external non-technical factors.

Like Tim and pic, I used to look down my nose at 8051 and an early
project using existing client hardware (Philips 80C522, iirc) ended up
at 6 code banks, most of which were data, convinced me even further.
There's still a place for 8 bit though, in terms of rapid development,
if you have time, effort and expense already invested. 8051 is not that
bad, compared to some other architectures and continues to thrive,
despite it. Oh yes, and the si labs kits come with the Keil ide, with a
4k limit, more than enough for some projects. (Dammit, they should be
paying me for this :-)

Times are changing though and the arm landscape is so broad now that you
could in theory standardise on a single architecture for everything...

Regards,

Chris

On 02/03/2011 10:54, wolf99 wrote:
> Thanks for the ideas folks.
>
> The reason I'm starting out looking at 8051's is I am the most familiar
> with it, and we have development tools already that are suitable. However I
> am somewhat familiar with ARM also.
>
> The reason for the speed is I am dealing with VHF level signals, so DSP
> logic is actually probably attractive.
>
> Will take a while to check out all the suggestions, but will try remember
> to let you know what I end up with
>
> thanks again	
> 					

If you are talking DSP code, then a modern ARM Cortex M4 is probably 
several hundred times the speed of an 8051, clock for clock.  I can 
understand why some people like to use the 8051 - familiarity is a very 
big factor in choice.  But you should definitely look elsewhere on this 
project.

Thanks for the ideas folks.

The reason I'm starting out looking at 8051's is I am the most familiar
with it, and we have development tools already that are suitable. However I
am somewhat familiar with ARM also.

The reason for the speed is I am dealing with VHF level signals, so DSP
logic is actually probably attractive.

Will take a while to check out all the suggestions, but will try remember
to let you know what I end up with

thanks again	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.EmbeddedRelated.com

On 2011-03-01, ChrisQ <meru@devnull.com> wrote:
>
> Arm are obviously far more capable and prices are good as well, but dev 
> tools
> are more of a problem to pull together, unless you want to pay K$...
>

That depends on what you want out of your Arm development tools.

Have you looked at the Olimex range of boards and JTAG programmers ?

I use them with GCC/binutils/OpenOCD.

Disclaimer: I am a hobbyist (at least when it comes to electronics work),
so my requirements (and acceptable tradeoffs) are going to be different
from yours.

Simon.

PS: As for 8 bit work, I don't use the PIC (due to it's architecture)
even though it's very popular with hobbyists. My preferred 8 bit device
architecture is the AVR.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world