Reply by Rick Collins February 3, 20052005-02-03

--- In , "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2005 at 22:52, Rick Collins wrote:
> > Unless you really need some speed. You said it interfaces by I2C
> > which is very slow by comparison, ~400 kbps vs. >10 Mbps.
>
> That is if you use the I2C bus - I would only use this on a legacy
product
> that does not have enough pins for the parallel mode. The normal method
> is to map it to a 8-bit 16K SRAM block. When one wants to send a packet,
> one copies the data to the specific socket Tx buffer, and set a bit
to transmit
> the data. The hardware will handle any TCP/IP overhead.
> Normal frequency for bus timing is 25MHz, but a clock up to 50MHz can be
> used. the device can easily do the full 100Mbps using the normal
> parallel mode.

The wiznet web site disagrees with you. I thought I would check it
out and it does seem like a nice product, but it is not fast. Here is
their speed claims.

High Performance
Processor Performance (100Mbps, PIII 500MHz,1 channel, FDX)
Atmel 89C51 300 Kbps
Atmel AVR 3 Mbps
Intel 80386 6 Mbps
Hitachi SH7709A 8 Mbps
Hyperstone
E1-16KT+DMAC control 15Mbps

I don't know what a Hyperstone... is, but that is the fastest
throughput they claim, 15 Mbps, using DMA. Still that is not a bad
speed. > > I don't plan to sell the board in versions, that gets to be a PITA.
> > But I will likely sell a bare board version if you want to
> > do-it-yourself.
>
> I seldom buy these sort of products, hence I am obviously not the
> target market, hence not in a position to say whether this is a good
> or bad idea.

If cost is of ultimate importance, I expect Olimex will have
satifactory boards.



An Engineer's Guide to the LPC2100 Series

Reply by Anton Erasmus February 2, 20052005-02-02
On 1 Feb 2005 at 22:52, Rick Collins wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: >
> On 31 Jan 2005 at 5:07, Rick Collins wrote: > > [Lots of stuff
> snipped] > > > > I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use,
> but I believe > > you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The
> LAN91C111 is not > > an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so
> all you need to add is > > the transformer and the connector and that
> end is ready to plug into a > > network. Yes, it needs a lot more on
> the other side, but making a > > general app board, I want to be able
> to support 100 base TX. Even if > > you don't need the data rate,
> this can be an advantage is some cases > > and it should still meet
> the selling price target of $99, qty 1. > > > > I will need to
> project a parts list in the next couple of days, now > > that I have
> been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin > > compatible
> with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial > > prototypes.
> > > No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a
> seperate > PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a
> module which > includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L Phy.
> One only need > to add the magnetics. If you actually use the module,
> then you can offer > the board without the module at a reduced price,
> and people can later > add it. Nice when one is on a tight budget.
>
> Unless you really need some speed. You said it interfaces by I2C
> which is very slow by comparison, ~400 kbps vs. >10 Mbps.

That is if you use the I2C bus - I would only use this on a legacy product
that does not have enough pins for the parallel mode. The normal method
is to map it to a 8-bit 16K SRAM block. When one wants to send a packet,
one copies the data to the specific socket Tx buffer, and set a bit to transmit
the data. The hardware will handle any TCP/IP overhead.
Normal frequency for bus timing is 25MHz, but a clock up to 50MHz can be
used. the device can easily do the full 100Mbps using the normal
parallel mode.

> I don't plan to sell the board in versions, that gets to be a PITA.
> But I will likely sell a bare board version if you want to
> do-it-yourself.

I seldom buy these sort of products, hence I am obviously not the
target market, hence not in a position to say whether this is a good
or bad idea.

Regards
Anton Erasmus
--
A J Erasmus


Reply by Rick Collins February 2, 20052005-02-02

--- In , "Stephen Pelc" <stephen@m...> wrote:
> > From: "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...>
>
> > No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a
> > seperate PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a
> > module which includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L
> > Phy. One only need to add the magnetics. If you actually use the
> > module, then you can offer the board without the module at a
> > reduced price, and people can later add it. Nice when one is on a
> > tight budget.
>
> Have a look at the Asix 88796 which does 10/100 and has
> integrated PHY. You can get the cheap NICholas board from EDTP
> Electronics for prototyping. We have one glued on the side of a
> 2106 running our TCP/IP stack and web server.

The last time I checked with ASIX, they did not have industrial temp
versions of their chips. Do you know if this has changed?



Reply by Stephen Pelc February 2, 20052005-02-02
> From: "Anton Erasmus" <>

> No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a
> seperate PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a
> module which includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L
> Phy. One only need to add the magnetics. If you actually use the
> module, then you can offer the board without the module at a
> reduced price, and people can later add it. Nice when one is on a
> tight budget.

Have a look at the Asix 88796 which does 10/100 and has
integrated PHY. You can get the cheap NICholas board from EDTP
Electronics for prototyping. We have one glued on the side of a
2106 running our TCP/IP stack and web server.

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc,
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 23 80 631441, fax: +44 23 80 339691
web: http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads



Reply by Rick Collins February 1, 20052005-02-01

--- In , "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 at 5:07, Rick Collins wrote:
>
> [Lots of stuff snipped]
> >
> > I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe
> > you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not
> > an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is
> > the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a
> > network. Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a
> > general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. Even if
> > you don't need the data rate, this can be an advantage is some cases
> > and it should still meet the selling price target of $99, qty 1.
> >
> > I will need to project a parts list in the next couple of days, now
> > that I have been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin
> > compatible with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial
> > prototypes.
>
> No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a seperate
> PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a module which
> includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L Phy. One only need
> to add the magnetics. If you actually use the module, then you can offer
> the board without the module at a reduced price, and people can later
> add it. Nice when one is on a tight budget.

Unless you really need some speed. You said it interfaces by I2C
which is very slow by comparison, ~400 kbps vs. >10 Mbps.

I don't plan to sell the board in versions, that gets to be a PITA.
But I will likely sell a bare board version if you want to
do-it-yourself.



Reply by Mark Butcher February 1, 20052005-02-01

Hi All

I am presently working on an Ethernet extension for the LPC2106 with
the Freescale (Motorola) MC9S12NE64. I bought 5 pieces for about $12
a piece in 80 pin housing (volume obviously much less) for
experimenting.

50MHz 64k FLASH, 8k RAM, 10/100Mb EMAC/PHY SCI, 2xserial, A/D, I2C
etc.

I'm still new to the chip but have just got it pinging with my OpSys
and ARP/IP based on OpenTCP using the GNU compiler.

The idea is to use the SCI to interface and let the NE64 do some of
(or all) the stack work.

Compared to a solution with MicroChip ENJ28J60 (which I may also
try):
- can do stack and other jobs if required
- Needs programming
- slightly bigger footprint
- Can do 100Mb
- Less RAM - can only do 1k5 frames
- Has MII interface if required
- Don't know the price of the MicroChip solution at the moment but
probably similar..

Is any one doing similar?

Regards

Mark Butcher

www.mjbc.ch


Reply by Anton Erasmus January 31, 20052005-01-31
On 31 Jan 2005 at 5:07, Rick Collins wrote:

[Lots of stuff snipped]
>
> I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe
> you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not
> an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is
> the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a
> network. Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a
> general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. Even if
> you don't need the data rate, this can be an advantage is some cases
> and it should still meet the selling price target of $99, qty 1.
>
> I will need to project a parts list in the next couple of days, now
> that I have been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin
> compatible with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial
> prototypes.

No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a seperate
PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a module which
includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L Phy. One only need
to add the magnetics. If you actually use the module, then you can offer
the board without the module at a reduced price, and people can later
add it. Nice when one is on a tight budget.

Regards
Anton Erasmus

--
A J Erasmus


Reply by 42Bastian Schick January 31, 20052005-01-31
> I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe
> you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not
> an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is
> the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a
> network.

One advantage of the 91C111: You can disable the internal Phy.
So it should be possible to connect a WiFi Phy. Or am I wrong here ?

> Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a
> general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX.

And 10MB might die .... even the HCS12 with Ethernet support 100MB
(MCS9S12NE64). --
42Bastian Schick




Re: LPC213x And Ethernet
Reply by Rick Collins January 31, 20052005-01-31

--- In , "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote:
> :-) Yes, I have been involved in many HUGE arguments between
engineers,
> where someone made a statement, and because of some sort of slip
misused
> a word without realising it. Everybody else picks up on this, and
even though they
> fully agree with what the other guy meant to say, they do not agree
with what
> he actually said. Non-Technical people who listen to this, find
this totally beyond
> comprehension.
>
> Anyway, I accept your argument.

I am glad you appreciate this. I don't bother with pointless internet
arguments these days, but still it is nice to come to a friendly
agreement without hassle. :) > The higher speed serial interface would definitaly help. What is the
cost of the ethernet
> controller you have in mind compared to the Wiznet W3100A chip ? If
the pricing are
> similar, it might still be worthwhile using the Wiznet chip in
parallel mode via the FPGA
> and high speed serial combination. To get bootstrap code going to
re-program or boot
> the board via ethernet needs very little code because of the
hardware TCP/IP stack. If
> one then uses an RTOS or something else with a full TCP/IP stack,
then one can use
> the W3100A chip as a normal type ethernet chip. Opening a TCP/IP
socket using the
> W3100A takes something like 20 lines of C code.

I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe
you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not
an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is
the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a
network. Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a
general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. Even if
you don't need the data rate, this can be an advantage is some cases
and it should still meet the selling price target of $99, qty 1.

I will need to project a parts list in the next couple of days, now
that I have been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin
compatible with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial
prototypes.




Re: LPC213x And Ethernet
Re: LPC213x And Ethernet
Reply by jamesasteres January 31, 20052005-01-31

Do you really need the extra memory of the 2138? Why not spend
about the same money for an LPC with an external memory bus? That
would provide (I believe) the fastest possible parallel interface to
the ethernet chip. Or am I missing something? It seems really
weird to go through a third chip (FPGA) with a serial interface when
what you are after is speed.
James

--- In , "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2005 at 6:30, Rick Collins wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...>
wrote:
> >
> > > In your previous posts you said you are considering ADDING a
FPGA to
> > enable
> > > you to easier / faster access a ethernet controller using a MCU
> > without external
> > > bus.
> >
> > Boy, leave it to engineers to nit pic. But if you reread my
message,
> > that is not what I said. I said I would "use" an FPGA to do the
> > conversion.
>
> :-) Yes, I have been involved in many HUGE arguments between
engineers,
> where someone made a statement, and because of some sort of slip
misused
> a word without realising it. Everybody else picks up on this, and
even though they
> fully agree with what the other guy meant to say, they do not
agree with what
> he actually said. Non-Technical people who listen to this, find
this totally beyond
> comprehension.
>
> Anyway, I accept your argument.
>
> > > If you already have an FPGA, and it has enough spare capacity,
then
> > it
> > > makes sense to use it. Even if you can use SPI interface which
is in
> > the order
> > > of 5MHz, it will also be a lot slower than the ethernet's
10MB/s.
> >
> > I didn't say I would use SPI. The Atmel SAM7 chips have an SSC
port
> > which is similar to the serial ports on DSP chips and will
interface
> > directly to many codecs at very high speeds, >10 Mbps.
> >
> > > The overhead of
> > > accesing a normal ethernet chip together with all the data you
have
> > to handle
> > > as part of the TCP/IP stack means that you will not get that
high a
> > speed overall.
> > > With the Wiznet chip, even though the I2C is fairly low speed,
you
> > ONLY need to
> > > transfer data you actually are going to use in your app. The
TCP/IP
> > stack overhead
> > > is handled within the Wiznet chip. Hence the ethernet
interface has
> > got no overhead
> > > asociated with it, until there is data for the specific socket
you
> > have opened.
> > > In a previous message someone pointed to an Olimex LPC board,
> > together with
> > > one of these Wiznet chips, where they could serve web pages
using
> > the I2C
> > > interface at 350kb/s if I recall correctly. using 14 port
pins to
> > emulate a parallel
> > > interface, should be even faster.
> >
> > Certainly this is interesting. But like I said, it is a far cry
from
> > 10 Mbps. The overhead is not that great and regardless of how
much
> > overhead you have, the time required to transfer the data across
the
> > CPU/LAN chip interface will still add to that. So having a 20x
higher
> > interface speed is still a significant boost.
> >
>
> The higher speed serial interface would definitaly help. What is
the cost of the ethernet
> controller you have in mind compared to the Wiznet W3100A chip ?
If the pricing are
> similar, it might still be worthwhile using the Wiznet chip in
parallel mode via the FPGA
> and high speed serial combination. To get bootstrap code going to
re-program or boot
> the board via ethernet needs very little code because of the
hardware TCP/IP stack. If
> one then uses an RTOS or something else with a full TCP/IP stack,
then one can use
> the W3100A chip as a normal type ethernet chip. Opening a TCP/IP
socket using the
> W3100A takes something like 20 lines of C code.
>
> Regards
> Anton Erasmus > --
> A J Erasmus