Oliver Betz wrote:
> cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
>> What do you feel is inefficient about the NE64?   If an HCS12
> 
> computing power. Future of the device.

Agreed, the part is a dead end. If future versions of your product 
require more or less capability then you will be forced into a painful 
move to another part.

>> processor is suitable for your application, it is a great choice.
> 
> IIRC, on a busy network, the poor S12 can get heavily loaded.

Only if there are a lot of Windows machines kicking up their usual 
broadcast storms. Only broadcast packets and packets addressed to your 
MAC address will get the attention of the CPU.

> It's o.k. to _stay_ but I wouldn't start a new product with it.

Almost 2 years ago I did start a new product with it. Last I heard it 
still has not shipped. Not an NE64 problem, but one of the problems that 
caused me to leave.

At the time Coldfire was promising similar solutions but uncertain 
delivery, couldn't wait. One chip with SRAM, FLASH, MAC + PHY was what 
the NE64 offered. Atmel's SAM7X, ARM with ethernet, was another 
attractive option that is now shipping.

I wasn't terribly happy with Freescale's "free TCP/IP protocol stack." 
Sloppy code ported from an 8 bit implementation where the MAC was 
hanging off I/O ports.

On Mar 11, 4:45 am, Oliver Betz <O...@despammed.com> wrote:

> >In short, we'll be generally staying with the NE64 and the benefits of
> >our experience with it, except for one application that needs more
>
> It's o.k. to _stay_ but I wouldn't start a new product with it.

By staying with it, we will be starting numerous new products with
it.
It works and we know how to use it.

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

>> as far as I know it's not the efficient way to connect a Freescale
>> chip to Ethernet.
>>
>> Coldfire seems to be better suited.
>
>What do you feel is inefficient about the NE64?   If an HCS12

computing power. Future of the device.

>processor is suitable for your application, it is a great choice.

IIRC, on a busy network, the poor S12 can get heavily loaded.

[...]

>In short, we'll be generally staying with the NE64 and the benefits of
>our experience with it, except for one application that needs more

It's o.k. to _stay_ but I wouldn't start a new product with it.

Oliver
-- 
Oliver Betz, Muenchen (oliverbetz.de)

On Mar 10, 7:39 am, Oliver Betz <O...@despammed.com> wrote:
> 5...@free.fr wrote:
> >> Why not the NE64 version of the HC12?  It has ethernet built in.
> >> Digikey as a demo board for $85.
> >> Dave Rooney
>
> >Hey thanks Dave, I didn't know FreeScale made such a chip !
>
> as far as I know it's not the efficient way to connect a Freescale
> chip to Ethernet.
>
> Coldfire seems to be better suited.

What do you feel is inefficient about the NE64?   If an HCS12
processor is suitable for your application, it is a great choice.

Yes, there is a Coldfire part with built in MAC/PHY - the MCF5223x
family.  Unfortunately it's still new enough that you can't get it
from Digikey, etc.  (I did finally get samples from our distributor
though).  Also, the BDM pod costs substantially more and is a 26-pin
connector vs. 6 pin for the HCS12 family.

In short, we'll be generally staying with the NE64 and the benefits of
our experience with it, except for one application that needs more
ram.

Another way to view it: if you are using ethernet to do things that
could be done on over fast RS232 but simply need to be ethernet for
some reason, the NE64 is great.  If you want to build an embedded
server that's going to do something more complicated, look at the
Coldfire parts.

5.d@free.fr wrote:

>> Why not the NE64 version of the HC12?  It has ethernet built in.
>> Digikey as a demo board for $85.
>> Dave Rooney
>
>Hey thanks Dave, I didn't know FreeScale made such a chip !

as far as I know it's not the efficient way to connect a Freescale
chip to Ethernet.

Coldfire seems to be better suited.

Oliver
-- 
Oliver Betz, Muenchen (oliverbetz.de)

5.d@free.fr wrote:
> 
> However, my application requires that the MCU processes the data coming
> from an ADC, I am wondering if the MC9S12NE64 could handle the Ethernet
> side while keeping enough speed for the other tasks. Unfortunately I do not
> yet have the specifications of the data flow speed from the ADC to the MCU,
> so I thought it would be safer for now to have two separate chips.

I think it would be safer in this situation to have everything on one 
chip. Freescale has already spent the time to optimize the interface on 
the NE64. IIRC when ethernet is sending or receiving the SRAM databus 
multiplexes every-other cycle between CPU and ethernet.

> But does it make sense since the Ethernet controller chip should
> be handled by the MCU to process the Ethernet transmission ?

You are not going to bit-bang the ethernet so unless you have totally 
separate CPUs for each of ethernet and A/D it makes most sense to have 
both as close as possible.

There *are* external TCP/IP ethernet modules little bigger than an RJ45 
socket. But about $100 each.

On 7 Mar 2007 04:07:02 -0800, 5.d@free.fr wrote:

>On 6 mar, 14:17, Dave Rooney <roo...@adi.com> wrote:
>> Why not the NE64 version of the HC12?  It has ethernet built in.
>> Digikey as a demo board for $85.
>> Dave Rooney
>
>Hey thanks Dave, I didn't know FreeScale made such a chip !
>
>For those who may be interrested here's a link to the MC9S12NE64
>summary :
>http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC9S12NE64
>
>And of course, they have a MC9S12NE64 evaluation kit :
>http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=EVB9S12NE64
>
>However, my application requires that the MCU processes the data
>coming
>from an ADC, I am wondering if the MC9S12NE64 could handle the
>Ethernet
>side while keeping enough speed for the other tasks. Unfortunately I
>do not
>yet have the specifications of the data flow speed from the ADC to the
>MCU,
>so I thought it would be safer for now to have two separate chips.
>But does it make sense since the Ethernet controller chip should
>be handled by the MCU to process the Ethernet transmission ?

An internal MAC is always faster to access and has far less overhead than an
external chip connected via SPI or io ports. I'd choose the integrated
solution if possible.

Mit freundlichen Gr&#4294967295;&#4294967295;en

Frank-Christian Kr&#4294967295;gel

On 6 mar, 14:17, Dave Rooney <roo...@adi.com> wrote:
> Why not the NE64 version of the HC12?  It has ethernet built in.
> Digikey as a demo board for $85.
> Dave Rooney

Hey thanks Dave, I didn't know FreeScale made such a chip !

For those who may be interrested here's a link to the MC9S12NE64
summary :
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC9S12NE64

And of course, they have a MC9S12NE64 evaluation kit :
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=EVB9S12NE64

However, my application requires that the MCU processes the data
coming
from an ADC, I am wondering if the MC9S12NE64 could handle the
Ethernet
side while keeping enough speed for the other tasks. Unfortunately I
do not
yet have the specifications of the data flow speed from the ADC to the
MCU,
so I thought it would be safer for now to have two separate chips.
But does it make sense since the Ethernet controller chip should
be handled by the MCU to process the Ethernet transmission ?

I agree with the other posters that you want an NE64.

For an IDE, most Freescale developers now are using CodeWarrior. It
may not be the best in every way, but it's clearly more popular than
the others by a factor of 10 or more.

I make an open source IDE for gcc for this platform, but it seems to
me that you want a commercial solution. The commercial solutions have
C source level debugging that isn't very good yet in the open source
tools.

You will need a BDM device from P&E micro. Also, make sure your NE64
board has a BDM connector on it. Some cheap boards may not have this,
since the NE64 comes with a serial monitor.

Eric

5.d@free.fr wrote:

> I am planning to develop an embedded application with the
> Freescale (Motorola) MC9S12DP256 microcontroller.

If the application is growing out of the 64k address space, the 6812 
family does not seem to be the right choice.

> Question # 1
> So what kit should I buy to start with ?

The one with NE64 controller, if the Ethernet is required.

> I saw IAR Embedded Workbench V3.11 for Freescale HCS12
> which looks quite pretty good, does anyone here use it?

IAR is a hassle if you have to go beyond the 64k boundary. Cosmic is 
much more flexible and simpler.


Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com