Reply by Jeffrey A. Wormsley September 27, 20042004-09-27
hamilton <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote in 
news:415833ea$1_1@omega.dimensional.com:

> If you are under a time crunch, then look into purchasing > a USB stack(?) from one of the master chip makers.
We don't use a commercial RTOS, and the hardware resources aren't available (for instance, our CPU runs with the internal 4K RAM and 128K flash, with no external RAM or Flash/ROM). Adding the required memory adds a lot of cost, in a cost critical device (one member of the device family is at a $50 price point, adding even $5 to the base cost puts it out of the market, price wise).
> Good luck, after you solve your problems and get things working, > someone in a few months will ask (like you), if you would share > your code.
Nah, I know I won't get code for free. Actually, I don't want to use USB at all, if I don't have to. I'm just, like others, lamenting the loss of RS-232. Jeff.
Reply by hamilton September 27, 20042004-09-27

Jeffrey A. Wormsley wrote:
> hamilton <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote in > news:4155a596_4@omega.dimensional.com: > > >>AT43USB380 is a host. >> > > Yes, but how do you write software on both ends? Remember, the Palm
USB was never meant to be a multi-master buss. The PC was the master and that all there was to it. Now that serial ports are a thing of the past, USB has become a defacto standard. The USB manufactures have noticed that embedded systems need to be masters as well. But not enough to be a big profit center. So master chips and code is slow coming. If you are under a time crunch, then look into purchasing a USB stack(?) from one of the master chip makers. I have just finished a USB slave device. I am not a PC programmer, and the PC guy is not a embedded programmer. ( i.e. he really didn't understand hardware quirks, I don't really understand how M$ could make thing so difficult ) Lots of fun creating a package that works well on both ends.
> software is written to be a master on a serial bus. There is no code to be > a slave on the USB bus (those functions on the Palm<->PC end were taken > care of by hotsync). On the other end, how does an 8-bit embedded device > run such a host mode USB controller, when it expects to be the slave on a > serial bus?
Welcome to a brave new world. You are not the only one in this.
> Anyway, sorry to vent, but this is an issue that's been bugging me for a > while. > > Jeff.
Good luck, after you solve your problems and get things working, someone in a few months will ask (like you), if you would share your code. You will of course say no. Just like people are not able to share now. There companies have spent $$ months to solve this product problem, and do not want to just give it away. When USB vendors decide that our embedded systems need support as well as slave peripherals, maybe we will get some help. hamilton
Reply by Jeffrey A. Wormsley September 27, 20042004-09-27
hamilton <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote in 
news:4155a596_4@omega.dimensional.com:

> AT43USB380 is a host. >
Yes, but how do you write software on both ends? Remember, the Palm software is written to be a master on a serial bus. There is no code to be a slave on the USB bus (those functions on the Palm<->PC end were taken care of by hotsync). On the other end, how does an 8-bit embedded device run such a host mode USB controller, when it expects to be the slave on a serial bus? You see what I mean now when I say transparent USB/serial converters don't cover all classes of serial to USB switchovers? Any intermediate device to do the conversion that I can dream up will be in such low volumes it would cost more than the Palm or the embedded device. Adding USB host capabilities to the embedded device, again at relatively low volumes (less than 10,000 a year, I think) would increase the device cost by nearly 100%, unacceptable in a very cost sensitive market. Most Palm's seem to come with card slots now (used to be CF, but I think they are now SmartMedia) and people have added peripherals to those slots like 802.11b cards and the like, but even an RS-232 peripheral for one of those slots wouldn't be acceptable, as the cable connection would be so flimsy as to be useless. IR still exists, but there are several problems there as well, such as problems with multiple peripherals in range, as well as the rewrite of s/w on both ends to support it. With Bluetooth/802.11b gaining in popularity, I fear about the time I made the switch to IR, it would be dropped as well. Anyway, sorry to vent, but this is an issue that's been bugging me for a while. Jeff.
Reply by Art K6KFH September 26, 20042004-09-26
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:49:32 GMT, Art K6KFH
<art_horne@phase4wireless.com> wrote:

>I am developing a product that requires a serial port to transfer a >few bytes of data to a host pc on a repetitive basis. Currently using >115kbaud on an RS232 port on my board and that works fine. A little >slower is ok too. Some feedback has indicated that a USB port would >be an attractive alternative. Someone commented that a "chip" for USB >is about the same expense as RS232. I have zero experience with USB >and I have no idea what to look for or if it is even practical. The >product is a battery charger and is just transferring battery >current/voltage values to a host pc for analysis and graphing so speed >is not a problem. All I need to do is just transfer a few bytes back >and forth from the host PC. The processor is a Cygnal C8051F310. Any >recommendations or advice on how to do this would be appreciated. > >Thanks, >Art
Thanks to all who replied. I think I will give the Cygnal CP2101 some serious thought. It looks like it will do what I need and the price of the development board to try it is very reasonable. Regards, Art
Reply by hamilton September 25, 20042004-09-25

Jeffrey A. Wormsley wrote:

> "Meindert Sprang" <mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> wrote in > news:10l7h62csreclf0@corp.supernews.com: > > >>If you just want to replace a serial connection with USB, the FTDI >>chips let you do it within hours. > > > Not necessarily. We have a product that uses RS232 as a configuration and > data collection port. We have a consderable investment in Palm OS software > to do this configuration and data collection, but more and more Palm OS > devices are being shipped with no RS232 available, instead using USB. We > can't use USB to RS232 converters, because the Palm is a USB peripheral, > not a USB controller. The FTDI chip is absolutely useless in this
AT43USB380 is a host.
> scenario. I'm still not sure what we will do when the serial ports on > Palms finally go away. > > Jeff.
Reply by jan Axelson September 24, 20042004-09-24
>. I'm seeing >more and more devices come out with USB (I hate USB) and it's time >that I start to learn how to write for USB & Linux.
I have links to Linux USB info here, under Non-Windows hosts: http://www.lvr.com/usb.htm#HostSoftware and here: http://www.lvr.com/hidpage.htm#hostprogramming Jan Axelson www.Lvr.com
Reply by jan Axelson September 24, 20042004-09-24
>Take a look at http://www.ftdichip.com/
For low-volume designers/manufacturers, a big reason to use FTDIChip is the ability to use their VID, which will save you $1500 the last time I checked: http://www.dlpdesign.com/usb/vid.html I have an article about using FTDI's USB UART here: http://www.lvr.com/boardusb.htm Jan Axelson www.Lvr.com
Reply by September 24, 20042004-09-24
On Friday, in article <ocX4d.356878$sh.333765@fed1read06>
     miketurco@yahoo-nospam4me.com "Mike Turco" wrote:

>"Paul Carpenter" <paul$@pcserv.demon.co.uk> wrote >> >>>like easysync.co.uk - using FTDI - are fixing the laptop problem, so why >>>change unless it's a hard marketing requirement? >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Should read "follow the current desktop fad". > >Finding laptops with a serial port has always been difficult, much less >finding a laptop with two serial ports if that's what you need. Multiple
PCMCIA or USB to RS232 exist and have existed for some time.
>serial ports have always been a problem with desktops, too, if you need more
Multiple port PCI cards and before that ISA cards have existed and are still available.
>than the two that come with the machine. (I'm speaking of situations where >people used to need multiple serial-based products on their machines in >commercial and industrial applications, not hobbyist setups or VAR systems.)
So am I, even years before the PC, industrial applications often had add in cards of multiple serial ports.
>Now, there is USB. Virtually all computers have it, and have had for at >least a few years now. Need to hook up more stuff? No problem, get a hub. >You can even pull power from the USB port, not much, but its there and a lot >of times you can use it. > >Hey, I miss serial communications too. It was easy to deal with, even in >asm. USB definitely ads a level of complexity. But times have changed, and >USB is superior to serial for many different types applications.
Now you are in the realms of long term support and conflicts beyond your control. Having seen too many badly written pieces of USB devices that mean you are potentially sharing a communications channel with soemthing beyond your control. Let's see well known brand of scanners that added the following levels of software as their scanners kept up with the latest fad and they did a major kludge on their software. The device started as a SCSI device, became parallel port, then USB, so we ended up with the following drivers SCSI pseudo device &#4294967295; --- Parallel port to SCSI driver &#4294967295; ------ USB to parallel driver &#4294967295; ---- various USB drivers to talk to the device The customer sites I have been to where the systems had to have the multi interface devices connected by means other than USB, as the USB devices and their software interacted with each other causing crashes or other instability. Most of the host side software, like most windows applications assumes it is the ONLY thing added to a virgin system. Plug and play is NOT that, but load the software BEFORE connecting the device. Then make sure you have either shut the machine down or used "Safely remove Hardware", before disconnecting. The number of people who I have seen caught out by these is beyond belief. Then the support nightmares of hardware or operating system upgrades and there is no longer support for devices. I have seen this already for USB devices, because the toy market called desktops/laptops assumes at the slightest problem everything is ditched for the new model. USB is NOT mature on the software front for me to consider for many applications, either due to burst communications or random connections like once a month. There are PC type applications where USB like interfacing would be a good idea (cameras, scanners, temporary media connections), but too much is done on it relying on using up the host resources to do what should be done in the device. Classic example being inkjet printers. For PC applications not involving Games, typewriting, web browsing and other toy usages, USB adds too many non deterministic features to make it worthwhile.
>> I wonder how many have had requests to wireless network their current >> projects >> because it would be nice, despite the overkill for many applications. > >Overkill, by who's definition?
There are many applications, where the environment will mean it is not practical. Excessive addition of cost and/or power consumption for the amount of benefit. Let alone the complexity of adding to quite a few applications a 16/32bit processor module to do the work of the wirless link on an application that is 4/8 bit in the first place. If you want to have PC fad, make the system from a PC in the first place. More often the things are added because they can or it is the latest fad e.g. Bluetooth, or internet access (e.g. washing machines, pens and toaster that have internet connections). I have seen too many projects that used a PC that should have been a black box that was a 100baseT interface for the archiving of data, that have caused long term support and manufacturing problems due to inability to get the same PC three months later, let alone the software and interface cards issues. -- Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 & mailing list info <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
Reply by Neil Cherry September 24, 20042004-09-24
If everyone will pardon the thread stealing I'd like to find out the
same thing but with Linux drivers or at least examples. I'm seeing
more and more devices come out with USB (I hate USB) and it's time
that I start to learn how to write for USB & Linux. I know about the
FTDI chip (looks like a serial, cool!) but I may eventually need to
support other USB chips that are not so nice. Thanks

-- 
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry        ncherry@comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/               (Text only)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/                     (HCS II)
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Reply by Mike Turco September 24, 20042004-09-24
"Paul Carpenter" <paul$@pcserv.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >>like easysync.co.uk - using FTDI - are fixing the laptop problem, so why >>change unless it's a hard marketing requirement? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Should read "follow the current desktop fad".
Finding laptops with a serial port has always been difficult, much less finding a laptop with two serial ports if that's what you need. Multiple serial ports have always been a problem with desktops, too, if you need more than the two that come with the machine. (I'm speaking of situations where people used to need multiple serial-based products on their machines in commercial and industrial applications, not hobbyist setups or VAR systems.) Now, there is USB. Virtually all computers have it, and have had for at least a few years now. Need to hook up more stuff? No problem, get a hub. You can even pull power from the USB port, not much, but its there and a lot of times you can use it. Hey, I miss serial communications too. It was easy to deal with, even in asm. USB definitely ads a level of complexity. But times have changed, and USB is superior to serial for many different types applications.
> I wonder how many have had requests to wireless network their current > projects > because it would be nice, despite the overkill for many applications.
Overkill, by who's definition? Mike