"Jaded Hobo" <badboy@heaven.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:470bc871$0$19309$9a622dc7@news.kpnplanet.nl...
> linnix wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:24 am, James Fraser <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James Fraser wrote:
>>>>> or this, I suppose:
>>>>> http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>>>>> It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
>>>>> answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
>>>>> I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>> I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
>>> would require that I buy the full version of the development
>>> environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
>>> for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
>>> full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
>>> example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
>>> limited version.)
>>
>> If you don't want to pay for development tools, I would push you back
>> into AVR. AvrStudio/win-avr/gcc-avr are free. ISP downloader/USB
>> bootloader are possible. AT90USB82/162 (8K/16K usb device) are more
>> than enough for a guage. There is also AT90USB1286 (128K) if needed.
>>
>>
> A very easy and cheap option is to get the ready made ftdi USB to TTL
> level serial converters (from their online shop) and a simple AVR
> ATtiny2313. This part has 4 PWM's for driving the gauges, a UART to
> receive values for the gauges and some spare IO to flash a backlight LED.
> The FTDI USB adapters come with a virtual COM driver for Windows so you
> can control your gauges from Python, VB, Java, C++ or whatever you feel
> comfortable with!
>
> Antoon
Seems a waste when you can do what you want in a single SAM7S321.
There is easy to use USB CDC S/W which will give you that virtual COM port.
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Reply by Jaded Hobo●October 9, 20072007-10-09
linnix wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:24 am, James Fraser <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> James Fraser wrote:
>>>> or this, I suppose:
>>>> http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>>>> It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
>>>> answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
>>>> I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>> I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
>> would require that I buy the full version of the development
>> environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
>> for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
>> full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
>> example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
>> limited version.)
>
> If you don't want to pay for development tools, I would push you back
> into AVR. AvrStudio/win-avr/gcc-avr are free. ISP downloader/USB
> bootloader are possible. AT90USB82/162 (8K/16K usb device) are more
> than enough for a guage. There is also AT90USB1286 (128K) if needed.
>
>
A very easy and cheap option is to get the ready made ftdi USB to TTL
level serial converters (from their online shop) and a simple AVR
ATtiny2313. This part has 4 PWM's for driving the gauges, a UART to
receive values for the gauges and some spare IO to flash a backlight
LED. The FTDI USB adapters come with a virtual COM driver for Windows so
you can control your gauges from Python, VB, Java, C++ or whatever you
feel comfortable with!
Antoon
Reply by linnix●October 8, 20072007-10-08
On Oct 8, 8:24 am, James Fraser <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > James Fraser wrote:
> > > or this, I suppose:
> > >http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>
> > > It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
> > > answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
> > > I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
> would require that I buy the full version of the development
> environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
> for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
> full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
> example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
> limited version.)
If you don't want to pay for development tools, I would push you back
into AVR. AvrStudio/win-avr/gcc-avr are free. ISP downloader/USB
bootloader are possible. AT90USB82/162 (8K/16K usb device) are more
than enough for a guage. There is also AT90USB1286 (128K) if needed.
Reply by Jim Granville●October 8, 20072007-10-08
James Fraser wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>James Fraser wrote:
>>
>>>or this, I suppose:
>>>http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>>
>>>It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
>>>answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
>>>I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
> I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
> would require that I buy the full version of the development
> environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
> for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
> full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
> example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
> limited version.)
>
> So right now I'm considering Netburner or a simpler serial option
> using a USB<->Serial bridge, as mentioned earlier in a different
> branch of this thread. I'm leaning towards netburner, mostly for the
> feature of http control of the device. Still a bit more research to do
> first.
FTDI have some nicely packaged USB-DB9 moulded RS232 links.
To avoid the tool-jump effect you mention above, you could also look at
Zilog - their eZ80Acclaim is recently revised to PluseZ80AcclaimPlus,
and they have good free tools, and the Ethernet modules start at $46.67
& $75
-jg
Reply by James Fraser●October 8, 20072007-10-08
On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
> James Fraser wrote:
> > or this, I suppose:
> >http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>
> > It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
> > answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
> > I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
would require that I buy the full version of the development
environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
limited version.)
So right now I'm considering Netburner or a simpler serial option
using a USB<->Serial bridge, as mentioned earlier in a different
branch of this thread. I'm leaning towards netburner, mostly for the
feature of http control of the device. Still a bit more research to do
first.
James Fraser
Reply by Robert Adsett●October 5, 20072007-10-05
In article <1191599907.069285.269150@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
James Fraser says...
> On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
> <cut>
> > However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
> > with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
> > internet to get you up and running.
>
> I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
> microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
> the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
> serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
> know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
> headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
> options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
> attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
> what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.
So use serial on the microcontroller side along with something like an
FTDI serial/usb chip. You get the ease of serial port dev without
needing to develop USB drivers on the PC side.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by Jim Granville●October 5, 20072007-10-05
James Fraser wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
> <cut>
>
>>However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
>>with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
>>internet to get you up and running.
>
>
> I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
> microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
> the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
> serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
> know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
> headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
> options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
> attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
> what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.
It may not be the headache you expect.
SiLabs have USB-UART soltuions, but probably the leader here is FTDI,
so I'd suggest you grab a FTDI eval, and pop drivers into all the PC's
you can find, and see how it runs.
Their US232R-100 looks pretty simple and painless.
All packaged, and low cost.
-jg
Reply by Jim Granville●October 5, 20072007-10-05
James Fraser wrote:
> On Oct 4, 3:20 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>James Fraser wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
>>>So now I'm looking at netburner or microchip ethernet development
>>>boards. They are above my original budget, but look like they should
>>>get me up and going quickly.
>>
>>Or this from SiLabs ?
>>
>>http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>
>
> or this, I suppose:
> http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcontrollers/en/EthernetDK.htm
>
> It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
> answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
> I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding on these, is yes, you need $120 for the first one, to
get nice debug access, but that the $30 one will allow code-changes
(they give 3 different demos?), but not debug-access to the break
point/watch level.
-jg
Reply by James Fraser●October 5, 20072007-10-05
On Oct 5, 12:42 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> For ethernet, unless you are building the box as a gateway (always be
> there), you have to deal with IPs, routing and configurations. USB is
> probably a better choice. I assume these laptops are Windozs, so you
> will have fun with USB drivers anyway.
Good points on etherrnet. It looks like the netburner solution and
others have decent IP stacks that take care of the level 3 and lower
stuff.
I don't know what you mean that I have to deal with USB drivers
anyway? Why would I need to do anything with USB if I'm contacting the
microcontroller via IP?
Jamie
Reply by linnix●October 5, 20072007-10-05
On Oct 5, 8:58 am, James Fraser <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"<news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
> > However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
> > with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
> > internet to get you up and running.
>
> I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
> microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
> the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
> serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
> know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
> headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
> options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
> attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
> what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.
For ethernet, unless you are building the box as a gateway (always be
there), you have to deal with IPs, routing and configurations. USB is
probably a better choice. I assume these laptops are Windozs, so you
will have fun with USB drivers anyway.