Disadvantages of MSP430 relative to AVR and PIC?

larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes:

> On Dec 17, 5:45&nbsp;am, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> The main problem I had with the AVR's (for "bigger" applications in
>> C), is the contortions you have to go through to access constant data
>> in flash. It has a "harvard" architecture, meaning you need a
>
> Am I missing something here? The AVR compilers I've used seem to hide
> this fact from the developer quite successfully (as compared to, say,
> the PIC compilers, which are of course simply an exercise in
> futility).

I *think* you are missing the fact that they hide it by copying the
"constant" data to ram on startup. This is OK if you have plenty of
RAM, or not much "constant" data. But not good for the cases I was
talking about.

My experience is mainly with gcc a few years ago, but at the time I
looked briefly at other compilers and they seemed to do the same sort
of thing. You could work around the problem using PDATA pointers or
PROGMEM macros etc but the resulting pointers were incompatible with
normal ones. So you could not use e.g. a printf(s), you had to write a
separate printf_P(s). And so on, you would need a memcpy_P(void* s,
PROGMEM* p) etc, for every function wanting to access the constant
data.

-- 

John Devereux

linnix schreef:
> On Dec 17, 2:18 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 10:58 am, Mr. C <fakeem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:04:17 -0500, "MC"
>>> <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
>>>> At risk of starting a religious war...
>>>> Why should I *not* prefer the MSP430 to the AVR and PIC?
>>>> Tell me its weak points.
>>> I have done several products using the MSP430, mostly the 'F149 and
>>> 'F449 parts.  Basically, except for a few special purpose
>>> applications, I will not use the MSP430 on future products.  We had
>>> NUMEROUS problems writing to the flash reliably.  The flash write
>>> problems have finally been somewhat acknowledged by TI, but they
>>> really have not solved the problems (maybe others parts in the MSP430
>>> family have them fixed).
>>> Those same parts are also VERY sensitive to any noise.  We do a pretty
>>> good job of board design and keeping our circuits immune from noise,
>>> but those parts were especially sensitive causing resets and, worst of
>>> all, lockups where even the watchdog timer would not pull it out.
>>> On the 'F44x parts, there were issues of sometimes not starting up
>>> when using a 32KHz crystal.  What is required is to properly "tune"
>>> the crystal used to the part.  We found the selection of capacitors
>>> for the crystal is very critical to starting up.
>>> I would not recommend using the 'F44x or 'F1xx parts for any
>>> applications but those that are battery powered and only applications
>>> that do NOT write to on-chip flash.  If I was forced to use an MSP430
>>> and I needed to write to non-volatile memory, I would use an external
>>> serial EEPROM or FRAM.   In my career, I have used several micros, but
>>> the MSP430 family has definitely given me the most problems.
>>> Lou
>> Flash is the Achilles heel of every micro I have used, especially with
>> applications that write to it in the field.
> 
> Flash is great for developments and avr is nice for prototypes.
> However, we are looking into two other non-flash uC for productions.
> Avr and msp are too expensive.  Pic is too ugly.

So what else would you consider?

1:
> Am I missing something here? The AVR compilers I've used seem to hide
> this fact from the developer quite successfully (as compared to, say,
> the PIC compilers, which are of course simply an exercise in
> futility).

IAR hids it.  GCC dose not.

2:
>
> > Flash is great for developments and avr is nice for prototypes.
> > However, we are looking into two other non-flash uC for productions.
> > Avr and msp are too expensive.  Pic is too ugly.
> So what else would you consider?

Costs and power drains.

3.
> In quite many practical cases, the 5V I/O and supply are required.
> MSP430 is 3.3V only.

AVR (M1) is capable of both 5V (A1) and 3V (A2).  Single power rail
M1A1 works great for us.  However, we are splitting the power anyway.
The main reason is to get the 3V LDO regulator in the BOM, so no
surprise for the customer later on.  The secondary reason is to cut
power consumptions by half.  Most importantly, double standby battery
time.

The new microcontroller (M2) is 3V only.  So, it will only work with
A2.

Our migration path is:
M1A1 -> M1A2 -> M1A1 -> M2A2

By the way, they are not weapons and not for military uses.

On Dec 17, 3:22 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2:18 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 10:58 am, Mr. C <fakeem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:04:17 -0500, "MC"
>
> > > <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
> > > >At risk of starting a religious war...
>
> > > >Why should I *not* prefer the MSP430 to the AVR and PIC?
>
> > > >Tell me its weak points.
>
> > > I have done several products using the MSP430, mostly the 'F149 and
> > > 'F449 parts.  Basically, except for a few special purpose
> > > applications, I will not use the MSP430 on future products.  We had
> > > NUMEROUS problems writing to the flash reliably.  The flash write
> > > problems have finally been somewhat acknowledged by TI, but they
> > > really have not solved the problems (maybe others parts in the MSP430
> > > family have them fixed).
>
> > > Those same parts are also VERY sensitive to any noise.  We do a pretty
> > > good job of board design and keeping our circuits immune from noise,
> > > but those parts were especially sensitive causing resets and, worst of
> > > all, lockups where even the watchdog timer would not pull it out.
>
> > > On the 'F44x parts, there were issues of sometimes not starting up
> > > when using a 32KHz crystal.  What is required is to properly "tune"
> > > the crystal used to the part.  We found the selection of capacitors
> > > for the crystal is very critical to starting up.
>
> > > I would not recommend using the 'F44x or 'F1xx parts for any
> > > applications but those that are battery powered and only applications
> > > that do NOT write to on-chip flash.  If I was forced to use an MSP430
> > > and I needed to write to non-volatile memory, I would use an external
> > > serial EEPROM or FRAM.   In my career, I have used several micros, but
> > > the MSP430 family has definitely given me the most problems.
>
> > > Lou
>
> > Flash is the Achilles heel of every micro I have used, especially with
> > applications that write to it in the field.
>
> Flash is great for developments and avr is nice for prototypes.
> However, we are looking into two other non-flash uC for productions.
> Avr and msp are too expensive.  Pic is too ugly.

AVR is too expensive? those Mega88's are cheap (<$1) and widely use in
$20 mass produced toys. Of couse it all depends on your processor
requirements and volume. If you need a 25 cent micro, then 4 bitters
are the way to go.

On Dec 17, 2:31 pm, Mr. C <fakeem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Flash is the Achilles heel of every micro I have used, especially with
> >applications that write to it in the field.
>
> I have pretty much decided that any application that requires storage
> to non-volatile memory will use some sort of off-chip serial memory
> like an EEPROM for limited writes, or an FRAM for unlimited writes.
> Defintely gives me peace of mind.
>
> Lou

A battery backed MSP430 is another option (and use SRAM)

On Dec 20, 4:37 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 3:22 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2:18 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 10:58 am, Mr. C <fakeem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:04:17 -0500, "MC"
>
> > > > <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
> > > > >At risk of starting a religious war...
>
> > > > >Why should I *not* prefer the MSP430 to the AVR and PIC?
>
> > > > >Tell me its weak points.
>
> > > > I have done several products using the MSP430, mostly the 'F149 and
> > > > 'F449 parts.  Basically, except for a few special purpose
> > > > applications, I will not use the MSP430 on future products.  We had
> > > > NUMEROUS problems writing to the flash reliably.  The flash write
> > > > problems have finally been somewhat acknowledged by TI, but they
> > > > really have not solved the problems (maybe others parts in the MSP430
> > > > family have them fixed).
>
> > > > Those same parts are also VERY sensitive to any noise.  We do a pretty
> > > > good job of board design and keeping our circuits immune from noise,
> > > > but those parts were especially sensitive causing resets and, worst of
> > > > all, lockups where even the watchdog timer would not pull it out.
>
> > > > On the 'F44x parts, there were issues of sometimes not starting up
> > > > when using a 32KHz crystal.  What is required is to properly "tune"
> > > > the crystal used to the part.  We found the selection of capacitors
> > > > for the crystal is very critical to starting up.
>
> > > > I would not recommend using the 'F44x or 'F1xx parts for any
> > > > applications but those that are battery powered and only applications
> > > > that do NOT write to on-chip flash.  If I was forced to use an MSP430
> > > > and I needed to write to non-volatile memory, I would use an external
> > > > serial EEPROM or FRAM.   In my career, I have used several micros, but
> > > > the MSP430 family has definitely given me the most problems.
>
> > > > Lou
>
> > > Flash is the Achilles heel of every micro I have used, especially with
> > > applications that write to it in the field.
>
> > Flash is great for developments and avr is nice for prototypes.
> > However, we are looking into two other non-flash uC for productions.
> > Avr and msp are too expensive.  Pic is too ugly.
>
> AVR is too expensive? those Mega88's are cheap (<$1) and widely use in
> $20 mass produced toys. Of couse it all depends on your processor
> requirements and volume. If you need a 25 cent micro, then 4 bitters
> are the way to go.

LCD AVR is $2 per 10K.  We will settle for a 50 cents 6502 compatible.
For 100K, it will not be much of an issue.  But we are not buying 100K
yet.

On Dec 20, 4:44 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:37 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 3:22 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 2:18 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 17, 10:58 am, Mr. C <fakeem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:04:17 -0500, "MC"
>
> > > > > <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
> > > > > >At risk of starting a religious war...
>
> > > > > >Why should I *not* prefer the MSP430 to the AVR and PIC?
>
> > > > > >Tell me its weak points.
>
> > > > > I have done several products using the MSP430, mostly the 'F149 and
> > > > > 'F449 parts.  Basically, except for a few special purpose
> > > > > applications, I will not use the MSP430 on future products.  We had
> > > > > NUMEROUS problems writing to the flash reliably.  The flash write
> > > > > problems have finally been somewhat acknowledged by TI, but they
> > > > > really have not solved the problems (maybe others parts in the MSP430
> > > > > family have them fixed).
>
> > > > > Those same parts are also VERY sensitive to any noise.  We do a pretty
> > > > > good job of board design and keeping our circuits immune from noise,
> > > > > but those parts were especially sensitive causing resets and, worst of
> > > > > all, lockups where even the watchdog timer would not pull it out.
>
> > > > > On the 'F44x parts, there were issues of sometimes not starting up
> > > > > when using a 32KHz crystal.  What is required is to properly "tune"
> > > > > the crystal used to the part.  We found the selection of capacitors
> > > > > for the crystal is very critical to starting up.
>
> > > > > I would not recommend using the 'F44x or 'F1xx parts for any
> > > > > applications but those that are battery powered and only applications
> > > > > that do NOT write to on-chip flash.  If I was forced to use an MSP430
> > > > > and I needed to write to non-volatile memory, I would use an external
> > > > > serial EEPROM or FRAM.   In my career, I have used several micros, but
> > > > > the MSP430 family has definitely given me the most problems.
>
> > > > > Lou
>
> > > > Flash is the Achilles heel of every micro I have used, especially with
> > > > applications that write to it in the field.
>
> > > Flash is great for developments and avr is nice for prototypes.
> > > However, we are looking into two other non-flash uC for productions.
> > > Avr and msp are too expensive.  Pic is too ugly.
>
> > AVR is too expensive? those Mega88's are cheap (<$1) and widely use in
> > $20 mass produced toys. Of couse it all depends on your processor
> > requirements and volume. If you need a 25 cent micro, then 4 bitters
> > are the way to go.
>
> LCD AVR is $2 per 10K.  We will settle for a 50 cents 6502 compatible.
> For 100K, it will not be much of an issue.  But we are not buying 100K
> yet.

There is a 50 cent LCD 6502 compatible? What is the part number?

"larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2d6a39d8-caef-48b1-8d4b-b56bd1d0c4eb@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 5:45 am, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:

>> The main problem I had with the AVR's (for "bigger" applications in
>> C), is the contortions you have to go through to access constant data
>> in flash. It has a "harvard" architecture, meaning you need a
>
>Am I missing something here? The AVR compilers I've used seem to hide
>this fact from the developer quite successfully (as compared to, say,
>the PIC compilers, which are of course simply an exercise in
>futility).

IAR hides it best. GCC is a pain.
You have special functions to access FLASH. (strcpy_p, etc...)

On Dec 17, 8:04=A0am, "MC" <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>
wrote:
> At risk of starting a religious war...
>
> Why should I *not* prefer the MSP430 to the AVR and PIC?
>
> Tell me its weak points.

Why Not C8051F?

On Dec 20, 10:56 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:44 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 4:37 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 3:22 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 17, 2:18 pm, steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 17, 10:58 am, Mr. C <fakeem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:04:17 -0500, "MC"
>
> > > > > > <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
> > > > > > >At risk of starting a religious war...
>
> > > > > > >Why should I *not* prefer the MSP430 to the AVR and PIC?
>
> > > > > > >Tell me its weak points.
>
> > > > > > I have done several products using the MSP430, mostly the 'F149 and
> > > > > > 'F449 parts.  Basically, except for a few special purpose
> > > > > > applications, I will not use the MSP430 on future products.  We had
> > > > > > NUMEROUS problems writing to the flash reliably.  The flash write
> > > > > > problems have finally been somewhat acknowledged by TI, but they
> > > > > > really have not solved the problems (maybe others parts in the MSP430
> > > > > > family have them fixed).
>
> > > > > > Those same parts are also VERY sensitive to any noise.  We do a pretty
> > > > > > good job of board design and keeping our circuits immune from noise,
> > > > > > but those parts were especially sensitive causing resets and, worst of
> > > > > > all, lockups where even the watchdog timer would not pull it out.
>
> > > > > > On the 'F44x parts, there were issues of sometimes not starting up
> > > > > > when using a 32KHz crystal.  What is required is to properly "tune"
> > > > > > the crystal used to the part.  We found the selection of capacitors
> > > > > > for the crystal is very critical to starting up.
>
> > > > > > I would not recommend using the 'F44x or 'F1xx parts for any
> > > > > > applications but those that are battery powered and only applications
> > > > > > that do NOT write to on-chip flash.  If I was forced to use an MSP430
> > > > > > and I needed to write to non-volatile memory, I would use an external
> > > > > > serial EEPROM or FRAM.   In my career, I have used several micros, but
> > > > > > the MSP430 family has definitely given me the most problems.
>
> > > > > > Lou
>
> > > > > Flash is the Achilles heel of every micro I have used, especially with
> > > > > applications that write to it in the field.
>
> > > > Flash is great for developments and avr is nice for prototypes.
> > > > However, we are looking into two other non-flash uC for productions.
> > > > Avr and msp are too expensive.  Pic is too ugly.
>
> > > AVR is too expensive? those Mega88's are cheap (<$1) and widely use in
> > > $20 mass produced toys. Of couse it all depends on your processor
> > > requirements and volume. If you need a 25 cent micro, then 4 bitters
> > > are the way to go.
>
> > LCD AVR is $2 per 10K.  We will settle for a 50 cents 6502 compatible.
> > For 100K, it will not be much of an issue.  But we are not buying 100K
> > yet.
>
> There is a 50 cent LCD 6502 compatible? What is the part number?

M2 as in M2A2.
A2 is a 3V sensor.