Microchip PIC32 MCUs can be used for graphics applications (as I read on their website), but I couldn't understand if they have a real integrated TFT controller (as in LPC MCUs by NXP) or a different thing. I would prefer NXP's versus Microchip's solutions for many reasons: - ubiquitous ARM core (instead of MIPS) - true integrated TFT controller - lower cost (I'm not sure on this) Both solutions offer a free to use graphics library: NXP delivers SEGGER (precompiled), Microchip a proprietary library (with source code). What do you think? The project will use a typical 4.3" 480x272 TFT display with RGB interface, and I'm interesting in developing a good HMI.
Integrated TFT controller in PIC MCUs
Started by ●January 7, 2015
Reply by ●January 7, 20152015-01-07
"pozz" <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote in message news:m8j58u$mkk$1@dont-email.me...> Microchip PIC32 MCUs can be used for graphics applications (as I read on > their website), but I couldn't understand if they have a real integrated > TFT controller (as in LPC MCUs by NXP) or a different thing. > > I would prefer NXP's versus Microchip's solutions for many reasons: > - ubiquitous ARM core (instead of MIPS) > - true integrated TFT controller > - lower cost (I'm not sure on this) > > Both solutions offer a free to use graphics library: NXP delivers SEGGER > (precompiled), Microchip a proprietary library (with source code). > > What do you think? > > The project will use a typical 4.3" 480x272 TFT display with RGB > interface, and I'm interesting in developing a good HMI.Personally, I would also go for ARM.
Reply by ●January 7, 20152015-01-07
On 1/7/2015 2:27 PM, Tomas D. wrote:> "pozz" <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:m8j58u$mkk$1@dont-email.me... >> Microchip PIC32 MCUs can be used for graphics applications (as I read on >> their website), but I couldn't understand if they have a real integrated >> TFT controller (as in LPC MCUs by NXP) or a different thing. >> >> I would prefer NXP's versus Microchip's solutions for many reasons: >> - ubiquitous ARM core (instead of MIPS) >> - true integrated TFT controller >> - lower cost (I'm not sure on this) >> >> Both solutions offer a free to use graphics library: NXP delivers SEGGER >> (precompiled), Microchip a proprietary library (with source code). >> >> What do you think? >> >> The project will use a typical 4.3" 480x272 TFT display with RGB >> interface, and I'm interesting in developing a good HMI. > > Personally, I would also go for ARM.Why? What's the diff? -- Rick
Reply by ●January 7, 20152015-01-07
On 07.1.2015 г. 21:38, rickman wrote:> On 1/7/2015 2:27 PM, Tomas D. wrote: >> "pozz" <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:m8j58u$mkk$1@dont-email.me... >>> Microchip PIC32 MCUs can be used for graphics applications (as I read on >>> their website), but I couldn't understand if they have a real integrated >>> TFT controller (as in LPC MCUs by NXP) or a different thing. >>> >>> I would prefer NXP's versus Microchip's solutions for many reasons: >>> - ubiquitous ARM core (instead of MIPS) >>> - true integrated TFT controller >>> - lower cost (I'm not sure on this) >>> >>> Both solutions offer a free to use graphics library: NXP delivers SEGGER >>> (precompiled), Microchip a proprietary library (with source code). >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> The project will use a typical 4.3" 480x272 TFT display with RGB >>> interface, and I'm interesting in developing a good HMI. >> >> Personally, I would also go for ARM. > > Why? What's the diff? >Most go ARM just because "everybody else does". In fact ARM is a crippled architecture (too few registers for a load/store machine), MIPS has enough I think (32 but I have only looked at it, never used it - I use power). Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
Reply by ●January 7, 20152015-01-07
Den onsdag den 7. januar 2015 12.28.59 UTC+1 skrev pozz:> Microchip PIC32 MCUs can be used for graphics applications (as I read on > their website), but I couldn't understand if they have a real integrated > TFT controller (as in LPC MCUs by NXP) or a different thing. > > I would prefer NXP's versus Microchip's solutions for many reasons: > - ubiquitous ARM core (instead of MIPS) > - true integrated TFT controller > - lower cost (I'm not sure on this) > > Both solutions offer a free to use graphics library: NXP delivers SEGGER > (precompiled), Microchip a proprietary library (with source code). > > What do you think? > > The project will use a typical 4.3" 480x272 TFT display with RGB > interface, and I'm interesting in developing a good HMI.there's also STM, http://www.st.com/web/catalog/tools/FM116/SC959/SS1532/PF259090 -Lasse
Reply by ●January 8, 20152015-01-08
Il 07/01/2015 20:59, Dimiter_Popoff ha scritto:> Most go ARM just because "everybody else does". > In fact ARM is a crippled architecture (too few registers > for a load/store machine), MIPS has enough I think (32 but > I have only looked at it, never used it - I use power).What about TFT controller and graphics libraries? Did anyone make a comparison?
Reply by ●January 8, 20152015-01-08
On 07/01/15 20:59, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> On 07.1.2015 г. 21:38, rickman wrote: >> On 1/7/2015 2:27 PM, Tomas D. wrote: >>> "pozz" <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:m8j58u$mkk$1@dont-email.me... >>>> Microchip PIC32 MCUs can be used for graphics applications (as I >>>> read on >>>> their website), but I couldn't understand if they have a real >>>> integrated >>>> TFT controller (as in LPC MCUs by NXP) or a different thing. >>>> >>>> I would prefer NXP's versus Microchip's solutions for many reasons: >>>> - ubiquitous ARM core (instead of MIPS) >>>> - true integrated TFT controller >>>> - lower cost (I'm not sure on this) >>>> >>>> Both solutions offer a free to use graphics library: NXP delivers >>>> SEGGER >>>> (precompiled), Microchip a proprietary library (with source code). >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> The project will use a typical 4.3" 480x272 TFT display with RGB >>>> interface, and I'm interesting in developing a good HMI. >>> >>> Personally, I would also go for ARM. >> >> Why? What's the diff? >> > > Most go ARM just because "everybody else does". > In fact ARM is a crippled architecture (too few registers > for a load/store machine), MIPS has enough I think (32 but > I have only looked at it, never used it - I use power). >I don't think I would say that ARM is "crippled" by having too few registers - it can be nice to have 32 registers available (like MIPS or PPC), but 16 mostly orthogonal registers works well enough for most code. Having 32 registers is good for some kind of code, but also means that you lose up to three bits in the instructions, and you also have less efficient context switching for interrupts (as twice as many registers must be saved). It's a trade-off. Certainly MIPS is a nice architecture, especially their newer microcontroller versions. But there are many good reasons for not picking Microchip PIC32 devices, even if you like the cpu core.
Reply by ●January 8, 20152015-01-08
Il 08/01/2015 13:53, David Brown ha scritto:> Certainly MIPS is a nice architecture, especially their newer > microcontroller versions. But there are many good reasons for not > picking Microchip PIC32 devices, even if you like the cpu core.I'm interested in those "good reasons for not picking Microchip PIC32 devices"...
Reply by ●January 8, 20152015-01-08
Op 08-Jan-15 16:07, pozz schreef:> Il 08/01/2015 13:53, David Brown ha scritto: > >> Certainly MIPS is a nice architecture, especially their newer >> microcontroller versions. But there are many good reasons for not >> picking Microchip PIC32 devices, even if you like the cpu core. > > I'm interested in those "good reasons for not picking Microchip PIC32 > devices"...Me too... (as someone not having any experience with the PIC32 family)
Reply by ●January 8, 20152015-01-08
On 08/01/15 16:07, pozz wrote:> Il 08/01/2015 13:53, David Brown ha scritto: > >> Certainly MIPS is a nice architecture, especially their newer >> microcontroller versions. But there are many good reasons for not >> picking Microchip PIC32 devices, even if you like the cpu core. > > I'm interested in those "good reasons for not picking Microchip PIC32 > devices"... >Note - I haven't used PIC32 devices myself either, so don't take this as more than opinion from someone who has read about them, talked about them, considered them, but never tried them. My comments may therefore be inaccurate or outdated. And if other posters with real experience contradict me, they are probably right. One reason, which has already been mentioned, is simply popularity - since Cortex M3/M4 devices dominate the market that the PIC32 competes in, you get more tools, more testing, more familiarity, more developers and more existing code. The development tools for the devices are gcc (which is good), using a library written by Microchip (which may or may not be good). Microchip provides them in a free version and a paid-for version - with the free version having optimisation disabled (or at least severely limited). Given that gcc is free and open source software (and not written by Microchip), I believe this is very much against the spirit of the licence for the compiler - and I think it is a poor way to provide "demo" or "eval" versions of the tools. The chips themselves suffered from a number of major hardware issues when they came out - and from what I have heard from a user, they still do even after several years. A key point is that the USB interface is limited to 12 Mbps (or at least, has severe bugs at 480 Mbps). While 12 Mbps is fine for many uses, this long-lasted problem shows a severe failure in development, testing and quality control that is very off-putting. Other than that, I think many reasons fall into the category of opinion rather than general than being more general - but they will still be "good" reasons if you agree with the opinion. (Just as "cpus should have more than 16 core registers" is a good reason for disliking ARM's, if that is your opinion.) I think the whole PIC32 system has been a terrible blow to the microcontroller world - it was done poorly, rushed to the market, had poor free versions of its tools (leading people to see it as a very slow cpu), and I believe it has greatly reduced the chance of MIPS being a serious player in the microcontroller market. MIPS make a series of cores that are competitive or better than many of ARM's cores in terms of speed, features and mips per mW - and the microcontroller world would be a better place with more choice and competition.
