EmbeddedRelated.com
Forums

Atmel Bought by Microchip

Started by rickman June 28, 2016
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:03:28 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:

> The smaller PICs seem horrible to program. AVR and ARM at least have > decent gcc-based tool chains. As mentioned, I don't know of ARM parts > directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for > breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). ARMs also seem more > complex to program than AVR (e.g. in terms of the stuff required on > startup) but maybe that's my imagination.
We used PIC16s heavily when they were the only 16- or 20-MHz processors we could get for, like, a buck. They were pretty cute to program in assembler, and we could do the things we needed to do well within a couple of hundred instructions so assembler was no problem. With the proper setup, between the FSR and the bank-select bits, the processor could zip around in (what in C would be) an array of structs with no trouble at all. C compilers seem to have trouble keeping such close tabs on what will be in the bank-select bits come runtime. For my own stuff, I usually start with AVR because of general availability and the AVRDudes' toolchain. I still say, considering a project that I'm contemplating moving to ARM, that I did the whole project with about the same effort it will take to set up the ARM clocks. I can re-use those results later, but still ... Mel.
On 7/28/2016 6:27 AM, raimond.dragomir@gmail.com wrote:
> >> You are saying Atmel would change the functionality of a part in >> production? That's pretty bad! > > There were some cases of early EOLs, but I think they were prior 2000 > in the first years of the AVR. Now the family is stable. I know > chips older than 10 years which I suspect we'll also see in the next 10 > years... > I'm also not aware of any EOL in the recent years.
I believe in nearly every case there was a pin compatible replacement with very minor differences. They didn't just kill a part and leave customers hanging in the wind. -- Rick C
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:04:51 -0700, Paul Rubin
<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>krw@attt.bizz writes: >> They know they have a lot of "trapped" AVR customers. Again, I can't >> imagine anyone choosing it today, unless they had a lot of investment >> (or inertia) they were protecting. > >I'm just a software geek but the AVR looks pretty versatile to me and I >know that lots of hardware folks like it. Yeah I suppose there's >inertia. Still don't know what you're advising instead. You mentioned >the Cortex M7 but that's at a completely different level of cost and >complexity. The M0 is closer, but I don't know of any M0 (or other ARM) >parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's.
The M4/M7 are inline with the price of the AVRs. The M0 is more in the PIC class. ...even lower end PICs. Big differences.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:30:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>>> their head examined. >>>>> >>>>> Can you explain that? >>>> >>>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >>> >>> "Better" in what way? >> >> Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and >> software). > >Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast >enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 >bit devices and even 16 bit devices.
Bullshit. Performance is very important. Cost is equally important. Cost/performance is king.
> >Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. > >Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051?
Good grief. ARM
>>>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>>> development. Go figure. >>> >>> I guess they know a winner when they see it. >> >> I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining. >>
Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:
> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for > debugging, communication and file upload...
Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+.
On 7/29/2016 5:52 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for >> debugging, communication and file upload... > > Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that > particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really > in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in > the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, > and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+.
I'm not sure what you mean about this. There are plenty of ARMs available for under $2. If you are just making a few of some design why do you care about such a small cost? If you are making a lot of something, why would you want a DIP package? -- Rick C
On 7/28/2016 8:13 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:30:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>>>> their head examined. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you explain that? >>>>> >>>>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >>>> >>>> "Better" in what way? >>> >>> Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and >>> software). >> >> Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast >> enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 >> bit devices and even 16 bit devices. > > Bullshit. Performance is very important. Cost is equally important. > Cost/performance is king. >> >> Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. >> >> Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051? > > Good grief. ARM > >>>>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>>>> development. Go figure. >>>> >>>> I guess they know a winner when they see it. >>> >>> I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining.
Whatever. You seem to be trolling. No one cares about performance other than "fast enough". How can it matter if one processor is twice as fast as needed while another processor is 10 times faster than you need even if at the same price? ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't second sourced. I'm pretty well over this discussion. -- Rick C
Paul,

On 29-07-16 23:52, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for >> debugging, communication and file upload... > > Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that > particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really > in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in > the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, > and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+.
Only NXP makes cortex-M MCUs in DIP packate: the LPC1114 and the LPC810. The latter is a DIP8 package like the ATtiny-series. But, if you are looking for something breadboard friendly, take a look at the maple mini (see here for the original product: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/11280) You can buy clones from then from the wellknown Chinese webshops for a couple of euros / dollars, and it is actually a cortex M3 running at 72 Mhz, so quite powerfull. Just search for "maple mini clone" on your favorite web search-engine. Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 02:19:48 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/29/2016 5:52 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >>> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for >>> debugging, communication and file upload... >> >> Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that >> particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really >> in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in >> the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, >> and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+. > >I'm not sure what you mean about this. There are plenty of ARMs >available for under $2.
(Well) Under $1.
>If you are just making a few of some design why >do you care about such a small cost? If you are making a lot of >something, why would you want a DIP package?
Excellent points.
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 02:23:29 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/28/2016 8:13 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:30:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>>>>> their head examined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you explain that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >>>>> >>>>> "Better" in what way? >>>> >>>> Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and >>>> software). >>> >>> Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast >>> enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 >>> bit devices and even 16 bit devices. >> >> Bullshit. Performance is very important. Cost is equally important. >> Cost/performance is king. >>> >>> Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. >>> >>> Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051? >> >> Good grief. ARM >> >>>>>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>>>>> development. Go figure. >>>>> >>>>> I guess they know a winner when they see it. >>>> >>>> I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining. > >Whatever. You seem to be trolling. No one cares about performance >other than "fast enough". How can it matter if one processor is twice >as fast as needed while another processor is 10 times faster than you >need even if at the same price?
Because you can do more, with more performance.
> >ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >second sourced.
Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If they're still building the part, why would you want to change?
>I'm pretty well over this discussion.
You're lying, again.