PSOC it to me!

I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
hardware, can morph into whatever I need.

In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
like.

Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
experiences they can relate?

rickman wrote:
> I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
> that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
> hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
> 
> In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
> the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
> you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
> checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
> your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
> factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
> that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
> like.
> 
> Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
> talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
> prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> experiences they can relate?
> 

Some time ago I used PSOC. My only complaint was it had limited 
resources, but this is at least 3 years ago (might be 4 now) and besides 
it met my needs.
The tools I had at that time were acceptable and I had them on my 
system. Not particularly intuitive at the time, but they worked and I 
didn't have to consult the factory for any changes (although the support 
I got when necessary was definitely good).

No idea if they are still that good at support, although I would expect 
the tools have made strides (one hopes so!).

Cheers

PeteS

Hello Rick,


> I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
> that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
> hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
> 

In the past I was mostly disappointed when studying the data sheets. Low 
GBW, too much offset, not enough modules. Went the discrete route every 
time.


> In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
> the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
> you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
> checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
> your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
> factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
> that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
> like.
> 
> Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
> talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
> prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> experiences they can relate?
> 

Cypress? Which device were you thinking about? I find it hard to use 
their web site. There isn't really a good overview sheet or anything. 
The way the app notes are organized is IMHO a mess. Seriously, they need 
to hire someone who can create a web site for them that works.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

>I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
>application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
>have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
>that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
>hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
>
>In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
>the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
>you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
>checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
>your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
>factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
>that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
>like.
>
>Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
>talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
>prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
>experiences they can relate?
>

I have completed several projects using the PSoC and I am very
enthusiastic about it. It is FUN to use, although as a processor it does
have some limitations (as do most others). With a few more details on your
application you may get more detailed opinions.  

The Cypress website leaves a LOT to be desired, but there is an unofficial
website at www.psocdeveloper.com which is very supportive.

-Aubrey
>

rickman wrote:
> I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
> that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
> hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
>
> In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
> the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
> you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
> checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
> your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
> factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
> that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
> like.
>
> Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
> talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
> prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> experiences they can relate?

Last time I looked their low level info was very sparse, and now
see  they pitch "no Code' development.
I also note their newer parts are more
like common uC, with more std peripherals, and less of the
hyped 'configurable' (but how?) stuff.
Let us know if you do get details on the low level workings, and
any decent SW access to that.

Joerg wrote:
> Hello Rick,
>
>
> > I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> > application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> > have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
> > that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
> > hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
> >
>
> In the past I was mostly disappointed when studying the data sheets. Low
> GBW, too much offset, not enough modules. Went the discrete route every
> time.
>
>
> > In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
> > the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
> > you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
> > checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
> > your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
> > factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
> > that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
> > like.
> >
> > Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
> > talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
> > prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> > experiences they can relate?
> >
>
> Cypress? Which device were you thinking about? I find it hard to use
> their web site. There isn't really a good overview sheet or anything.
> The way the app notes are organized is IMHO a mess. Seriously, they need
> to hire someone who can create a web site for them that works.

I couldn't agree more.  I hate going to their site and tryign to get
any sort of a useful overview or selection guide is impossible.  TI has
one of the best sites, but this time it only let me confirm quickly
that they can't meet my needs.  But I always go there first.

malcolm132@gmail.com wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> > application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> > have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
> > that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
> > hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
> >
> > In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
> > the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
> > you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
> > checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
> > your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
> > factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
> > that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
> > like.
> >
> > Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
> > talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
> > prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> > experiences they can relate?
>
> Last time I looked their low level info was very sparse, and now
> see  they pitch "no Code' development.
> I also note their newer parts are more
> like common uC, with more std peripherals, and less of the
> hyped 'configurable' (but how?) stuff.
> Let us know if you do get details on the low level workings, and
> any decent SW access to that.

Thanks to everyone for their comments.  I expect I will be installing
their software and taking a good look at it.  I'll let you know how
that goes.

rickman wrote:
> I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> have a use for it.  I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU
> that has the peripherals that I need.  The PSOC, with its configurable
> hardware, can morph into whatever I need.
> 
> In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed.  In
> the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what
> you wanted and they would make it work.  A few years later when I
> checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do
> your own design.  The training consisted of teleconferences with the
> factory, but you were likely the only person in the session.  I guess
> that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the
> like.
> 
> Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman
> talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for
> prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> experiences they can relate?
> 

It was 2 years ago.  The tools were fine.  The compiler was a little 
week.  It used a "27" part.  It was not low power.  With the analog 
turned on it was on the high side.  The Data sheet list the CPU core 
current only.  There was a spread sheet to figure what it really used.

rickman wrote:
> I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
...
> prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> experiences they can relate?

For a mere $35 you can obtain an experimenters kit from Digikey (the
Miniprog).  Get some first hand feedback about tool quality and chip
strengths and limitations.  I believe all tools are free.  I don't know
anything about for-pay tools.

We have a consultant doing our PSOC code work.  I keep a close eye on
him and listen to his stories of success and failure with that device.
He relates that the tools are underdocumented and have major bugs code
output bugs.  He has a close relationship with Cypress tech support and
they are responsive to his queries for help.

>From what I could gather, the chip is very easy to use as long as your
ambitions are limited to the straightforward applications for which the
chip was designed.  If you stray outside of that realm, you'll have
some big challenges.  The solutions to these challenges are mostly
undocumented, my consultant reports.  And the tools are slightly
inadequate beyond that.

FWIW, PSOCs are supposedly used in Apple ipods and, hence, the PSOC
might just be a one-customer device for Cypress, practically speaking.

JJS

johnspeth@yahoo.com wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an
> > application where it was remotely applicable.  But now I think I may
> ...
> > prime time.  So I am going to give them a hard look.  Anyone have
> > experiences they can relate?
>
> For a mere $35 you can obtain an experimenters kit from Digikey (the
> Miniprog).  Get some first hand feedback about tool quality and chip
> strengths and limitations.  I believe all tools are free.  I don't know
> anything about for-pay tools.
>
> We have a consultant doing our PSOC code work.  I keep a close eye on
> him and listen to his stories of success and failure with that device.
> He relates that the tools are underdocumented and have major bugs code
> output bugs.  He has a close relationship with Cypress tech support and
> they are responsive to his queries for help.
>
> >From what I could gather, the chip is very easy to use as long as your
> ambitions are limited to the straightforward applications for which the
> chip was designed.  If you stray outside of that realm, you'll have
> some big challenges.  The solutions to these challenges are mostly
> undocumented, my consultant reports.  And the tools are slightly
> inadequate beyond that.
>
> FWIW, PSOCs are supposedly used in Apple ipods and, hence, the PSOC
> might just be a one-customer device for Cypress, practically speaking.

Thanks for the inputs.  One thing I noticed looking at the development
tools is that it appears that the PSOC does not use the typical JTAG
interface for debug.  It looks like they use a hardware emulator.  I
don't think I can get that past the software people here.  I think most
of the objections to hardware emulators are overblown, one major issue
is the fact that you have to replace the MCU on your board to use the
emulator.  That may not be an issue with socketed DIPs, but QFNs do not
like being lifted and resoldered very much.  I doubt that I would be
able to use such an emulator.