PSOC it to me!

johnspeth@yahoo.com wrote:

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

The PSoC is used for the capacitative touchwheel in the iPod. (Rumor
has it that a future iPod is going to use a resistive tablet and the
need for a PSoC will evaporate). A rep told me recently that the same
kind of slide-your-finger sensing technology will be used in
thermostats and so forth. However, PSoCs have other uses - for
instance, replacing obsolete parts.

EMI is a fairly big problem to watch out for with these parts.

larwe wrote:
> johnspeth@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > FWIW, PSOCs are supposedly used in Apple ipods and, hence, the PSOC
> > might just be a one-customer device for Cypress, practically speaking.
>
> The PSoC is used for the capacitative touchwheel in the iPod. (Rumor
> has it that a future iPod is going to use a resistive tablet and the
> need for a PSoC will evaporate). A rep told me recently that the same
> kind of slide-your-finger sensing technology will be used in
> thermostats and so forth. However, PSoCs have other uses - for
> instance, replacing obsolete parts.
>
> EMI is a fairly big problem to watch out for with these parts.

Can you give some details on the EMI problems?

Hello Rickman,

>>
>>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.
> 

Seems like they do much of their biz in Asia where a proper web presence 
may be less important. Many of the app notes are in Japanese or Chinese 
and they didn't even bother to list the ones in English separately. PSoC 
are a marvelous idea but they need to do a better marketing job.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Joerg wrote:
> Hello Rickman,
>
> >>
> >>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.
> >
>
> Seems like they do much of their biz in Asia where a proper web presence
> may be less important. Many of the app notes are in Japanese or Chinese
> and they didn't even bother to list the ones in English separately. PSoC
> are a marvelous idea but they need to do a better marketing job.

I get what you are saying, but they are marketing to their market.
They sell these things really cheaply and it looks like they are doing
well with them as I see them expanding the product line every year.
But the archaic hardware emulator is just too much to deal with for us.
 My organization is very political and everything I do is inspected by
the committee of the entire company.  So I don't get to try much that
is perceived as the least bit risky, now matter how much confidence I
have in my abilities to make it work.

As someone in another thread once said, I have to do ten times the work
and everyone else pays for it!

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?


They are giving away a kit (normally $99) comprising two evaluation
boards and two chips, with a little USB programmer. I got one a couple
of weeks ago. The chips have improved a lot since I first tried them
five years ago, and the software is better.

Leon

rickman wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that is a disadvantage. I think it is a consequence of the old M8
architecture they are using.

The simulator is quite good, though.

Leon

Leon wrote:
> They are giving away a kit (normally $99) comprising two evaluation
> boards and two chips, with a little USB programmer. I got one a couple
> of weeks ago. The chips have improved a lot since I first tried them
> five years ago, and the software is better.

Thanks for the info.  But I don't think it matters.  We just can't use
an MCU with a hardware emulator.  Our equipment requires continued
support and not being able to attach an emulator to an assembled board
is a no-go.  I really can't believe this is not a major hindrence to
them in the marketplace.

Hello Rick,

> 
>>They are giving away a kit (normally $99) comprising two evaluation
>>boards and two chips, with a little USB programmer. I got one a couple
>>of weeks ago. The chips have improved a lot since I first tried them
>>five years ago, and the software is better.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info.  But I don't think it matters.  We just can't use
> an MCU with a hardware emulator.  Our equipment requires continued
> support and not being able to attach an emulator to an assembled board
> is a no-go.  I really can't believe this is not a major hindrence to
> them in the marketplace.
> 

I am sure it is. So is the fact that Cypress is pretty much the only 
game in town. AFAICT you can't easily redesign a board should a PSoC 
chip become unavailable for whatever reason. Many engineers try to avoid 
those kinds or risk early on.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

rickman wrote:

> > thermostats and so forth. However, PSoCs have other uses - for
> > instance, replacing obsolete parts.
> >
> > EMI is a fairly big problem to watch out for with these parts.
>
> Can you give some details on the EMI problems?

Not a great deal (employer stuff). It was proposed to use a PSoC to
replace a sole-source last-time-buy mixed-signal device. The product
contains a UHF receiver. Large problems arose with PSoC emissions
creeping into the receiver. Cypress sent someone over to work on this
problem, and some of the weird "it no worky" stuff, for something like
a week; it was mitigated a great deal, but still not as good as the
ASSP it was replacing.

I had to nix the PSOC for use at this company because of the lack of
emulation capability without desoldering the part.  On the other hand,
I have heard about a new PSOC on the drawing board that would use an
ARM!  I'm not sure which one, but if they make it a low power ARM, like
maybe the Cortex-M3, it could be a really good combo with the PSOC
programmable blocks.

I remember when Xilinx bought Triscend and then shut it down just to
keep ARM from getting their hands on it.  I have always thought a good
combo would be to include a good MCU with an FPGA core.  Of course the
logistics of selling all the different combos of FPGA size, pin count,
Flash and RAM sizes could get to be a nightmare.  But I don't see that
as being a real show stopper.

I expect they will be making this well known in a few months.  We'll
see what they think an ARM PSOC should look like!