Ulf Samuelsson wrote:> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> skrev i meddelandet > news:I6vId.5539$rp1.1902@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > >>"Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>What's the least painful way to implement simple (as in a strictly > > limited > >>>>set of connecting devices) USB Host support on a C8051-based design? >>> >>>Add an ATmega128 and an AT43USB380. >>>Let the 80C51 communicate with the AVR using SPI. >>>Since you need 64 kB of code and 4 kB of data on an AVR, >>>you probably will find the 80C51 too small for this. >> >>Ulf, is there anything in this world for which the AVR is not the ultimate >>solution? > > Yep, lots of applications for ARM as well! > My favorite application for the C51 is road filling in China ;-), > but from time to time, due to peripheral contents it can be the best > solution. > You may disagree, but there are many people that don't like the C51 > and don't want to use it. I never see this reaction to the AVR.Hmmm... I've seen the AVR designed out, because there was no larger-code version in the same package.. [thin family syndrome...] Then there is the (usually unprintable) reaction to the AVR where a) Someone cannot buy a variant because it is now EOL .. :( b) or the device is on long leadtime, or allocation... :( You will remember the last AVR allocation supply-cycle, Ulf ? -jg
USB Host
Started by ●January 22, 2005
Reply by ●January 22, 20052005-01-22
Reply by ●January 22, 20052005-01-22
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:10:38 +0100, "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote:>> >Is there anything in this world for which the AVR is not >> >the ultimate solution? >> >> I have a toy design that has a requirement that the microcontroller >> and all peripherals (including xtal if one is required) must cost >> less than ten cents total, and the vendor muct be able to deliver >> 100,000 chips per day as bare dies to an assembly plant in China. >> >> Which AVR should I choose? :) > >For 36 Mu/year I am sure you can do a ROM based 0,13u ASIC containing the >AVR. >Even at 10 cents it even meets the minimum business guidelines... >Atmel do die business regularily so if the chip is simple enough, no sweat! > >/UlfLooks like your gambit has been accepted, Guy! Point to �ber-Atmel. Jon
Reply by ●January 22, 20052005-01-22
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:> >> >Is there anything in this world for which the AVR is not >> >the ultimate solution? >> >> I have a toy design that has a requirement that the microcontroller >> and all peripherals (including xtal if one is required) must cost >> less than ten cents total, and the vendor muct be able to deliver >> 100,000 chips per day as bare dies to an assembly plant in China. >> >> Which AVR should I choose? :) >> > >For 36 Mu/year I am sure you can do a ROM based 0,13u ASIC containing the >AVR. >Even at 10 cents it even meets the minimum business guidelines... >Atmel do die business regularily so if the chip is simple enough, no sweat!I don't think that an ASIC with an AVR in it can hit the ten cent mark. A 4-bit microcontroller can it the 5 cent mark.
Reply by ●January 22, 20052005-01-22
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:22:16 +1300, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote:>Hmmm... > I've seen the AVR designed out, because there was no larger-code >version in the same package.. [thin family syndrome...] > > Then there is the (usually unprintable) reaction to the AVR where >a) Someone cannot buy a variant because it is now EOL .. :( >b) or the device is on long leadtime, or allocation... :( > >You will remember the last AVR allocation supply-cycle, Ulf ?I really like the AVRs, speaking as a programmer or for-fun electronic design hobbyist. When I did my first professional application on an AVR, an AT90S2313-4PC, I'd expected it to take a couple of weeks of work to get done and maybe another week to work through "issues." This project needed me to operate a front panel for a power supply and included keeping font definitions and using them for the display. There were a number of complex details about the power supply, as it was a specialized system used for calibrated lamps and required careful ramping up and down, for example, with feedback in a closed loop control. User parameters were allowed and needed to be saved and restored each time the power was applied. And lamps needed to have their operating time clocked and recorded. Nothing surprising for me, but it was a new processor I'd picked for this job and I didn't know what I'd be faced with when I got to writing the code for it. I actually got it done in 4 days, using assembly, and used the last day of the week to find the only bug I've yet found (and it's been years in operation) -- I'd simply mistaken the order in which two bytes needed to be written to one of the 16-bit latches in one place in the initialization code. First time I'd ever taken on a new processor with this much ease. So, I guess I've found programming in assembly on the AVR very nice. However, that positive experience was colored by a number of subsequent experiences. One is that I have to go though a local FAE (or my distributor, who will simply go through the FAE anyway) who often then forwards my questions back to France (in the case of the ARM) -- and it can take several days to get my first reply back, though it often happened in about 24-36 hours. But this 1-2 day loop can led to unavoidably protracted discussions. I can usually live with this, knowing the situation. But it is still a point of comparison for me. With Microchip, for example, I've a long distance phone call I can make and get hold of some excellent staff and get an answer within minutes, even on complex, highly narrow and technical questions that aren't entirely disclosed in the manuals -- detailed logic behavior of functional blocks, for example. Quite a difference, when timing is vital. Some time ago, in a case of regarding Atmel samples when I was wanting to evaluate their use, I actually ordered two samples from Atmel of a new part through my local distributor. In this case, I explained our estimated volumes and general application area to both the distributor as well as to our local Atmel FAE, directly. I had already read that Atmel (on their site) was nearly ready for sampling on the AT91FR40162-66CI, so although I expected some delay I didn't expect the 10 months I experienced. My request letter went to All American in late February, that year. The response from Atmel (looking up my email now to refresh my memory), a few weeks later, said, "Atmel's AT91FR40162-66CI will be available as samples sometime in April or May." In April, I was told by my distributor, "Atmel came back on the AT91FR40162-66CI and advised that samples would be available sometime in May." On the phone, in late May, I was told that it wouldn't be until late July. And then in June, I was told in writing, "I was advised this morning that the production schedule slipped and the samples will not be available around the 24th of July." July became August, August became September, and then in late September, I spoke again with the FAE after some phone calls on my part in early September. This time, the FAE started grilling me even more on our application details and wanting to know "numbers" and how "certain" I could be of them. More, he was now also asking if I really needed them before November. By this time, I have to admit I wasn't really caring nearly as much. We were near the end of September and I had pretty much set the possible use of their chip aside. It was still remotely possible we could use it for a different project, though, so I told him that I'd prefer it before November and disclosed my frustrations up to this point in time. Keep in mind that I *had* disclosed to them an expected annual purchase, early on, of about 5000/yr. This was a pretty accurate figure, since we were already shipping those quantities for a version we were replacing. I finally received the two parts in December, shortly before Christmas. Needless to say, I've not specified any Atmel parts and I'm not planning to. In contrast, for example (we use a number of vendors, including TI and Microchip and Motorola, to name just some), we've had excellent and direct support from Microchip. When they fly out, they see us. When I have questions, I get through to people who can answer them. When I've had chip bugs, I get immediate and excessive efforts to help validate my report and to flush it out in more detail -- this has happened several times. When I had problems with their C compiler (crap that it was), I was able to talk with two of the three active developers/coders on the project by phone within 24 hours of the request. It wasn't denied me. Instead, they consider the situation carefully and I got a direct line to people who could deal with me, directly. The point here is that Microchip treated us like a big customer, even though they knew exactly what we were buying from them. There was (and is) no question about our tiny role in their bottom line. But they made us feel important. And that speaks for much, when you aren't important to _their_ bottom line, but when you really have products that are important to your own bottom line. And when a vendor cares about you, you care about them, too. While I have no problem using Atmel parts for hobbyist work (in fact, I've tubes of them around here for exactly that reason), I would think several times before specifying them in a commercial product. Well, at least if I knew in advance that the project would be "small potatoes" to them. I'm sure that Atmel treats their big customers like the gold they are. But then, that's just obvious. Atmel has made us feel exactly like how we impacted their bottom line. If you can see _your_ impact in their annual report, you get treated accordingly. And if you can't see your impact there, likewise is also true. This can be important to some. It is, to me. This isn't something I bring up because I feel a mission here. I like the AVR a lot and I really enjoyed using the STK500 board, which was provided to me at an excellent price and has served me well. The documentation is good, too. Also, my experiences with programming on the family is excellent and the products are carried at Digikey in some quantity. So there is a lot going for this family of Atmel's. I don't pause for a second to consider them in my hobby projects and, in fact, I keep tubes of them around here for that purpose. But as far as relationships go, I do not feel that I can count on Atmel to be there when the chips are down, so to speak. Not at volumes my company has, anyway. I guess it's going to take some effort (on both our parts, I suppose) to improve the lost trust. And perhaps I'll see about that some time in the future when I don't need to rely on being provided some urgent attention. It may very well turn out that things are much better. But I just don't know because I don't specify their parts in my commercial projects, now. Luckily, there are other excellent choices. Jon
Reply by ●January 22, 20052005-01-22
Guy Macon wrote:> Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > >>>>Is there anything in this world for which the AVR is not >>>>the ultimate solution? >>> >>>I have a toy design that has a requirement that the microcontroller >>>and all peripherals (including xtal if one is required) must cost >>>less than ten cents total, and the vendor muct be able to deliver >>>100,000 chips per day as bare dies to an assembly plant in China. >>> >>>Which AVR should I choose? :) >>> >> >>For 36 Mu/year I am sure you can do a ROM based 0,13u ASIC containing the >>AVR. >>Even at 10 cents it even meets the minimum business guidelines... >>Atmel do die business regularily so if the chip is simple enough, no sweat! > > > I don't think that an ASIC with an AVR in it can hit the ten > cent mark. A 4-bit microcontroller can it the 5 cent mark.ASIC's do not have to be massive, merely application specific. If a 4bit uC can be 5c, then I'd imagine a ROM AVR (toy class) could be 10c. (This is a $3.6M/yr hypothetical die customer). Atmel are one the of bigger suppliers of Serial EE, so they are well used to fab/test of very low cost silicon. -jg
Reply by ●January 23, 20052005-01-23
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:> You may disagree, but there are many people that don't like the C51 > and don't want to use it.Who ever said there aren't.> I never see this reaction to the AVR.You just have. I was on the receiving end of a new Atmel design. You may think it is 'fun to design new chips': I can assure you it is no fun for your customers when you pointlessly do so.> Then there is the (usually unprintable) reaction to the AVR where > a) Someone cannot buy a variant because it is now EOL .. :( > b) or the device is on long leadtime, or allocation... :( > > You will remember the last AVR allocation supply-cycle, Ulf ?Oh, dear. Maybe Atmel should work on supporting present chips rather than 'having fun'. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . net com . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Reply by ●January 23, 20052005-01-23
> Hmmm... > I've seen the AVR designed out, because there was no larger-code > version in the same package.. [thin family syndrome...]Yes, it does not support 1GB of DRAM and does not run Linux. It would be surprising that an entire industry would fail to produce anything which is unavailable with an AVR. Very few companies deliver standard parts from 1kB to 256kB, supply it as ASIC for up to 8 MB, and makes available versions with integrated programmable logic. The new strategy to let each design team build multiple compatible parts with mainly changes in memory sizes is resulting in a quick expansion of the options. The original question was for a nice device to start with. I do not see a reason to start with a technology that forces people spend multiple extra hours to handoptimize C code to bring out the most of the part just because the architecture does not support good code practices. You can get pretty far with the AVR with just a few guidelines.> Then there is the (usually unprintable) reaction to the AVR where > a) Someone cannot buy a variant because it is now EOL .. :(Shrinks are a fact of life, but pin compatible parts are normally available. The window from release of a replacement to the obsolecense of the predecessor has been on the short side for a few devices. I think this needs to change, and I think that it will.> b) or the device is on long leadtime, or allocation... :( > You will remember the last AVR allocation supply-cycle, Ulf ?The supply cycle varies, and there may always be trouble. The question is what conclusions you draw by the fact that a part is sold out. The leadtimes are based on the production cycle which is 3-4 months. If you are interested in getting supply, then you realistically have to order at least that far in advance to ensure you do get parts. If you want to have 4 weeks leadtime, then you are taking a risk. It happened about one year ago, that someone put in an order for the entire stock of ATmega8s. Anyone without orders then immediately suffered. Leadtimes for other parts were not affected at all. Leadtimes generally go up when there is a capacity problem. At that time, the Atmel fabs were running at max throughput, and it took time to sort that out, but with the North Tynside fab and the expansion of the Rousset factory to 2 x capacity, I think that the time to handle a sudden increase of demand is significantly reduced. It did not help that the order processing at that time was more or less manual. The lesson learned here is the SAP business system which will make life easier. They are more reasons not to like Atmel than to not like the AVR.> > -jg > >
Reply by ●January 23, 20052005-01-23
> >For 36 Mu/year I am sure you can do a ROM based 0,13u ASIC containing theAVR.> >Even at 10 cents it even meets the minimum business guidelines... > >Atmel do die business regularily so if the chip is simple enough, nosweat!> > I don't think that an ASIC with an AVR in it can hit the ten > cent mark. A 4-bit microcontroller can it the 5 cent mark. >And if you don't ask for a quote, you will never find out, The AVR is maybe 1/10 of a square mm in the 0,13u technology. Best Regards Ulf
Reply by ●January 23, 20052005-01-23
> > You may disagree, but there are many people that don't like the C51 > > and don't want to use it. > > Who ever said there aren't. > > > I never see this reaction to the AVR. > > You just have. I was on the receiving end of a new Atmel design. > You may think it is 'fun to design new chips': I can assure you > it is no fun for your customers when you pointlessly do so.I see this as a reaction to Atmel, more than to the AVR. Cost reduction of parts is key to future success and can only be accomplished by shrinking devices. This is true for all companies. Atmel shrinks the 8051 as well,. is that a reason not to use the 8051? The shrink can be more or less compatible. An effort is made to ensure compatability. This is not always achieved, but the problems in doing the migration is AFAIK always documented in an app note. I try to solve the problem for my customers in different ways and try to influence the product line to change some decisions> > > Then there is the (usually unprintable) reaction to the AVR where > > a) Someone cannot buy a variant because it is now EOL .. :( > > b) or the device is on long leadtime, or allocation... :( > > > > You will remember the last AVR allocation supply-cycle, Ulf ? > > Oh, dear. Maybe Atmel should work on supporting present > chips rather than 'having fun'.I think the fab in North Tyneside is a good example that Atmel does want to support present chips.> -- > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio > Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . net com . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop//Ulf
Reply by ●January 23, 20052005-01-23
> First time I'd ever taken on a new processor with this much ease. So, Iguess> I've found programming in assembly on the AVR very nice.> However, that positive experience was colored by a number of subsequent > experiences. One is that I have to go though a local FAE who often thenforwards> my questions back to France (in the case of the ARM) and it can takeseveral days to get> my first reply back, though it often happened in about 24-36 hours. > With Microchip, for example, I've a long distance phone call I can make...You can always contact the support departments at avr or at91supprot ath atmel doth com. The www.avrfreaks.net is another source of info. Personally, I prefer identifying and fixing the problem at a small customer, before the large customer gets pissed off.> I had already read that Atmel (on their site) was nearly > ready for sampling on the AT91FR40162-66CI, so although I expected somedelay I> didn't expect the 10 months I experienced....> Needless to say, I've not specified any Atmel parts and I'm not planningto.> > > Atmel has made us feel exactly like how we impacted their bottom line. Ifyou> can see _your_ impact in their annual report, you get treated accordingly.And> if you can't see your impact there, likewise is also true. > > This can be important to some. It is, to me. This isn't something Ibring up> because I feel a mission here. I like the AVR a lot and I really enjoyedusing> the STK500 board, which was provided to me at an excellent price and hasserved> me well. The documentation is good, too. Also, my experiences withprogramming> on the family is excellent and the products are carried at Digikey in some > quantity. So there is a lot going for this family of Atmel's. I don'tpause> for a second to consider them in my hobby projects and, in fact, I keeptubes of> them around here for that purpose. > > But as far as relationships go, I do not feel that I can count on Atmel tobe> there when the chips are down, so to speak. Not at volumes my companyhas,> anyway. I guess it's going to take some effort (on both our parts, Isuppose)> to improve the lost trust.I think these are quite valid points, but I think they affect both large and small customers. SAP certainly does not make any differences. Atmel has still some work to do in its internal business systems. The sampling system has been really problematic. Before 2004, the sampling system was more or less manual During most of 2004, the sample department was simply overloaded due to unexpected consequences of the SAP implementation It also did not send enough information to keep the stocklevels so parts would not be ordered in advance. There is no feedback to the distributor when samples are to be shipped so they cannot tell you anything until the samples arrive. People have been working on a new sampling system for about a year now so hopefully things will improve during 2005 I think in your case, it was probably just that the part was announced too early. One way of handling this is to make a conscious decision to avoid considering parts which are not in production.> And perhaps I'll see about that some time in the > future when I don't need to rely on being provided some urgent attention.It> may very well turn out that things are much better. But I just don't know > because I don't specify their parts in my commercial projects, now.Luckily,> there are other excellent choices.> Jon