Newbie help needed

On Oct 4, 3:20 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
> James Fraser wrote:
<cut>
> > So now I'm looking at netburner or microchip ethernet development
> > boards. They are above my original budget, but look like they should
> > get me up and going quickly.
>
> Or this from SiLabs ?
>
> http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...

or this, I suppose:
http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcontrollers/en/EthernetDK.htm

It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.


James Fraser

On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
<cut>
> However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
> with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
> internet to get you up and running.

I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.

>
> I2C only needs the one bus if you are careful with your addressing so
> you'll save effort on PCB layout and part count.

I'm very interested in this, and I will be doing some research on the
local bus / interface options. I read a little bit about I2C versus
spi. I would really like the ability to attach multiple DACs.


Thanks again...
James Fraser

On Oct 5, 8:58 am, James Fraser <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"<news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
> > However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
> > with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
> > internet to get you up and running.
>
> I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
> microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
> the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
> serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
> know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
> headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
> options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
> attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
> what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.

For ethernet, unless you are building the box as a gateway (always be
there), you have to deal with IPs, routing and configurations.  USB is
probably a better choice.  I assume these laptops are Windozs, so you
will have fun with USB drivers anyway.

On Oct 5, 12:42 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> For ethernet, unless you are building the box as a gateway (always be
> there), you have to deal with IPs, routing and configurations.  USB is
> probably a better choice.  I assume these laptops are Windozs, so you
> will have fun with USB drivers anyway.

Good points on etherrnet. It looks like the netburner solution and
others have decent IP stacks that take care of the level 3 and lower
stuff.

I don't know what you mean that I have to deal with USB drivers
anyway? Why would I need to do anything with USB if I'm contacting the
microcontroller via IP?


Jamie

James Fraser wrote:

> On Oct 4, 3:20 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
>>James Fraser wrote:
> 
> <cut>
> 
>>>So now I'm looking at netburner or microchip ethernet development
>>>boards. They are above my original budget, but look like they should
>>>get me up and going quickly.
>>
>>Or this from SiLabs ?
>>
>>http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
> 
> 
> or this, I suppose:
> http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcontrollers/en/EthernetDK.htm
> 
> It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
> answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
> I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  My understanding on these, is yes, you need $120 for the first one, to 
get nice debug access, but that the $30 one will allow code-changes 
(they give 3 different demos?), but not debug-access to the break 
point/watch level.

-jg

James Fraser wrote:

> On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
> <cut>
> 
>>However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
>>with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
>>internet to get you up and running.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
> microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
> the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
> serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
> know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
> headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
> options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
> attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
> what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.

It may not be the headache you expect.
SiLabs have USB-UART soltuions, but probably the leader here is FTDI,
so I'd suggest you grab a FTDI eval, and pop drivers into all the PC's 
you can find, and see how it runs.

Their US232R-100 looks pretty simple and painless.
All packaged, and low cost.

-jg

In article <1191599907.069285.269150@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, 
James Fraser says...
> On Oct 5, 3:22 am, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
> <cut>
> > However, I would still maintain that simple serial is going to present
> > with the shortest development time and there is code galore all over the
> > internet to get you up and running.
> 
> I'm sure that serial would be easiest to implement on the
> microcontroller side. I just don't want the limitations that places on
> the PC side. I see four laptops in the office I'm in. One has built in
> serial. two have parallel, all have built in ethernet and USB. Yes, I
> know, I could get PCCards or USB<->serial converters, but that's a
> headache. I really don't want my choice here to limit my computer
> options in the future. This isn't getting built and permanently
> attached to a legacy PC. I hope to be able to put this on my desk with
> what ever PC is there for the next 10 years or more.

So use serial on the microcontroller side along with something like an 
FTDI serial/usb chip.  You get the ease of serial port dev without 
needing to develop USB drivers on the PC side.

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
> James Fraser wrote:
> > or this, I suppose:
> >http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>
> > It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
> > answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
> > I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
would require that I buy the full version of the development
environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
limited version.)

So right now I'm considering Netburner or a simpler serial option
using a USB<->Serial bridge, as mentioned earlier in a different
branch of this thread. I'm leaning towards netburner, mostly for the
feature of http control of the device. Still a bit more research to do
first.


James Fraser

James Fraser wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
>>James Fraser wrote:
>>
>>>or this, I suppose:
>>>http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>>
>>>It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
>>>answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
>>>I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
> would require that I buy the full version of the development
> environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
> for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
> full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
> example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
> limited version.)
> 
> So right now I'm considering Netburner or a simpler serial option
> using a USB<->Serial bridge, as mentioned earlier in a different
> branch of this thread. I'm leaning towards netburner, mostly for the
> feature of http control of the device. Still a bit more research to do
> first.

FTDI have some nicely packaged USB-DB9 moulded RS232 links.

To avoid the tool-jump effect you mention above, you could also look at 
Zilog - their eZ80Acclaim is recently revised to PluseZ80AcclaimPlus, 
and they have good free tools, and the Ethernet modules start at $46.67 
  & $75

-jg

On Oct 8, 8:24 am, James Fraser <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:36 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > James Fraser wrote:
> > > or this, I suppose:
> > >http://www2.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Microcon...
>
> > > It looks like I need the $120 answer to develop what I want. The $30
> > > answer you linked to wouldn't allow new code needed to hook up a DAC,
> > > I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I looked into this a bit further. Both Microchip and Silicon Labs
> would require that I buy the full version of the development
> environment for $495. (Microchip requires the full version for support
> for some of the chips with ethernet, and Silicon Labs requires the
> full version of the Kiel tools to have more than 4 KB code. Even their
> example web app requires more than 4 KB and can't be compiled with the
> limited version.)

If you don't want to pay for development tools, I would push you back
into AVR.  AvrStudio/win-avr/gcc-avr are free.  ISP downloader/USB
bootloader are possible.  AT90USB82/162 (8K/16K usb device) are more
than enough for a guage.  There is also AT90USB1286 (128K) if needed.