Hi, I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, maybe rear camera and gps, etc. I have been using Renesas M16C series as 16 bit Microcontroller and I need a powerfull 32bit CPU. I don't think use SuperH series because ARM9 has a lot of documets and sources i think. Freescale MX9328MX21S and Atmel SAM9263 or SAM9261 can better choices ? Could you please share your experiences about this subject? Thanks in advance
ARM9 Choice
Started by ●February 25, 2008
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
icegray wrote:> Hi, > I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project > details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, > audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, > maybe rear camera and gps, etc.You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
On 25 =AAubat, 17:54, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> icegray wrote: > > Hi, > > I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project > > details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, > > audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, > > maybe rear camera and gps, etc. > > You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.comThis feature is not absolute features. There are lots of arm based mobile phones and they have this features expect high lcd resolution. Also ARM9 developmet boards have almost this features.
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
>>>I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project >>>details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, >>>audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, >>>maybe rear camera and gps, etc. >> >>You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. >> > This feature is not absolute features. There are lots of arm based > mobile phones and they have this features expect high lcd resolution. > Also ARM9 developmet boards have almost this features.If you need the automotive infortaiment project to be built on time and done for good, you need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. If your real goal is to prove something, you may use ARM9, linux or whatsoever. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:54:35 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:> icegray wrote: > >> Hi, >> I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project >> details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, >> audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, >> maybe rear camera and gps, etc. > > You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP.Unless, of course, you want your device to have a low enough COGS to both sell and make money for your company. The above mentioned combination may be the best to _prototype_ the product, but I wouldn't rule it in for the real product, particularly if you're going to be shipping in high enough volumes to justify some serious engineering. I doubt that you'll find one processor that does all that you want all by itself. The biggest driver to processing power that I can see is video, and even that is highly variable depending on what you want to do: * Are you going to stream video at all? If everything else can go at "GUI" speeds your processor can be modest. This means that having that rear-view camera is going to make an expensive step in your COGS. * Are you going to stream video through the processor? I.e., can you get by with a chipset that hijacks part of the screen for video without running the data through the processor, or are you going to do something like use a USB or Firewire camera and have the processor fondle every byte that goes through? * Are you going to decompress video in the processor? Are you going to be playing MPEG files and DVDs? If _that's_ the case then maybe Vladimir's Pentium is a candidate, although for a large production run you could probably do better with a more modest 'main' processor that's getting serious help from a DSP chip, an FPGA, an ASIC, or a dedicated video decompresser (if such things exist these days). I don't see anything in principal wrong with Linux -- I'm typing this from a linux box that does just fine with video (in fact, I got it to force me to learn linux for the day when I'd be writing for embedded linux). Then again, I don't see anything wrong with Windows in principal, either. I lean toward Linux for entirely emotional reasons: it always pisses me off to have an OS salesman tell me (and my customer) how easy it'll be to use, because I know that when I get down to brass tacks I'll be seeing more of my customers money go down the drain, through my time or one of their engineers', on OS deficits than was spent on the OS in the first place. So choosing Linux, VxWorks, Windows Embedded, or any other OS should be based on your best guess of the benefits of the OS for your application, taking all things into consideration. -- Tim Wescott Control systems and communications consulting http://www.wescottdesign.com Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
icegray <icegray@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 25, 6:32�pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:54:35 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> > icegray wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project >> >> details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, >> >> audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, >> >> maybe rear camera and gps, etc. >> >> > You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. > > ok maybe ARM9 performance not enough but why windows? could you please > explain more? > >> >> Unless, of course, you want your device to have a low enough COGS to both >> sell and make money for your company. � >> >> The above mentioned combination may be the best to _prototype_ the >> product, but I wouldn't rule it in for the real product, particularly if >> you're going to be shipping in high enough volumes to justify some >> serious engineering. >> >> I doubt that you'll find one processor that does all that you want all by >> itself. �The biggest driver to processing power that I can see is video, >> and even that is highly variable depending on what you want to do: >> >> * Are you going to stream video at all? �If everything else can go at >> "GUI" speeds your processor can be modest. �This means that having that >> rear-view camera is going to make an expensive step in your COGS. >> >> * Are you going to stream video through the processor? �I.e., can you get >> by with a chipset that hijacks part of the screen for video without >> running the data through the processor, or are you going to do something >> like use a USB or Firewire camera and have the processor fondle every >> byte that goes through? >> >> * Are you going to decompress video in the processor? �Are you going to >> be playing MPEG files and DVDs? �If _that's_ the case then maybe >> Vladimir's Pentium is a candidate, although for a large production run >> you could probably do better with a more modest 'main' processor that's >> getting serious help from a DSP chip, an FPGA, an ASIC, or a dedicated >> video decompresser (if such things exist these days). > > You are right this device should be cost-effective. I am not sure now > that i will use what kind of camera. This device do not play any kind > of video, there are only one video source and it is rear-view camera. > If ARM9 not enough for handle video i can use ASIC for LCD driving and > camera data streaming.You can use e.g. something from DaVinci family from TI. It will work much better than a Pentium-XYZ, you don't need Windoze, it will drive your LCD, videocamera and everything else (probably excluding CAN) right off the chip. It will cost less than Pentium-XYZ and Linux is totally free. You will get all the graphics and GUI you need with it and it will draw 100 times less power. Don't buy Windoze crap. It is not worth it. --- ****************************************************************** * KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ****************************************************************** -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
On Feb 25, 6:32=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:54:35 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > > icegray wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project > >> details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, > >> audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, > >> maybe rear camera and gps, etc. > > > You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP.ok maybe ARM9 performance not enough but why windows? could you please explain more?> > Unless, of course, you want your device to have a low enough COGS to both > sell and make money for your company. =A0 > > The above mentioned combination may be the best to _prototype_ the > product, but I wouldn't rule it in for the real product, particularly if > you're going to be shipping in high enough volumes to justify some > serious engineering. > > I doubt that you'll find one processor that does all that you want all by > itself. =A0The biggest driver to processing power that I can see is video,=> and even that is highly variable depending on what you want to do: > > * Are you going to stream video at all? =A0If everything else can go at > "GUI" speeds your processor can be modest. =A0This means that having that > rear-view camera is going to make an expensive step in your COGS. > > * Are you going to stream video through the processor? =A0I.e., can you ge=t> by with a chipset that hijacks part of the screen for video without > running the data through the processor, or are you going to do something > like use a USB or Firewire camera and have the processor fondle every > byte that goes through? > > * Are you going to decompress video in the processor? =A0Are you going to > be playing MPEG files and DVDs? =A0If _that's_ the case then maybe > Vladimir's Pentium is a candidate, although for a large production run > you could probably do better with a more modest 'main' processor that's > getting serious help from a DSP chip, an FPGA, an ASIC, or a dedicated > video decompresser (if such things exist these days).You are right this device should be cost-effective. I am not sure now that i will use what kind of camera. This device do not play any kind of video, there are only one video source and it is rear-view camera. If ARM9 not enough for handle video i can use ASIC for LCD driving and camera data streaming.> > I don't see anything in principal wrong with Linux -- I'm typing this > from a linux box that does just fine with video (in fact, I got it to > force me to learn linux for the day when I'd be writing for embedded > linux). =A0Then again, I don't see anything wrong with Windows in > principal, either. =A0I lean toward Linux for entirely emotional reasons: ==A0> it always pisses me off to have an OS salesman tell me (and my customer) > how easy it'll be to use, because I know that when I get down to brass > tacks I'll be seeing more of my customers money go down the drain, > through my time or one of their engineers', on OS deficits than was spent > on the OS in the first place. =A0So choosing Linux, VxWorks, Windows > Embedded, or any other OS should be based on your best guess of the > benefits of the OS for your application, taking all things into > consideration. >I have never use OS in embedded but i have research about it. I think linux is better choice with ARM9. Also if ARM9 not usable for this features what is your recommendation?> -- > Tim Wescott > Control systems and communications consultinghttp://www.wescottdesign.com > > Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system? > "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott > Elsevier/Newnes,http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
On Feb 25, 9:46 am, icegray <iceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:54:35 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > > > icegray wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > >> I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project > > >> details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, > > >> audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, > > >> maybe rear camera and gps, etc. > > > > You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. > > ok maybe ARM9 performance not enough but why windows? could you please > explain more? > > > > > > > Unless, of course, you want your device to have a low enough COGS to both > > sell and make money for your company. > > > The above mentioned combination may be the best to _prototype_ the > > product, but I wouldn't rule it in for the real product, particularly if > > you're going to be shipping in high enough volumes to justify some > > serious engineering. > > > I doubt that you'll find one processor that does all that you want all by > > itself. The biggest driver to processing power that I can see is video, > > and even that is highly variable depending on what you want to do: > > > * Are you going to stream video at all? If everything else can go at > > "GUI" speeds your processor can be modest. This means that having that > > rear-view camera is going to make an expensive step in your COGS. > > > * Are you going to stream video through the processor? I.e., can you get > > by with a chipset that hijacks part of the screen for video without > > running the data through the processor, or are you going to do something > > like use a USB or Firewire camera and have the processor fondle every > > byte that goes through? > > > * Are you going to decompress video in the processor? Are you going to > > be playing MPEG files and DVDs? If _that's_ the case then maybe > > Vladimir's Pentium is a candidate, although for a large production run > > you could probably do better with a more modest 'main' processor that's > > getting serious help from a DSP chip, an FPGA, an ASIC, or a dedicated > > video decompresser (if such things exist these days). > > You are right this device should be cost-effective. I am not sure now > that i will use what kind of camera. This device do not play any kind > of video, there are only one video source and it is rear-view camera. > If ARM9 not enough for handle video i can use ASIC for LCD driving and > camera data streaming. > > > > > I don't see anything in principal wrong with Linux -- I'm typing this > > from a linux box that does just fine with video (in fact, I got it to > > force me to learn linux for the day when I'd be writing for embedded > > linux). Then again, I don't see anything wrong with Windows in > > principal, either. I lean toward Linux for entirely emotional reasons: > > it always pisses me off to have an OS salesman tell me (and my customer) > > how easy it'll be to use, because I know that when I get down to brass > > tacks I'll be seeing more of my customers money go down the drain, > > through my time or one of their engineers', on OS deficits than was spent > > on the OS in the first place. So choosing Linux, VxWorks, Windows > > Embedded, or any other OS should be based on your best guess of the > > benefits of the OS for your application, taking all things into > > consideration. > > I have never use OS in embedded but i have research about it. I think > linux is better choice with ARM9. Also if ARM9 not usable for this > features what is your recommendation? >I use something similar for video capture and payback. My ideal linux board is a 1G Pentium III uATX board with SIS chip set (not VIA or Intel). It supports 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. 2.2 is important for me because certain features I need are not available in newer kernels which are Window-lized (getting too big). Newer PC boards don't work too well with 2.2. Actually, the board was a throw-away from someone "upgrading" to Vista. I would gladly "upgrade" your board free with newer one, if you have the right one I need.
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
On Feb 25, 10:52 am, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:> On Feb 25, 9:46 am, icegray <iceg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:54:35 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > > > > icegray wrote: > > > > >> Hi, > > > >> I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project > > > >> details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, > > > >> audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, > > > >> maybe rear camera and gps, etc. > > > > > You need a Pentium class industrial PC with WinCE or Embedded XP. > > > ok maybe ARM9 performance not enough but why windows? could you please > > explain more? > > > > Unless, of course, you want your device to have a low enough COGS to both > > > sell and make money for your company. > > > > The above mentioned combination may be the best to _prototype_ the > > > product, but I wouldn't rule it in for the real product, particularly if > > > you're going to be shipping in high enough volumes to justify some > > > serious engineering. > > > > I doubt that you'll find one processor that does all that you want all by > > > itself. The biggest driver to processing power that I can see is video, > > > and even that is highly variable depending on what you want to do: > > > > * Are you going to stream video at all? If everything else can go at > > > "GUI" speeds your processor can be modest. This means that having that > > > rear-view camera is going to make an expensive step in your COGS. > > > > * Are you going to stream video through the processor? I.e., can you get > > > by with a chipset that hijacks part of the screen for video without > > > running the data through the processor, or are you going to do something > > > like use a USB or Firewire camera and have the processor fondle every > > > byte that goes through? > > > > * Are you going to decompress video in the processor? Are you going to > > > be playing MPEG files and DVDs? If _that's_ the case then maybe > > > Vladimir's Pentium is a candidate, although for a large production run > > > you could probably do better with a more modest 'main' processor that's > > > getting serious help from a DSP chip, an FPGA, an ASIC, or a dedicated > > > video decompresser (if such things exist these days). > > > You are right this device should be cost-effective. I am not sure now > > that i will use what kind of camera. This device do not play any kind > > of video, there are only one video source and it is rear-view camera. > > If ARM9 not enough for handle video i can use ASIC for LCD driving and > > camera data streaming. > > > > I don't see anything in principal wrong with Linux -- I'm typing this > > > from a linux box that does just fine with video (in fact, I got it to > > > force me to learn linux for the day when I'd be writing for embedded > > > linux). Then again, I don't see anything wrong with Windows in > > > principal, either. I lean toward Linux for entirely emotional reasons: > > > it always pisses me off to have an OS salesman tell me (and my customer) > > > how easy it'll be to use, because I know that when I get down to brass > > > tacks I'll be seeing more of my customers money go down the drain, > > > through my time or one of their engineers', on OS deficits than was spent > > > on the OS in the first place. So choosing Linux, VxWorks, Windows > > > Embedded, or any other OS should be based on your best guess of the > > > benefits of the OS for your application, taking all things into > > > consideration. > > > I have never use OS in embedded but i have research about it. I think > > linux is better choice with ARM9. Also if ARM9 not usable for this > > features what is your recommendation? > > I use something similar for video capture and payback.Sorry, "playback" of course.> > My ideal linux board is a 1G Pentium III uATX board with SIS chip set > (not VIA or Intel). It supports 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. 2.2 is > important for me because certain features I need are not available in > newer kernels which are Window-lized (getting too big). Newer PC > boards don't work too well with 2.2. > > Actually, the board was a throw-away from someone "upgrading" to > Vista. I would gladly "upgrade" your board free with newer one, if > you have the right one I need.
Reply by ●February 25, 20082008-02-25
On Feb 25, 8:32=A0pm, icegray <iceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, > I am looking for cpu for a automotive infotainment project. Project > details are 800x600 lcd, graphical charts, graphical user interfaces, > audio (MP3 and Radio), CAN Bus communication, probably embedded linux, > maybe rear camera and gps, etc. > I have been using Renesas M16C series as 16 bit Microcontroller and I > need a powerfull 32bit CPU. I don't think use SuperH series because > ARM9 has a lot of documets and sources i think. Freescale MX9328MX21S > and Atmel SAM9263 or SAM9261 can better choices ? Could you please > share your experiences about this subject? > Thanks in advanceCheck TI OMAP and TI DaVinci Processors. They are excellent. Karthik Balaguru