Looking for suggestions for processor/module/sbc with ethernet

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:56:54 +1200, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
[...]
>> A top of the range 8051 seems to be prone to poor longevity. 
>
>Examples ?

They're not around anymore! ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist.  I don't know enough to either agree or
disagree with Stephen.  All I know is that every time I submit an 8051
derivative as a candidate for a new project, it never makes it past
the "Purchasing getting quotes" stage -- always too expensive.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Casey <cclremovethispart@cox.net> wrote:
> Pete Fenelon said...
>> Stephen <spambox42@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> > We are currently considering either a fast top of the range 8051, the
>> > C166/167, or the Rabbit 3000 modules, but all of which have "issues".
>> > 
>> > A top of the range 8051 seems to be prone to poor longevity. Not currently
>> > sure about the longevity of a C166 or the availability of non-royalty
>> > TCP/IP or how widely used the C166 is.
>> 
>> The C166 is a dead duck, the 161/3/4/7 are viable and fairly popular
>> especially in automotive. Quite nice parts, although Infineon seem to
>> have some problems with Flash.
> 
> I used the C165 for years and squeezed the most I could out of it.  I 
> managed to get it to do an awful lot in 125 usecs and I'm rather fond 
> of it.
> 

Didn't mean to exclude the 165, just haven't come across it. My
intention was to say that the 166, which isn't binary-compatible with
the rest of the family (various SFRs move, for a start, and I recall
there being some differences in the interrupt model) is a bit of a
ginger-haired stepchild as far as the 16x family is concerned...

XC16x looks interesting, too....

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

Pete Fenelon said...
> Casey <cclremovethispart@cox.net> wrote:
> > Pete Fenelon said...
> >> Stephen <spambox42@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > We are currently considering either a fast top of the range 8051, the
> >> > C166/167, or the Rabbit 3000 modules, but all of which have "issues".
> >> > 
> >> > A top of the range 8051 seems to be prone to poor longevity. Not currently
> >> > sure about the longevity of a C166 or the availability of non-royalty
> >> > TCP/IP or how widely used the C166 is.
> >> 
> >> The C166 is a dead duck, the 161/3/4/7 are viable and fairly popular
> >> especially in automotive. Quite nice parts, although Infineon seem to
> >> have some problems with Flash.
> > 
> > I used the C165 for years and squeezed the most I could out of it.  I 
> > managed to get it to do an awful lot in 125 usecs and I'm rather fond 
> > of it.
> 
> Didn't mean to exclude the 165, just haven't come across it. 

Actually I didn't even realize you excluded it ... shows how much 
attention I was paying.  As you know, the 165 is right in there with 
the 167 and the others.  More than anything, I was bemoaning the fact 
that Infineon never jumped on the ethernet bandwagon with any of those 
parts.

> My
> intention was to say that the 166, which isn't binary-compatible with
> the rest of the family (various SFRs move, for a start, and I recall
> there being some differences in the interrupt model) is a bit of a
> ginger-haired stepchild as far as the 16x family is concerned...

True - the 166 seemed to be a dead duck fairly soon - the 167 should 
have killed it outright but didn't somehow.

 
> XC16x looks interesting, too....

Sure does - just wish it had ethernet ....


Casey

Stephen <spambox42@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>I'm looking for suggestions for an embedded microcontroller (processor,
>module or SBC all under consideration). I don't necessarily expect to get
>everything on one chip or module, we will be supplying our own motherboard
>either way, but the more we can get from the cpu/module then the less we
>need on the motherboard. The ideal list of requirements are roughly:

Thanks for all the various suggestions and comments. Would have got back
sooner but we've been very busy in meetings and checking out all the
various processors and modules! Rather than respond with lots of
separate messages I'll just snip various bits into this one and reply
singly.

We're still considering these and numerous other options, but due to
some timescale and resourcing limitations we seem to be heading down the
route of a more complete module rather than picking our favourite cpu
(of which there are plenty that would suffice) and doing it all
ourselves. We're also strongly tempted, for the right price, to make a
move to a more powerful platform (we've been joking for quite a few
years now that we need to replace some of our existing 8-bitters with an
ARM!). This would enable us to use the same platform for all models in
some of the ranges rather than the split platforms we were considering.


Chon Tang wrote:
>The "ideal" board I have in mind for you would be our R-Engine-L
>controller, a 16-bit 186-generation single-board controller
>integrating many of the features you specify.

We've definitely bookmarked your site for future use. If we don't end up
using one of your boards on this job, I'm sure they will be very strong
contenders for some of the other stuff which is coming up soon. Myself
or more likely my client's technical director will very probably be in
touch to get more info and negotiate prices.


Dave Hansen wrote:
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> A top of the range 8051 seems to be prone to poor longevity. 
>>Examples ?
>They're not around anymore! ;-)

Exactly :-) I'm not going to try and remember a full list - we were
lucky and managed to avoid designing in some of the 8051s which did
disappear too quickly (Dallas and Siemens I think) but we are currently
redesigning a product using the Infineon/Siemens SAB80C537 (although in
fairness we did get an acceptable number of years from it) and now we're
also going to be forced to redesign its more recent sister product which
is using the Infineon C509 (top of the range in my terminology, not
necessarily from raw performance, but the amount of onboard toys and the
79 I/O pins (which we extended to about 104 with a CPLD which has now
also gone EOL!!)).


Brian Murtha wrote:
>It would be ashame if you wrote Rabbit off so quickly considering how
>closely the processor fits the needs you specified. I suggest buying
>an RCM3300 dev kit and trying it first. If you prefer the Softools
>compiler, there is a free, full, time-limited demo version available.

Thanks for that info. We do like many aspects of the R3000. We have
actually got a RCM3200 dev kit here and I was once-upon-a-time a total
z80 boffin so I have familiarity with the technology, but based upon
various aspects of our requirements we feel that it's a bit too close a
call on whether the rabbit will cope with our base level product and
certainly not the top level one (which is already crying out for a 32
bitter) and if we can work the pricing we're now considering the
benefits of having (for the first time) much more processing power and
memory which will enable sales and marketing to come back once the unit
is selling and demand all the extra toys they want added which we've
always had to reject in the past.

However, having spent some time looking at the rabbits for the past
month, we're virtually certain we will be using them extensively in the
other product in our system which is up for redesign next year hopefully
(due to reasons other than 8051 obsolescence this time! but yes Jim, it
is an 8051, but not a top of the range one, hence the reason why it's
probably still around after 8 years :-)). This other application is
probably more in line with a more "typical" rabbit system in terms of
performance and memory requirements and as such the rabbit is perfectly
suited.


Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions.

One of the other things we've found on our travels and are also
investigating is the AMD Alchemy 1100 based Aurora board from
www.dspdesign.com

Does anyone have any good/bad comments about this company, their
products, or the AMD part?

Stephen

Stephen wrote:
<snip>
> Exactly :-) I'm not going to try and remember a full list - we were
> lucky and managed to avoid designing in some of the 8051s which did
> disappear too quickly (Dallas and Siemens I think) but we are currently
> redesigning a product using the Infineon/Siemens SAB80C537 (although in
> fairness we did get an acceptable number of years from it) and now we're
> also going to be forced to redesign its more recent sister product which
> is using the Infineon C509 (top of the range in my terminology, not
> necessarily from raw performance, but the amount of onboard toys and the
> 79 I/O pins (which we extended to about 104 with a CPLD which has now
> also gone EOL!!)).

  My understanding was the SAB80C537 became the SAB80C517A which then 
became the SAF-C517A - and that device has part numbers still in current 
production ?
  Certainly, for a clean sheet design, they may not be your first 
choice, but I think you can still continue production.

  Since the 80C517 dates from the late 80's, that's actually a pretty 
impressive design life!

  Their web site has this selector guide, April 2004,
http://www.infineon.com/cmc_upload/documents/008/002/MC_8-bit_Produktmatrix_042004.pdf
which I think shows what Infineon still consider 'active' products.

  They do favour the OTP variants, over the external memory models, tho
for a brand new design, you might choose a SiLabs FLASH device, or the
STm uPSD33xx devices, which have mostly superset resource relative to 
the Infineon variants, and they are flash with In System Debug.
-jg