On Jul 17, 8:10 pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 16, 7:23 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote: > > > We are moving off the 169 purely for cost reason. Our new uC (6502) > > is 75% off, but it's difficult to port the hardware/software. The 169 > > Energy metering project? (That's what the mega169/329/649 were > designed for).There are many potential use for the LCD uC, most of them measure battery energy anyway.> Are you using one of the 6502 variants e.g. from Sunplus,Many ASIC houses here are capable of 8052, PIC and 6502 IP cores with LCD controller. 6502 is a popular one.> intended for toy use? Just out of interest, what's your cost > target? We moved to the mega169 because it's significantly under $1.Keep moving and let's keep talking 50 cents for OTP version (10s). 20 cents for ROM version (25K). 10 cents for high volume ROM (100K).> > > By the way, our new uC will be die-bounded Chip-On-Board One-Time- > > Programmable. Atmel is certainly capable of providing COG and OTP, > > but unwilling to do so. > > I can't see that an OTP version of the mega169 would really be cheaper > - since it's not a standard part, there would be big NREs.I am currently in the wrong (left) side of the Pacific. Over here, Flash uCs are for prototypes only. OTP is for low volume and ROM for high volume.
AVR, polling INT0 IRQ bit - help?
Started by ●July 10, 2008
Reply by ●July 17, 20082008-07-17