New poll for lpc2000

Started by lpc2...@yahoogroups.com June 16, 2004

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
lpc2000 group:

Assuming you can define the next member
of the LPC2000 family. To some degree I
can :-) Your inputs on the most needed
peripherals or functions would be
greatly appreciated. You can select
multiple options from the list below.
Robert

o Ethernet MAC (10/100)
o USB 2.0 Full Speed (12)
o USB2.0 High Speed (480)
o General purpose DMA
o Boundary SCAN
o Combination 512k F + 32k SRAM
o Combination 256k F + 32k SRAM
o Combination 64k F + 8k SRAM
o Second ADC (8 channels each)
o Dedicated DAC (10-bit)
o Internal RC-oscillator 2% accuracy
o Brown-Out detect
o SDRAM interface
o LCD-Controller
o Byte programmable EEPROM
o 80 MHz execution (0 WS)
o 32 KHz clock for RTC (Real-Time-Clock)
o less than 500 uA while RTC running
o less than 10 uA while RTC running
o I2S interface To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/surveys?id799512

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!



An Engineer's Guide to the LPC2100 Series

The temptation is to tick them all....but I limited myself most of all
to the MAC option. Given that the LPC is very much orientated to
minimalistic applications, it would be nice if this could be coupled
with a minimalistic TCP/IP stack implementation which limits itself to
a basic UDP packet send/recieve facility.



I would like to see programmable pull-up resistors, programmable load
current on outputs (just like FPGA's) and ofcause internal 1.8V regulator
the real time clock should be embedded in such as way that it has its own
crystal oscillator and can run with the processor in total sleep mode !
and have a possibility to wake the processor up ... everything else is
totally useless (RTC wise) !

more Uarts are always wellcome ...an embedded TCPIP stack something like
www.gm862.com that could work with PPP over the full modem interface or
through a memory map connected to an ethernet device would be great but
probertly way out of line :) thats just some of the things i had in mind

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: hodgejackiehank [mailto:]
Sendt: 17. juni 2004 11:43
Til:
Emne: [lpc2000] Re: New poll for lpc2000 The temptation is to tick them all....but I limited myself most of all
to the MAC option. Given that the LPC is very much orientated to
minimalistic applications, it would be nice if this could be coupled
with a minimalistic TCP/IP stack implementation which limits itself to
a basic UDP packet send/recieve facility. Yahoo! Groups Links





>
> more Uarts are always wellcome ...an embedded TCPIP stack something like
> www.gm862.com that could work with PPP over the full modem interface or
> through a memory map connected to an ethernet device would be great but
> probertly way out of line :)
>

Dallas have an embedded MAC with onboard code in one of thier high
speed 8051's. I have an evaluation board and it is neat in hardware
terms but programming and performance is far from sufficient!



This thread has become something of a wish list and although I would
probably add my 3 wishes to the list I guess there is a question we
could all ask ourselves. What would make me actually consider anything
other than a 2000 for a particular project? The 2000 line has to be a
competitive line for Philips, it does not matter if it were a great chip
or a throwback (take your pic), as long as it was good business.

Anyway, I could answer that question very quickly, it would be Ethernet
and USB (along with DMA). These are two devices which if implemented
externally would complicate what could of been a clean solution. At
present I must either choose something like Atmel or OKI, or else an
external bus 2000 coupled to these peripherals. Personally, I'd like to
stick to the 2000 line and what better incentive would there be then if
Uncle Phil could cook up some hot chips served along with the Mayonnaise
(Dutch thing).

Something else that whilst it does not seem as important does severely
curtail the use of the 2000 as a more general-purpose micro. This has
been brought up before and it is the I/O speed. Yeah, despite all those
yummy peripherals we still need to bit-bang sometimes, the faster the
better. This would mean little if the 2000 did not have an efficient
manner in which to execute these operations either and this has been
covered also.

When it comes to regulators and brownout reset circuits it is always
advantageous to have these incorporated on the device. But failing that
why can't Philips come out with a nice little dual regulator perhaps in
combo with the reset circuit. The use of LM117s in SOT-22(many)3 packs
is seemingly out of step with the low-power and size of the 2000. Yes,
TI have some nice regs which I have used, yet Philips can and really
should provide what amounts to companion chips that form part of the
product family.

When it comes to more UARTs, ADCs, etc., well, where do you draw the
line? I know I could use more UARTs but there are ways around this like
chaining multiple devices together over the SPI or I2C bus. But Uncle
Phil mentioned I2S and that caught my attention. I'd like to do audio
work with an ARM and what better way than to have a simple connection to
what are typically DSP peripherals.

As for the rest, well;

* Boundary Scan
Don't need it

* Combo Flash and RAM
Maybe less rather than more because that would also mean cheaper and
so I could replace my little micros as well with an LPC2002??!!!

* EEPROM
Would be nice but I can do this with external I2C devices easily.
Maybe the internal Flash could have a couple of small independent pages
perhaps?

* SDRAM, LCD, 80MHz
This is not the market for the 2000 now although it may become that.
There are plenty of manufacturers out there doing this now with ARM.

* Low and micro-power

This is always hard to define properly as to what is acceptable.
Sometimes it is fine if the whole chip is halted and oscillators stopped
as long as it can be woken up with a GPIO input change. Other times we
want to keep some power hungry peripheral active (Uart, Ethernet) and
have the unused sections sleep. Others want 32KHz RTC operation. Having
an on-board RC oscillator is prepatory to any low-power (and watchdog)
considerations. Stability, at least in the short-term vs accuracy is
more important in this regard. The RC oscillator can be calibrated
against the cystal allowing the crystal oscillator to be shut-down so
that timing can be maintained for some peripherals. Good or bad, at
least an RC watchdog circuit can wake-up the rest of the chip.

my2cents

--
Peter Jakacki



Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
lpc2000 group:

What would you like to add to LPC2104
(48 pins 16K RAM). You can make
multiple selection.

o 4 channel ADC
o Ultimate code protection No JTAG. I can use a higher pin count part in development phase.
o 1 CAN channel
o 2 CAN Channel
o 256K Flash To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/surveys?id830456

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!




Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
lpc2000 group:

What was your previous microcontroller?

o Atmel AVR
o 8051 8 or 16bits
o Microchip PICmicro
o Ubicom Scenix
o Parallax Basic Stamp
o Motorola HCseries
o Renesas
o TI MSP430
o Zilog Z80
o Other To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/surveys?id903164

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!




Hi,

given the nature of the LPC2000 family there are some other
architectures missing such as the ST10 / C166 from ST/Infineon, the
Mitsubishi M16, the Motorola / Freescale HC08 / Super 12 and last but
not least "other ARM devices".

Given that the ARM7 and in particular the LPC2000 family often gets
compared to the 51 of the 32-bit world, it is no surprise that many
user previously used a 51 derivative.

I am not sure but I think you can still update the poll.

Cheers, Bob

--- In , wrote:
>
>
> Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> lpc2000 group:
>
> What was your previous microcontroller?
>
> o Atmel AVR
> o 8051 8 or 16bits
> o Microchip PICmicro
> o Ubicom Scenix
> o Parallax Basic Stamp
> o Motorola HCseries
> o Renesas
> o TI MSP430
> o Zilog Z80
> o Other > To vote, please visit the following web page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/surveys?id903164
>
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
> web site listed above.
>
> Thanks!