Hi guys,
We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our existing
projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in field). But among
various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not completely given up on
the Rabbits.
A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board;
however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and 512K
RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new
product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with one
1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with DC (if at
all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would such a board
have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions have
their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries), in spite
of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Lix
Rabbit 4000/5000 and Large Amounts of Memory
Started by ●December 2, 2009
Reply by ●December 2, 20092009-12-02
What about the RCM5750 / RCM5760
1MB parallel flash (code)
512K SRAM + 2MB serial flash
- all depends on your write cycles and access speeds
http://www.rabbit.com/products/rcm5700/#specs (on the RHS)
MC
SL4P
From: r... [mailto:r...] On
Behalf Of lixpaulian
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:01
To: r...
Subject: [rabbit-semi] Rabbit 4000/5000 and Large Amounts of Memory
Hi guys,
We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our
existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in
field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not
completely given up on the Rabbits.
A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board;
however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and
512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new
product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with
one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with
DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would
such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions
have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries),
in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Lix
1MB parallel flash (code)
512K SRAM + 2MB serial flash
- all depends on your write cycles and access speeds
http://www.rabbit.com/products/rcm5700/#specs (on the RHS)
MC
SL4P
From: r... [mailto:r...] On
Behalf Of lixpaulian
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:01
To: r...
Subject: [rabbit-semi] Rabbit 4000/5000 and Large Amounts of Memory
Hi guys,
We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our
existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in
field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not
completely given up on the Rabbits.
A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board;
however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and
512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new
product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with
one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with
DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would
such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions
have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries),
in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Lix
Reply by ●December 2, 20092009-12-02
Thanks for the hint. Indeed, it looks like a good inspirational model. We could
use a hybrid of this series, i.e. a design with 1 MB flash, internal 128 KB RAM
(no external RAM) and 1 or 2 MB serial flash for storage. Speed is not important
to our application, on the contrary, low power is essential! We suspect R4000
would fit better in this scenario, that would mean however a 512 KB external RAM
(as R4000 has no internal RAM).
Lix
--- In r..., "Michael Coop \(SL4P\)" wrote:
>
> What about the RCM5750 / RCM5760
>
> 1MB parallel flash (code)
>
> 512K SRAM + 2MB serial flash
>
> - all depends on your write cycles and access speeds
>
>
>
> http://www.rabbit.com/products/rcm5700/#specs (on the RHS)
>
>
>
> MC
>
> SL4P
>
>
>
> From: r... [mailto:r...] On
> Behalf Of lixpaulian
> Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:01
> To: r...
> Subject: [rabbit-semi] Rabbit 4000/5000 and Large Amounts of Memory
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our
> existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in
> field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not
> completely given up on the Rabbits.
>
> A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board;
> however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and
> 512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new
> product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with
> one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with
> DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would
> such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
>
> ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions
> have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries),
> in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
>
> Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
>
> Lix
>
Lix
--- In r..., "Michael Coop \(SL4P\)" wrote:
>
> What about the RCM5750 / RCM5760
>
> 1MB parallel flash (code)
>
> 512K SRAM + 2MB serial flash
>
> - all depends on your write cycles and access speeds
>
>
>
> http://www.rabbit.com/products/rcm5700/#specs (on the RHS)
>
>
>
> MC
>
> SL4P
>
>
>
> From: r... [mailto:r...] On
> Behalf Of lixpaulian
> Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:01
> To: r...
> Subject: [rabbit-semi] Rabbit 4000/5000 and Large Amounts of Memory
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our
> existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in
> field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not
> completely given up on the Rabbits.
>
> A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board;
> however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and
> 512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new
> product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with
> one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with
> DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would
> such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
>
> ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions
> have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries),
> in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
>
> Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
>
> Lix
>
Reply by ●December 3, 20092009-12-03
Hi Lix,
I mention this because you have talked about ARM processors, and seem to be following the same route as us. Started with Rabbit but now use ARM on some products.
We still use Rabbits but use the Softools compiler (Which meant porting to ARM was much easier). For ARM we use NXP and Luminary Micro chips. The TCPIP stack we use is uTasker see www.utasker.com which seems to fit our needs very well (it is comercial but not $$$'s). The software support on uTasker is FANTASIC, second to none in my opinion.
I keep wondering if it would be worth porting uTasker to the Rabbit, using Softools?
Cheers
Martin
--- In r..., "lixpaulian" wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not completely given up on the Rabbits.
>
> A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board; however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and 512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
>
> ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries), in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
>
> Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
>
> Lix
>
I mention this because you have talked about ARM processors, and seem to be following the same route as us. Started with Rabbit but now use ARM on some products.
We still use Rabbits but use the Softools compiler (Which meant porting to ARM was much easier). For ARM we use NXP and Luminary Micro chips. The TCPIP stack we use is uTasker see www.utasker.com which seems to fit our needs very well (it is comercial but not $$$'s). The software support on uTasker is FANTASIC, second to none in my opinion.
I keep wondering if it would be worth porting uTasker to the Rabbit, using Softools?
Cheers
Martin
--- In r..., "lixpaulian" wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not completely given up on the Rabbits.
>
> A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board; however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and 512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
>
> ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries), in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
>
> Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
>
> Lix
>
Reply by ●December 10, 20092009-12-10
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the hint, I checked the uTasker web site, looks really interesting. I have some doubts on the documentation which looks far weaker than the Rabbit's (I mean library function descriptions etc.).
I don't think porting the uTasker to Rabbit is worth doing, ARM processsors are far better and some of the variants even cheaper than the Rabbit. There are so many of them, if Rabbit one day dies, your Rabbit project is in jeopardy too. Moreover, the ARM has a very elegant and strightforward architecture compared to the Rabbit. The sole advantage of the Rabbit is the rich library package that is delivered with Dynamic C (which in itself is a poor product in my opinion). Softools solve some problems, but you loose some of the libraries (I didn't check recently, but I am not sure that the uCos II has been ported to Softools).
Lix
--- In r..., "mhoneywill" wrote:
>
> Hi Lix,
>
> I mention this because you have talked about ARM processors, and seem to be following the same route as us. Started with Rabbit but now use ARM on some products.
>
> We still use Rabbits but use the Softools compiler (Which meant porting to ARM was much easier). For ARM we use NXP and Luminary Micro chips. The TCPIP stack we use is uTasker see www.utasker.com which seems to fit our needs very well (it is comercial but not $$$'s). The software support on uTasker is FANTASIC, second to none in my opinion.
>
> I keep wondering if it would be worth porting uTasker to the Rabbit, using Softools?
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin
>
> --- In r..., "lixpaulian" wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not completely given up on the Rabbits.
> >
> > A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board; however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and 512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
> >
> > ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries), in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
> >
> > Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Lix
>
Thanks for the hint, I checked the uTasker web site, looks really interesting. I have some doubts on the documentation which looks far weaker than the Rabbit's (I mean library function descriptions etc.).
I don't think porting the uTasker to Rabbit is worth doing, ARM processsors are far better and some of the variants even cheaper than the Rabbit. There are so many of them, if Rabbit one day dies, your Rabbit project is in jeopardy too. Moreover, the ARM has a very elegant and strightforward architecture compared to the Rabbit. The sole advantage of the Rabbit is the rich library package that is delivered with Dynamic C (which in itself is a poor product in my opinion). Softools solve some problems, but you loose some of the libraries (I didn't check recently, but I am not sure that the uCos II has been ported to Softools).
Lix
--- In r..., "mhoneywill" wrote:
>
> Hi Lix,
>
> I mention this because you have talked about ARM processors, and seem to be following the same route as us. Started with Rabbit but now use ARM on some products.
>
> We still use Rabbits but use the Softools compiler (Which meant porting to ARM was much easier). For ARM we use NXP and Luminary Micro chips. The TCPIP stack we use is uTasker see www.utasker.com which seems to fit our needs very well (it is comercial but not $$$'s). The software support on uTasker is FANTASIC, second to none in my opinion.
>
> I keep wondering if it would be worth porting uTasker to the Rabbit, using Softools?
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin
>
> --- In r..., "lixpaulian" wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > We are evaluating several solutions for a new iteration of one of our existing projects (over 1000 units based on the RCM3100 are already in field). But among various ARM7/9 solutions we are evaluating, we have not completely given up on the Rabbits.
> >
> > A possible solution would be to use the R4000 on a custom designed board; however, based on the current application it is obvious that 512K FLASH and 512K RAM won't do it for the next 4 to 5 years estimated life of the new product, therefore my question: if we would design a board with a R4000 with one 1MB FLASH chip and one 1 MB SRAM (or 2x512KB), how would this fit with DC (if at all)? what about SysID Block and User Block? what board ID would such a board have? etc. there is no equivalent board/module from Rabbit.
> >
> > ARM based solutions have many advantages, but the Rabbit based solutions have their own (e.g. very compact code, rich set of royalty-free libraries), in spite of many shortcomings (in fact the worst is DC itself!).
> >
> > Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Lix
>
Reply by ●December 12, 20092009-12-12
>
>Posted by: "lixpaulian" Re%3A%20Rabbit%204000%2F5000%20and%20Large%20Amounts%20of%20Memory>l...@metrilog.at
>lixpaulian
>
>Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:18 am (PST)
>
>[...] Softools solve some problems, but you loose some of the
>libraries (I didn't check recently, but I am not sure that the uCos
>II has been ported to Softools).
Yes, there is a u/C-OS II Rabbit 3000 port. It was done some 8 years ago.
Bill
>Posted by: "lixpaulian" Re%3A%20Rabbit%204000%2F5000%20and%20Large%20Amounts%20of%20Memory>l...@metrilog.at
>lixpaulian
>
>Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:18 am (PST)
>
>[...] Softools solve some problems, but you loose some of the
>libraries (I didn't check recently, but I am not sure that the uCos
>II has been ported to Softools).
Yes, there is a u/C-OS II Rabbit 3000 port. It was done some 8 years ago.
Bill
Reply by ●December 13, 20092009-12-13
> Thanks for the hint, I checked the uTasker web site,
looks really >interesting. I have some doubts on the documentation which looks
far >weaker than the Rabbit's (I mean library function descriptions
etc.).
I Agree the documentation is not as comprehensive as Rabbits but it is good. See this link for a number of documents.
http://www.utasker.com/docs/documentation.html
Also the forum proves to be very good with the developer reponding usually the same day, to even newbie questions. I can't underplay the value of this support to me.
http://www.utasker.com/forum
>I don't think porting the uTasker to Rabbit is worth doing, ARM >processsors are far better and some of the variants even cheaper >than the Rabbit.
I think having a port would not be in Rabbits interest as it would them make porting applications to another architecture (ARM) much easier. uTasker is written in Ansi C so should port relativly easily. But would require Softools as I think DC would just cause too many problems.
>The sole advantage of the Rabbit is the rich library package that is >delivered with Dynamic C (which in itself is a poor product in my >opinion).
Mine Too, its basically the TCPIP stack that interested me, and uTasker handles that elegantly for me. Also some of the DC libraries are badly written and have assembler sections that make them unportable.
>Softools solves some problems, but you loose some of the libraries
That is true, but most of our code is custom apart from the TCPIP stack
Have fun which ever path you choose
Cheers
Martin
I Agree the documentation is not as comprehensive as Rabbits but it is good. See this link for a number of documents.
http://www.utasker.com/docs/documentation.html
Also the forum proves to be very good with the developer reponding usually the same day, to even newbie questions. I can't underplay the value of this support to me.
http://www.utasker.com/forum
>I don't think porting the uTasker to Rabbit is worth doing, ARM >processsors are far better and some of the variants even cheaper >than the Rabbit.
I think having a port would not be in Rabbits interest as it would them make porting applications to another architecture (ARM) much easier. uTasker is written in Ansi C so should port relativly easily. But would require Softools as I think DC would just cause too many problems.
>The sole advantage of the Rabbit is the rich library package that is >delivered with Dynamic C (which in itself is a poor product in my >opinion).
Mine Too, its basically the TCPIP stack that interested me, and uTasker handles that elegantly for me. Also some of the DC libraries are badly written and have assembler sections that make them unportable.
>Softools solves some problems, but you loose some of the libraries
That is true, but most of our code is custom apart from the TCPIP stack
Have fun which ever path you choose
Cheers
Martin
