Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #31461
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? |
| Date | 2022-12-23 01:40 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <to30tr$2j$1@reader2.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <c0dc506e-e26c-4629-8971-65432f8dcf15n@googlegroups.com> <to1mha$1cndn$1@dont-email.me> <to1uj8$75d$1@reader2.panix.com> <to2g9j$1f3ks$3@dont-email.me> |
On 2022-12-22, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 22/12/2022 16:54, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2022-12-22, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> You are maybe thinking of the TMS320F family of DSP/MCU's from TI. >>> These have a traditional DSP-style processor core - 16-bit "char" >>> (no 8-bit byte access at all), gruesome assembly where each >>> instruction does several different things in a single cycle, >>> multiple memory buses for simultaneous accesses, hardware support >>> for cyclic buffers, FFT twiddling, etc. >> >> IIRC, branches were also delayed. > > If you say so - I don't remember. (Delayed branches are not uncommon in > processors designed for single-cycle instruction throughput - they are > also found in several RISC architectures.) > >> The later 320's (C30/C40 and on) were all 32-bit (in C: char, int, >> long int, float, double were all "one byte" which contained >> 32-bits). And the floating point format wasn't IEEE. > > I did not know they were part of the TMS320F family, though I know Texas > Instruments made other DSP's with 32-bit "char". Ah, I overlooked the "F" in your original post. I don't remember any F parts. Interestingly the Wikipedia page on TMS320 doesn't mention the F parts at all. I did find this page abouit the TMS320F28335, but it's a 32-bit part also: https://www.ti.com/product/TMS320F28335 -- Grant
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 09:30 -0800
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-22 14:36 +0100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-22 15:54 +0000
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-22 21:56 +0100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-23 01:40 +0000
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-23 09:38 +0100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2022-12-22 19:45 +0200
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 11:57 -0800
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2022-12-22 22:24 +0200
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-22 22:03 +0100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 17:11 -0800
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-23 10:48 +0100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 03:44 -0800
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2022-12-22 22:31 -0800
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 00:14 -0800
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-23 10:54 +0100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2023-01-17 12:15 +1100
Re: DSP like MCUs, or MCU like DSPs? dalai lamah <antonio12358@hotmail.com> - 2022-12-23 15:07 +0100
csiph-web