Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #24428 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-28 18:55 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-07-31 22:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:55 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 11:24 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 11:45 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-06-29 12:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-06-29 12:59 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-29 17:13 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:32 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-06-29 16:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:06 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:28 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:11 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 23:44 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-01 20:17 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:42 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-03 00:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:08 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-03 08:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-01 13:33 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:32 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-01 14:49 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:52 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:54 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 22:14 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:18 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-07-01 18:48 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:04 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:07 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:17 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:34 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-06-29 14:45 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-06-29 12:24 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:09 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:19 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:48 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:49 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-18 17:02 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-18 20:29 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-07-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-19 20:23 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-19 14:27 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:46 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:10 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-25 20:11 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-22 23:01 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:15 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-07-25 23:54 +0100
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-25 23:18 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:44 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-16 17:58 +0100
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 17:28 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:43 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-26 20:12 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 21:30 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-07-27 07:25 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:53 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-28 01:51 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 02:50 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 03:27 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 12:58 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-28 00:03 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> - 2016-07-28 10:19 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-29 14:52 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:19 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:03 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 17:11 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:54 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 09:45 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 22:17 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 22:28 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-08-02 23:14 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 18:05 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip kristoff <kristoff@skypro.be> - 2016-07-30 18:15 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 12:29 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 15:04 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2016-07-28 14:07 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-28 20:10 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:08 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:49 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 00:30 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-28 20:13 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:23 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:06 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 13:55 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 09:12 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:22 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 10:26 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:38 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 10:49 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:56 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 19:21 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 02:47 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-07-31 18:54 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 20:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 03:42 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 21:05 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 04:38 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-07-31 22:39 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 07:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2f6hpbpm1s02t4a9l4polr45otiui9fthi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24724 |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:12:24 -0400, the renowned krw@attt.bizz wrote: > >Sure. There are better alternatives. > >New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >development. Go figure. The sessions at their summer program include AVR and Cortex M7. I'm optimistic (don't care that much about AVR but some folks do). --sp -- Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition: http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 19:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3iipbpjh9jqnd2sf62idoe0od7m8liite@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24730 |
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:25:22 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:12:24 -0400, the renowned krw@attt.bizz wrote: > >> >>Sure. There are better alternatives. >> >>New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>development. Go figure. > >The sessions at their summer program include AVR and Cortex M7. They know they have a lot of "trapped" AVR customers. Again, I can't imagine anyone choosing it today, unless they had a lot of investment (or inertia) they were protecting. >I'm optimistic (don't care that much about AVR but some folks do). We dumped the AVR a couple of years ago. ...but there is an argument to be made that we jumped on the M7 a little too quickly. We probably couldn't have done it at all if we waited until "it was ready", though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wpk68nu4.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24738 |
krw@attt.bizz writes: > They know they have a lot of "trapped" AVR customers. Again, I can't > imagine anyone choosing it today, unless they had a lot of investment > (or inertia) they were protecting. I'm just a software geek but the AVR looks pretty versatile to me and I know that lots of hardware folks like it. Yeah I suppose there's inertia. Still don't know what you're advising instead. You mentioned the Cortex M7 but that's at a completely different level of cost and complexity. The M0 is closer, but I don't know of any M0 (or other ARM) parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 01:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnc9n8$hoj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24739 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > krw@attt.bizz writes: >> They know they have a lot of "trapped" AVR customers. Again, I can't >> imagine anyone choosing it today, unless they had a lot of investment >> (or inertia) they were protecting. > > I'm just a software geek but the AVR looks pretty versatile to me and I > know that lots of hardware folks like it. Yeah I suppose there's > inertia. It's not *bad*, but my experience is that the same part number may not be 100% compatible with older revisions later on. If you have something with a 5-year lifespan, could be a problem. > Still don't know what you're advising instead. You mentioned > the Cortex M7 but that's at a completely different level of cost and > complexity. The M0 is closer, but I don't know of any M0 (or other ARM) > parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's. > There are a lot of choices. ARM Mx, PICxx. PICxx has many of the same single-source problems as AVR, but I've never caught them in the same "new revs are different" trap as with AVR. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 02:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnc9vc$hmo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24742 |
On 7/28/2016 2:51 AM, Les Cargill wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> krw@attt.bizz writes: >>> They know they have a lot of "trapped" AVR customers. Again, I can't >>> imagine anyone choosing it today, unless they had a lot of investment >>> (or inertia) they were protecting. >> >> I'm just a software geek but the AVR looks pretty versatile to me and I >> know that lots of hardware folks like it. Yeah I suppose there's >> inertia. > > It's not *bad*, but my experience is that the same part number may not > be 100% compatible with older revisions later on. If you have something > with a 5-year lifespan, could be a problem. > >> Still don't know what you're advising instead. You mentioned >> the Cortex M7 but that's at a completely different level of cost and >> complexity. The M0 is closer, but I don't know of any M0 (or other ARM) >> parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's. >> > > There are a lot of choices. ARM Mx, PICxx. PICxx has many of the same > single-source problems as AVR, but I've never caught them in the same > "new revs are different" trap as with AVR. You are saying Atmel would change the functionality of a part in production? That's pretty bad! -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raimond.dragomir@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 03:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d75fdacd-fdd7-4357-9757-509f6673c085@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24743 |
> You are saying Atmel would change the functionality of a part in > production? That's pretty bad! There were some cases of early EOLs, but I think they were prior 2000 in the first years of the AVR. Now the family is stable. I know chips older than 10 years which I suspect we'll also see in the next 10 years... I'm also not aware of any EOL in the recent years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 12:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnddj8$71h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24747 |
On 7/28/2016 6:27 AM, raimond.dragomir@gmail.com wrote: > >> You are saying Atmel would change the functionality of a part in >> production? That's pretty bad! > > There were some cases of early EOLs, but I think they were prior 2000 > in the first years of the AVR. Now the family is stable. I know > chips older than 10 years which I suspect we'll also see in the next 10 > years... > I'm also not aware of any EOL in the recent years. I believe in nearly every case there was a pin compatible replacement with very minor differences. They didn't just kill a part and leave customers hanging in the wind. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87shuu8csf.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24742 |
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > There are a lot of choices. ARM Mx, PICxx. PICxx has many of the same > single-source problems as AVR, but I've never caught them in the same > "new revs are different" trap as with AVR. The smaller PICs seem horrible to program. AVR and ARM at least have decent gcc-based tool chains. As mentioned, I don't know of ARM parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). ARMs also seem more complex to program than AVR (e.g. in terms of the stuff required on startup) but maybe that's my imagination. I was a fan of the TI MSP430 line for a while, since it has a nicer cpu architecture and some unique features, but again the available parts don't have the configuration and packaging options that the AVRs do. Plus, I think recent ARMs have surpassed the 430's in power efficiency despite being 32 bits wide instead of 16. TI itself seems to be moving away from the 430 line towards the Cortex M4.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 10:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nncm7n$j9g$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> |
| In reply to | #24744 |
In comp.arch.embedded Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: ... > decent gcc-based tool chains. As mentioned, I don't know of ARM parts > directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for > breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). ARMs also seem more > complex to program than AVR (e.g. in terms of the stuff required on > startup) but maybe that's my imagination. Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for debugging, communication and file upload... -- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 1623569 ------- Fax. 06151 1623305 ---------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87oa5g863b.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24746 |
Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: > Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for > debugging, communication and file upload... Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 02:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnhgu6$qe2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24756 |
On 7/29/2016 5:52 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for >> debugging, communication and file upload... > > Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that > particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really > in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in > the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, > and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+. I'm not sure what you mean about this. There are plenty of ARMs available for under $2. If you are just making a few of some design why do you care about such a small cost? If you are making a lot of something, why would you want a DIP package? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 20:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f1gqpb5g6oa11qfqh0c4qfcf7ud3dk9oju@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24757 |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 02:19:48 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 7/29/2016 5:52 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >>> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for >>> debugging, communication and file upload... >> >> Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that >> particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really >> in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in >> the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, >> and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+. > >I'm not sure what you mean about this. There are plenty of ARMs >available for under $2. (Well) Under $1. >If you are just making a few of some design why >do you care about such a small cost? If you are making a lot of >something, why would you want a DIP package? Excellent points.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87fuqq8y4o.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24760 |
krw@attt.bizz writes: >>There are plenty of ARMs available for under $2. > (Well) Under $1. Can you suggest any specific part numbers? Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 20:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cviqpb59b7mt4qj5cglaebs9ofih459lvl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24762 |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:11:35 -0700, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >krw@attt.bizz writes: >>>There are plenty of ARMs available for under $2. >> (Well) Under $1. > >Can you suggest any specific part numbers? Thanks. Atmel M0s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 09:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnmumb$lbn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24762 |
On 31/07/16 02:11, Paul Rubin wrote: > krw@attt.bizz writes: >>> There are plenty of ARMs available for under $2. >> (Well) Under $1. > > Can you suggest any specific part numbers? Thanks. > There are Kinetis (Freescale, now NXP) M0+ devices for $0.50 or so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r3a85njt.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24782 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > There are Kinetis (Freescale, now NXP) M0+ devices for $0.50 or so. Yes this is true. What I don't know is of any specific ones with capabilities similar to the more popular AVR's (on-chip eeprom is one such feature that seems hard to find). It's also the case (I suppose this would count as "inertia") that at least at the moment, there's lots of little development boards with interesting functions, that use the AVR and don't seem to have ARM counterparts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raimond.dragomir@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e6c04cf-8a1e-4f18-a4a4-a61c8a2f3f18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24783 |
luni, 1 august 2016, 21:53:05 UTC+3, Paul Rubin a scris: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > > There are Kinetis (Freescale, now NXP) M0+ devices for $0.50 or so. > > Yes this is true. What I don't know is of any specific ones with > capabilities similar to the more popular AVR's (on-chip eeprom is one > such feature that seems hard to find). It's also the case (I suppose > this would count as "inertia") that at least at the moment, there's lots > of little development boards with interesting functions, that use the > AVR and don't seem to have ARM counterparts. Kinetis KE devices are 5V and have 256 bytes eeprom. The eeprom can be enough for many applications, but it is indeed smaller than the AVR's. They are also rated at 6kV ESD in the datasheet. This is quite high, AVR's are somewhere around 4kV, STM32 and Silabs devices are regular 2kV. I re-designed a board which had an atmega8, with a STM32 M0 device (a STM32F030 variant). That board just didn't work in that environment (very noisy industrial). I was forced to revert to the poor AVR....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 22:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87mvkv68oj.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24784 |
raimond.dragomir@gmail.com writes: > Kinetis KE devices are 5V and have 256 bytes eeprom. The eeprom can be > enough for many applications, but it is indeed smaller than the AVR's. No prob about it being smaller. For most uses I've thought of, a few dozen bytes is plenty, but 0 bytes limits some applications. > They are also rated at 6kV ESD in the datasheet. This is quite > high,... Hmm, I hadn't even thought of that issue. Another thing someone mentioned about avr's is that the gpio pins can source (or maybe just sink) quite a lot of current, like 40mA. That has to be good for something. On the other hand, the idle power consumption of the common avr's is quite a lot higher than I expected, if I'm reading this right: https://github.com/manitou48/DUEZoo/blob/master/power.txt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raimond.dragomir@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d152d04-cee5-4569-82ab-53927797ea6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24785 |
marți, 2 august 2016, 08:28:47 UTC+3, Paul Rubin a scris: > raimond.dragomir@gmail.com writes: > > Kinetis KE devices are 5V and have 256 bytes eeprom. The eeprom can be > > enough for many applications, but it is indeed smaller than the AVR's. > > No prob about it being smaller. For most uses I've thought of, a few > dozen bytes is plenty, but 0 bytes limits some applications. Yes indeed. Although, depending on the internal flash technology and provided interface to the user, one can emulate a eeprom. I'm doing this on STM32F030 devices which don't have eeprom. > > > They are also rated at 6kV ESD in the datasheet. This is quite > > high,... > > Hmm, I hadn't even thought of that issue. Neither did I, until I faced it. I had some boards with XMEGA devices which I ported to cheaper F030. No problem, but the industrial environment was quite "normal". I thought I can equalize the family by porting some other two designs which had ATMEGA8 cpu to the same F030... No luck this time. The F030 just stops working. The internal watchdog gets it back to work, and it's quite fast at 2ms. But the hiccups are noticeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87bn1e8vmi.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24757 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+. > I'm not sure what you mean about this. There are plenty of ARMs > available for under $2. The comparison was with the Nucleo 32 board, not a bare package. > If you are just making a few of some design why do you care about such > a small cost? Maybe I'd like to publish the design so other people can make their own. People like cheap stuff. > If you are making a lot of something, why would you want a DIP > package? DIP is easier for prototyping or hand assembly, and then it's nice to have a compatible SMT part if a board is being made someplace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web