Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31931 > unrolled thread

OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 03:35 -0700
    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 09:29 -0700
      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 21:19 -0400
        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 20:57 -0700
          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 22:26 -0700
            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 22:33 -0700
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip BruceMcF <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 07:44 -0700
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-06-29 14:53 +0000
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-29 09:04 -0700
      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:00 +0000
        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-29 19:16 -0700
          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 16:58 -0400
            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-30 14:43 -0700
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 17:55 -0400
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-30 15:34 -0700
                  Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 19:09 -0400
                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 19:13 -0400
                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-30 17:52 -0700
                      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 22:20 -0400
                        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-30 22:10 -0700
                          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-01 04:42 -0400
                            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-01 07:55 -0700
                          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-07-01 17:19 +0200
    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-29 19:49 -0700
      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 01:38 -0700
        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-30 07:22 -0700
        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-30 15:29 -0700
          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-07-01 01:51 -0700
            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-07-01 10:26 -0500
            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-01 11:08 -0700
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-07-01 12:59 -0700
            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-01 15:02 -0400
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-07-01 13:02 -0700
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-01 17:25 -0700
                  Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-07-01 20:44 -0700
                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-02 12:11 -0400
                      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-07-02 10:19 -0700
                        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-02 15:30 -0400
                          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-07-02 19:25 -0700
                            Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-03 00:28 -0400
                              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-07-03 00:25 -0700
                                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-07-03 02:17 -0700
                                  Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-07-03 09:31 -0700
                                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-03 14:23 -0700
                                  Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-03 17:53 -0400
                                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-03 15:25 -0700
                                      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-03 19:53 -0400
                                        Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-03 17:38 -0700
                                          Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-07-03 18:21 -0700
                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-04 19:14 -0700
                      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-07-04 22:52 -0700
                      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-07-05 02:21 -0400
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-07-02 01:04 -0700
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-07-02 11:59 +0000
              Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-07-04 01:29 -0700
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-07-04 04:17 -0700
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-07-04 09:01 -1000
                  Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip mhx@iae.nl - 2014-07-04 22:51 -0700
                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:05 -0700
                      Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip mhx@iae.nl - 2014-07-05 00:54 -0700
                  Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-06 17:00 -0700
                    Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-07-07 11:00 +0000
                Re: OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-04 18:54 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#31931 — OT: New TI MSP430 Ultra Low Power Chip

MSP430FR6989 16 MHz Ultra-Low-Power Microcontroller featuring 128 KB FRAM, 2KB SRAM, 75 IO, LCD.

http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr6989?DCMP=ep-mcu-msp-fr59x69x-eu&HQS=ep-mcu-msp-fr59x69x-em-pf-eu&sp_rid_pod4=OTY2MzMyNjIyODMS1&sp_mid_pod4=46326163&spMailingID=46326163&spUserID=OTY2MzMyNjIyODMS1&spJobID=463526531&spReportId=NDYzNTI2NTMxS0

16-Bit RISC Architecture up to 16-MHz Clock
 Wide Supply Voltage Range (1.8 V to 3.6 V)(1)

 Optimized Ultra-Low-Power Modes Active Mode: Approximately 100 µA/MHz
 Standby (LPM3 With VLO): 0.4 µA (Typical)
 Real-Time Clock (LPM3.5): 0.35 µA (Typical)(2)
 Shut-down (LPM4.5): 0.02 µA (Typical)

 Ultra-Low-Power Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) Up to 128KB of Nonvolatile Memory
 Ultra-Low-Power Writes
 Fast Write at 125 ns per Word (64KB in 4 ms)
 Unified memory = Program + Data + Storage in One Single Space
 1015 Write Cycle Endurance
 Radiation Resistant and Nonmagnetic

 Intelligent Digital Peripherals 32-Bit Hardware Multiplier (MPY)
 Three-Channel Internal DMA
 Real-Time Clock (RTC) With Calendar and Alarm Functions
 Five 16-Bit Timers With up to Seven Capture/Compare Registers Each
 16-Bit and 32-Bit Cyclic Redundancy Checker (CRC16, CRC32)

 High-Performance Analog Extended Scan IF (ESI) for Background Water, Heat, and Gas Volume Measurement
 16-Channel Analog Comparator
 12-Bit Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) With Internal Reference and Sample-and-Hold and up to 16 External Input Channels
 Integrated LCD Driver With Contrast Control for up to 320 Segments

 Multifunction Input/Output Ports All P1 to P10, and PJ Pins Support Capacitive Touch Capability Without Need for External Components
 Accessible Bit-, Byte- and Word-Wise (in Pairs)
 Edge-Selectable Wake up From LPM on Ports P1, P2, P3, and P4
 Programmable Pullup and Pulldown on All Ports

 Code Security and Encryption 128-Bit or 256-Bit AES Security Encryption and Decryption Coprocessor
 True Random Number Seed for Random Number Generation Algorithm

 Enhanced Serial Communication eUSCI_A0 and eUSCI_A1 Support: UART With Automatic Baud-Rate Detection
 IrDA Encode and Decode
 SPI at Rates up to 10 Mbps

 eUSCI_B0 and eUSCI_B1 Support: I2C With Multiple Slave Addressing
 SPI at Rates up to 10 Mbps

 Hardware UART and I2C Bootstrap Loader (BSL)

 Flexible Clock System Fixed-Frequency DCO With 10 Selectable Factory-Trimmed Frequencies
 Low-Power Low-Frequency Internal Clock Source (VLO)
 32-kHz Crystals (LFXT)
 High-Frequency Crystals (HFXT)

 Development Tools and Software Free Professional Development Environments With EnergyTrace++ Technology
 Experimenter and Development Kits

 For Complete Module Descriptions, See the MSP430FR58xx, MSP430FR59xx, MSP430FR68xx, and MSP430FR69xx Family User's Guide (SLAU367)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32008

Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
> MSP430FR6989 16 MHz Ultra-Low-Power Microcontroller featuring 128 KB
> FRAM, 2KB SRAM, 75 IO, LCD.

You can chop all the URL parameters after the part number:

   http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr6989

>  Ultra-Low-Power Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) Up to 128KB of Nonvolatile
>  Memory ...

It seems very similar to the existing MSP430FR5969 except for

    1) it has 2x the FRAM
    2) 75 gpio pins instead of 40
    3) considerably bigger package
    4) built-in LCD control of some kind
    5) more expensive

I guess the extra capabilities seem useful but overall it seems like an
incremental change.  I'd liked to have seen more SRAM and some parts
like this in smaller packages rather than bigger.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32028

On 6/28/2014 12:29 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
>> MSP430FR6989 16 MHz Ultra-Low-Power Microcontroller featuring 128 KB
>> FRAM, 2KB SRAM, 75 IO, LCD.
>
> You can chop all the URL parameters after the part number:
>
>     http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr6989
>
>>   Ultra-Low-Power Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) Up to 128KB of Nonvolatile
>>   Memory ...
>
> It seems very similar to the existing MSP430FR5969 except for
>
>      1) it has 2x the FRAM
>      2) 75 gpio pins instead of 40
>      3) considerably bigger package
>      4) built-in LCD control of some kind
>      5) more expensive
>
> I guess the extra capabilities seem useful but overall it seems like an
> incremental change.  I'd liked to have seen more SRAM and some parts
> like this in smaller packages rather than bigger.

Thanks for the summary.  It is nice to be able to see what is different 
about two parts without reviewing the data sheet.  TI selection guides 
often show a number of parts that appear to be identical by what they 
show and you have to dig in the data sheets to find the differences.

Many of the LCD controllers in parts like these are for segmented LCDs, 
some only do non-multiplexed but some will also do multiplexed displays. 
  I'm not sure which this part uses.

I'm pretty sure the FRAM parts are available in smaller packages.  Which 
package would you like to see that isn't on the web site?  I see to 
recall parts with as few as 20 or so I/Os.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32030

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> Thanks for the summary.  It is nice to be able to see what is
> different about two parts without reviewing the data sheet.  

Well it's possible I missed something.  I used TI's comparator web page
and set up the filters to eliminate almost all the devices except the
ones of interest.  Then I compared column by column.

> Many of the LCD controllers in parts like these are for segmented

Yes I think that one is too.

> I'm pretty sure the FRAM parts are available in smaller packages.

The ones in smaller packages have less memory, which seems kind of silly
since the die itself is tiny in all cases.

> Which package would you like to see that isn't on the web site? 

Teeny tiny packages, like those 2x3mm ones with 6 or 8 pins.  Failing
that, normal small packages, as long as they don't need fancy expensive
PCB fab processes.  This 128k part has a rather big package which I'm
sure is fine for many things.

I'm not sure about 128k of memory on a 16 bit cpu anyway, because of the
need for bank switching or some other access scheme.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32033

On Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:57:19 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> I'm not sure about 128k of memory on a 16 bit cpu anyway, because of the 
> need for bank switching or some other access scheme.

Except that some of the MPS430x family have 20 bit registers and 20 bit addressing, so they can directly address up to 1024K, which I would suspect is how you can have 2K SRAM, a masked bootloader and 128K FRAM without multiplexing addresses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32034

bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com writes:
>> need for bank switching or some other access scheme.
> Except that some of the MPS430x family have 20 bit registers and 20
> bit addressing, so they can directly address up to 1024K,

That amounts to bank switching, since loading a 20 bit register takes
some wangling around.  It's a familiar enough scheme and several PDP-11
models did similar things and were perfectly usable, of course.  In the
present day though, there is quite a lot more downward pressure from
cheap 32-bit processors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32049

On Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:33:58 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> BruceMcF writes: 
> >> need for bank switching or some other access scheme.
> > Except that some of the MPS430x family have 20 bit registers and 20
> > bit addressing, so they can directly address up to 1024K,

> That amounts to bank switching, since loading a 20 bit register takes 
> some wangling around.  It's a familiar enough scheme and several PDP-11
> models did similar things and were perfectly usable, of course.  In the
> present day though, there is quite a lot more downward pressure from
> cheap 32-bit processors.

But that's ignoring the 20 bit addressing. Because of the 20 bit opcodes, it takes no more instructions than loading the 16 bit addresses did. The 20 bit opcodes are with a prefix (I'd guess however many bits are in the operation field to specify the prefix, and 4 bits somewhere in there for the the high part of the address).

I'm not familiar with the MPS430 instruction set, but from a skim, the assembler knows to add the prefix if needed when using the .A postfix to an operation, instead of .B or .W.

And of course, its a processor where the PC is in a visible register, so if your relocatable routine works on offsets from its own executing address to locate its own local data, and offsets to addresses passed to it in registers for external data it is working on, as soon as you expand the registers to 20 bits, that routine works unmodified.

At first blush, it seems to me that if a Forth allocated the top 64K of FRAM to 1024 64-byte miniblocks, it could retrieve those to a buffer in the 2K SRAM for data operations and execute them in place as executable modules, and only the underlying BLOCK word and the END-MODULE word would require .A operations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32051

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 22:33:58 -0700, Paul Rubin
<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com writes:
>>> need for bank switching or some other access scheme.
>> Except that some of the MPS430x family have 20 bit registers and 20
>> bit addressing, so they can directly address up to 1024K,
>
>That amounts to bank switching, since loading a 20 bit register takes
>some wangling around.  It's a familiar enough scheme and several PDP-11
>models did similar things and were perfectly usable, of course.  In the
>present day though, there is quite a lot more downward pressure from
>cheap 32-bit processors.

The original MSP430 CPU core is a nice piece of work.

These extended addressing MSP430s use a core called MSP430X. It's
horrible. There are Cortex-M0+ cores of similar capabilities, power
consumption and price. The only benefit here is the FRAM.

One day, TI will wake up and use FRAM with a Cortex core.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32053

On Sunday, June 29, 2014 10:53:56 AM UTC-4, Stephen Pelc wrote:

> These extended addressing MSP430s use a core called MSP430X.
Yes, that's the one with 20 bit addressing.

> It's horrible. There are Cortex-M0+ cores of similar capabilities, power
> consumption and price. The only benefit here is the FRAM.

Yes, its the FRAM that's interesting here for a free-standing Forth widget, and its ability to be treated as compile-into codespace, alongside the bootloader able to load the original image in over the UART.

But if I wanted a MPS430X Forth and one didn't exist, I'd have to commission it, or adapt a C-based Forth and adapt it to their C toolchain, since I'm not going to be learning how to assemble MPS430X code.
 
> One day, TI will wake up and use FRAM with a Cortex core.

I have no idea what the business model here is, so I couldn't speculate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32036

In article <7xr429576t.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin  <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
>> MSP430FR6989 16 MHz Ultra-Low-Power Microcontroller featuring 128 KB
>> FRAM, 2KB SRAM, 75 IO, LCD.
>
>You can chop all the URL parameters after the part number:
>
>   http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr6989
>
>>  Ultra-Low-Power Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) Up to 128KB of Nonvolatile
>>  Memory ...
>
>It seems very similar to the existing MSP430FR5969 except for
>
>    1) it has 2x the FRAM
>    2) 75 gpio pins instead of 40
>    3) considerably bigger package
>    4) built-in LCD control of some kind
>    5) more expensive
>
>I guess the extra capabilities seem useful but overall it seems like an
>incremental change.  I'd liked to have seen more SRAM and some parts
>like this in smaller packages rather than bigger.

I think for robots more gpio is great. At the before-last Dutch Forth
meeting was an 6 legged robot. That is 18 io's for motors alone.

Home made robots usually have a size that chip size doesn't matter.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32061

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
> I think for robots more gpio is great. At the before-last Dutch Forth
> meeting was an 6 legged robot. That is 18 io's for motors alone.
> Home made robots usually have a size that chip size doesn't matter.

Of course there's plenty of uses for chips with lots of gpio pins.
There are 100's of models of MSP430 cpus, some in big packages and some
in medium size.  I just wish there were also some in small.  I'm not
calling for getting rid of any existing ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32080

On 6/29/2014 10:16 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>> I think for robots more gpio is great. At the before-last Dutch Forth
>> meeting was an 6 legged robot. That is 18 io's for motors alone.
>> Home made robots usually have a size that chip size doesn't matter.
>
> Of course there's plenty of uses for chips with lots of gpio pins.
> There are 100's of models of MSP430 cpus, some in big packages and some
> in medium size.  I just wish there were also some in small.  I'm not
> calling for getting rid of any existing ones.

I'm not sure what you are asking for.  In another message you ask for 
2x3 mm package with 8 pins which would give it a 0.4 mm pitch or 
something like that.  You also ask for parts which don't need 
"expensive" PCB fab.  I've never used 0.4 mm pitch parts but I suppose 
that works with 6 mil trace and space.  I can't imagine soldering these 
myself.

I think you will find TI is just getting started with the FRAM line. 
They seem to be promoting it on their web site, so I expect they will 
continue to introduce new products.

what is your app for such a tiny FRAM MCU?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32081

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> 2x3 mm package with 8 pins which would give it a 0.4 mm pitch ...  I
> can't imagine soldering these myself.

I think it is doable with a steady hand and a magnifier.  Difficult
would mean something like these WLCSP parts which I think need fancy PCB
fabrication and robotic assembly:

 http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=KL03

> what is your app for such a tiny FRAM MCU?

I'm interested in small portable and wearable gadgets.  Nothing
specifically needs FRAM, it just seems nicer than flash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32082

On 6/30/2014 5:43 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2x3 mm package with 8 pins which would give it a 0.4 mm pitch ...  I
>> can't imagine soldering these myself.
>
> I think it is doable with a steady hand and a magnifier.  Difficult
> would mean something like these WLCSP parts which I think need fancy PCB
> fabrication and robotic assembly:
>
>   http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=KL03
>
>> what is your app for such a tiny FRAM MCU?
>
> I'm interested in small portable and wearable gadgets.  Nothing
> specifically needs FRAM, it just seems nicer than flash.

How about the MSP430FR5738 VQFN24 4 x 4 mm?  Is that small enough?  I 
saw devices with 4 to 16 kB of FRAM for $1.90 to $2.35 in quantity, not 
too shabby, eh?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32084

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> How about the MSP430FR5738 VQFN24 4 x 4 mm?  Is that small enough?  I
> saw devices with 4 to 16 kB of FRAM for $1.90 to $2.35 in quantity,

Yeah probably small enough, though I'd have liked more FRAM and some of
the other features from the big part.  I'm not too worried about the
cost, in the small quantities I'm interested in.  I see that the more
powerful parts are available in 6x6mm VQFN which I guess is small enough
for some things.  A diagram of the 24VQFN package is here:

  http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/mpqf124f/mpqf124f.pdf

Actually I don't know what the PCB or soldering situation with it would
be.  The 6-8 pin parts I was thinking of have external leads:

  http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/avr/tinyAVR.aspx

It looks like that 5738 part is also in a 2x2mm WCSP.  Now that's small.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32086

On 6/30/2014 6:34 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> How about the MSP430FR5738 VQFN24 4 x 4 mm?  Is that small enough?  I
>> saw devices with 4 to 16 kB of FRAM for $1.90 to $2.35 in quantity,
>
> Yeah probably small enough, though I'd have liked more FRAM and some of
> the other features from the big part.  I'm not too worried about the
> cost, in the small quantities I'm interested in.  I see that the more
> powerful parts are available in 6x6mm VQFN which I guess is small enough
> for some things.  A diagram of the 24VQFN package is here:
>
>    http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/mpqf124f/mpqf124f.pdf
>
> Actually I don't know what the PCB or soldering situation with it would
> be.  The 6-8 pin parts I was thinking of have external leads:
>
>    http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/avr/tinyAVR.aspx
>
> It looks like that 5738 part is also in a 2x2mm WCSP.  Now that's small.

I think I found the problem.  I seriously doubt that the die of the 64 
or even 16 kB MSP430 will fit in a SOT23 package.  The part you link to 
has just 1 kB of Flash and 32 bytes of RAM.  Not much of a comparison. 
I expect the larger MSP430 devices won't even fit in the 8 pin DFN you 
like.  You can only put so much in a bag before it splits.

The WCSP package is just the die with some epoxy to form the package. 
There is no lead frame and the package is not much bigger than the die. 
But many don't care for such tiny BGAs.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32087

On 6/30/2014 7:09 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 6/30/2014 6:34 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>>> How about the MSP430FR5738 VQFN24 4 x 4 mm?  Is that small enough?  I
>>> saw devices with 4 to 16 kB of FRAM for $1.90 to $2.35 in quantity,
>>
>> Yeah probably small enough, though I'd have liked more FRAM and some of
>> the other features from the big part.  I'm not too worried about the
>> cost, in the small quantities I'm interested in.  I see that the more
>> powerful parts are available in 6x6mm VQFN which I guess is small enough
>> for some things.  A diagram of the 24VQFN package is here:
>>
>>    http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/mpqf124f/mpqf124f.pdf
>>
>> Actually I don't know what the PCB or soldering situation with it would
>> be.  The 6-8 pin parts I was thinking of have external leads:
>>
>>    http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/avr/tinyAVR.aspx
>>
>> It looks like that 5738 part is also in a 2x2mm WCSP.  Now that's small.
>
> I think I found the problem.  I seriously doubt that the die of the 64
> or even 16 kB MSP430 will fit in a SOT23 package.  The part you link to
> has just 1 kB of Flash and 32 bytes of RAM.  Not much of a comparison. I
> expect the larger MSP430 devices won't even fit in the 8 pin DFN you
> like.  You can only put so much in a bag before it splits.
>
> The WCSP package is just the die with some epoxy to form the package.
> There is no lead frame and the package is not much bigger than the die.
> But many don't care for such tiny BGAs.

Here is a link that shows what a CSP package is.

http://www.micross.com/chip-scale-package-csp.aspx

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32090

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> I think I found the problem.  I seriously doubt that the die of the 64
> or even 16 kB MSP430 will fit in a SOT23 package.  The part you link
> to has just 1 kB of Flash and 32 bytes of RAM.  Not much of a
> comparison. I expect the larger MSP430 devices won't even fit in the 8
> pin DFN you like. 

So go a little bit bigger if necessary, but I think it's the lead frame
and pins taking most of the space, so they can do fine with a maybe
slightly larger 8 pin package.  There is a CSP-package Cortex M4 part
with something like 128KB of ram after all.

> The WCSP package is just the die with some epoxy to form the
> package. There is no lead frame and the package is not much bigger
> than the die. But many don't care for such tiny BGAs.

You'd know better than me but I have the impression those parts need
quite expensive fab and assembly processes.  Otherwise I'd be pretty
interested in them.  I had thought previously that lots of high volume
consumer electronics was made with bare die (chip on board) so there
would be lead bonding from pads at the chip edge to contacts on the PCB.
With that CSP package with all those interior pins, do they have to lay
out the chip itself, to put contacts in the middle of the chip?  Or is
there some kind of off-chip wiring inside the epoxy blob?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32091

On 6/30/2014 8:52 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think I found the problem.  I seriously doubt that the die of the 64
>> or even 16 kB MSP430 will fit in a SOT23 package.  The part you link
>> to has just 1 kB of Flash and 32 bytes of RAM.  Not much of a
>> comparison. I expect the larger MSP430 devices won't even fit in the 8
>> pin DFN you like.
>
> So go a little bit bigger if necessary, but I think it's the lead frame
> and pins taking most of the space, so they can do fine with a maybe
> slightly larger 8 pin package.  There is a CSP-package Cortex M4 part
> with something like 128KB of ram after all.

I don't understand.  That's what the WCSP is.  No lead frame, just a die.


>> The WCSP package is just the die with some epoxy to form the
>> package. There is no lead frame and the package is not much bigger
>> than the die. But many don't care for such tiny BGAs.
>
> You'd know better than me but I have the impression those parts need
> quite expensive fab and assembly processes.  Otherwise I'd be pretty
> interested in them.  I had thought previously that lots of high volume
> consumer electronics was made with bare die (chip on board) so there
> would be lead bonding from pads at the chip edge to contacts on the PCB.
> With that CSP package with all those interior pins, do they have to lay
> out the chip itself, to put contacts in the middle of the chip?  Or is
> there some kind of off-chip wiring inside the epoxy blob?

Yes, they are harder to use.  If you need the balls in the center you 
need very fine traces.  I think some of your comments have confused me. 
  I had the impression you liked the CSP packages, but I guess not.

Some CSP parts use what is called an interposer which is in essence a 
very tiny PCB to provide the pads for the balls.  I don't know how they 
attach it to the die.  In other cases the solder bumps are on the die 
itself.  Maxim is big on that.

The bottom line is that there are some usable packages that are as small 
as the die itself.  If you can use the outer 12 pins only, I expect you 
can use this part without a lot of expense.  If the power and ground 
pins are in the inner 4 pins you will need to route them out through one 
of the outer I/O pads which should not be used and left in a hi-z state 
always.  In fact a trick in FPGAs to reduce ground bounce is to tie some 
I/O pins to ground and/or power, then connect those pins to Vss and Vdd 
to provide a lower impedance path through the package.  Just don't get 
the Vss and Vdd mixed up. :(

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32093

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> slightly larger 8 pin package.  There is a CSP-package Cortex M4 part
>> with something like 128KB of ram after all.
> I don't understand.  That's what the WCSP is.  No lead frame, just a die.

What I mean is that there's a very small M4 WCSP and that makes me
expect that the die itself is small, and they could put it into a small
leaded package if only they didn't insist on supplying so many pins.
But, maybe I'm wrong.

> I had the impression you liked the CSP packages, but I guess not.

I don't see a matter of like or dislike.  CSP sounds like a great idea
for making stuff tiny in respectable quantities, but using CSP parts
unfortunately seems beyond the capabilities of the small-quantity ghetto
PCB fabs and assembly processes that I can afford to use.

> If you can use the outer 12 pins only, I expect you can use this part
> without a lot of expense.

Oh that's interesting, I wonder if it's designed so that the important
stuff is on the outer pins.  I'll check the data sheet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web