Prev: MSP430 and Linux
Next: 8051 problem with serial port and timer
From: boB on 19 Sep 2006 14:33
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:39:07 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson"
<ulf(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote:

>>>
>>
>> I know as a fact and first hand that Atmel does NOT put full Errata on
>> their AVR documents at least. Don't know about the ARM stuff though.
>> In fact, try to obtain information on Atmel quality control programs.
>> Then look at somebody's quality control program like Microchip. At
>> least Microchip has a quality control program and decent Errata sheets
>> as well as Philips/NXP.
>>
>
>The ARM and AVR are in separate division within Atmel, and they make their
>own decisions.
>
>It would be interesting to know which AVR bugs you are referring to.
>
>I think that if a problem can be caught at test time, it is better to fix
>the test
>program, and replace the bad parts than introduce an errata.
>You want of course to inform people of a problem with a specific batch.
>
>>
>> boB
>> K7IQ
>>


Here is that very old posting from that guy in Hungary. I thought it
was Croatia. I found this on deja-news, google groups.

Also, it looks like we have talked about this issue before, Ulf.

It also looks like Atmel has at least fixed the problem or tested out
the bad parts. This was evidently the first year of production for
these parts. Mega16s were fine and without problems.

Atmel would not be my first choice for a micro though based on that
experience.

Thanks,
boB



(the old post)

From: Deni - view profile
Date: Sun, Mar 16 2003 8:31 am
Email: "Deni" <dejan.durde...(a)zg.hinet.hr>
Groups: comp.arch.embedded
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Did anybody had any problems using Mega32 device running at 16MHz?
We had cca. 20% of devices that do not correctly read Flash memory as
data constants...(using LPM instruction). Ocasionally device do not
read
the contents of Flash correctly, usually one bit fails...If clock
frequency
is
reduced, it starts to behave as supposed...???

Dejan





From: Ulf Samuelsson on 19 Sep 2006 19:59
> Because of the way we were treated by Atmel management, I will stay
> away from them in the future. I was soured. The ARM parts may be
> designed by a different group, but Atmel management is still the same I
> bet.

How much are you prepared to bet ;-)

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=atml&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=892818

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB


From: rickman on 19 Sep 2006 20:42
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > Because of the way we were treated by Atmel management, I will stay
> > away from them in the future. I was soured. The ARM parts may be
> > designed by a different group, but Atmel management is still the same I
> > bet.
>
> How much are you prepared to bet ;-)
>
> http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=atml&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=892818
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Ulf Samuelsson
> This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
> or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

That is one of the strangest replies to a post I have ever seen. When
he said he thought the management was the same, he didn't mean the one
guy at the top was the same as last year. He meant they share many
layers of management and very likely share many management products
like work processes and QA methods.

The fact that your CEO was canned is not really relevant unless he was
also the head QA manager. Is that what you are suggesting?

From: Ulf Samuelsson on 20 Sep 2006 14:47
>> > Because of the way we were treated by Atmel management, I will stay
>> > away from them in the future. I was soured. The ARM parts may be
>> > designed by a different group, but Atmel management is still the same I
>> > bet.
>>
> When he said he thought the management was the same, he didn't mean the
> one
> guy at the top was the same as last year. He meant they share many
> layers of management and very likely share many management products
> like work processes and QA methods.

The AVR is in the microcontroller division
The AT91 is in the ASIC division
The divisions do not share managers, but both report to the CEO and COO


--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB


From: boB on 20 Sep 2006 18:27
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:47:16 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson"
<ulf(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote:

>>> > Because of the way we were treated by Atmel management, I will stay
>>> > away from them in the future. I was soured. The ARM parts may be
>>> > designed by a different group, but Atmel management is still the same I
>>> > bet.
>>>
>> When he said he thought the management was the same, he didn't mean the
>> one
>> guy at the top was the same as last year. He meant they share many
>> layers of management and very likely share many management products
>> like work processes and QA methods.
>
>The AVR is in the microcontroller division
>The AT91 is in the ASIC division
>The divisions do not share managers, but both report to the CEO and COO

Yes, the layer of management is what I meant.
Maybe the new guy at the top will look deeper into the infrastructure
and into the QA and customer support.

Having said what I did about the customer support, I DO very much like
the basic architecture of the AVR parts.

Thanks guys,
boB






First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: MSP430 and Linux
Next: 8051 problem with serial port and timer