Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: martin griffith on 15 Mar 2007 20:12 On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:27:53 -0500, in sci.electronics.design Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:41:18 +0100, the renowned martin griffith ><mart_in_medina(a)ya___.es> wrote: > >>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:11:02 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John E. >><incognito(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Thanks for your comments, Martin. >>> >>>> And be sure to practice your soldering skills/ interfacing techniques, >>>> this is very important compared with the Windoze World >>> >>>That's really why I'm interested in getting into the u-controller world. To >>>interface hardware to the "real world". >>> >>>Soldering iron warmed up and at the ready... >> >><sticking neck out> >>checkout: >>SPI interface, (realtime clocks, external eeproms etc.) >>I2C, the uberversal philips interface, same as SPI, but different, and >>pain in the neck IMHO >>logic fets >>H bridge >>opto isolators >>Reset and brownout detectors/ TL77xx etc from TI >> >>and the universal "why doesn't my 2*8 LCD work" >>Cos it takes many milliseconds to initialise, check the Fuckin* busy >>flag > >Or just put some proper (debugged) delays in there and it'll work >fine. And the second line of your 2 x 16 doesn't work because the >memory map has a big frick'n hole in it... > >></sticking neck out> >> >>and get a decent bench/lab power supply with adjustable current >>limiting, and a scope >> >> >>martin > > >Best regards, >Spehro Pefhany Yep I agree, my system (that's a bit of an overstatement) would hang if the LCD wasn't present. But if there was no LCD you coudln't use the system, so the user was, well.....screwed. so just put on another cup of coffee martin
From: zwsdotcom on 15 Mar 2007 20:28 On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, John E. <incogn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > PIC is king, I'm sure. Be wary of certitude. PIC's bizarre fscked architecture is abhorred by right-thinking engineers (of course, there are no absolutes, but this is quite close to one). If you have experience as you have enumerated, you will have little difficulty learning almost any architecture; the choice of which is "useful" depends on the "use" to which you intend to apply this knowledge.
From: Anthony Fremont on 15 Mar 2007 20:29 John E. wrote: >> I got my Rigol scope today. Oh man this is just way too cool. :-))) > > Just looked at their web site. Top of the line is only EUR1800 (how > the heck do I make a Euro symbol...?), US$2376. Not bad. FInally a > DSO the average guy can afford. Keep us informed... Bought the DS1102C (100MHz/2-channel) for US$999. So far so good, I like it. :-)
From: Anthony Fremont on 15 Mar 2007 20:35 Eeyore wrote: > Anthony Fremont wrote: >> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part, >> chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not >> "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in >> place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code >> internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals. >> >> But that's just my opinion. ;-) > > Eh ? > > The various 8051 clones from various manufacturers are completely > compatible in every respect. That's one of the joys of the part. Such > changes as have been made are backwardly compatible even with no code > change too. Things must have changed then. Only the barest parts would be compatible. As soon as you start adding extra peripherals (and these _are_ the chips that get used in production, not the 8051 true clones) things change allot. So it's true that you could probably get away with dropping an Atmel 89c52 in place of a vintage 8052, it likely wouldn't work the other way around since the Atmel part has "extensions". As soon as people utilize the extensions, compatibility disappears. no?
From: Eeyore on 15 Mar 2007 20:46
Anthony Fremont wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Anthony Fremont wrote: > > >> Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part, > >> chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not > >> "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in > >> place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code > >> internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals. > >> > >> But that's just my opinion. ;-) > > > > Eh ? > > > > The various 8051 clones from various manufacturers are completely > > compatible in every respect. That's one of the joys of the part. Such > > changes as have been made are backwardly compatible even with no code > > change too. > > Things must have changed then. Only the barest parts would be compatible. > As soon as you start adding extra peripherals (and these _are_ the chips > that get used in production, not the 8051 true clones) I don't know about that. Some of the extra functions seem to be implemented both by Philips and Atmel for example. Sure you can use an 89C51 with flash memory in place of an 87C51 to take the simpler example. > things change allot. > So it's true that you could probably get away with dropping an Atmel 89c52 > in place of a vintage 8052, it likely wouldn't work the other way around > since the Atmel part has "extensions". As soon as people utilize the > extensions, compatibility disappears. no? Manufacturers seem to have been careful about allocating the new SFRs. I've never come across an example where a 'new' SFR didn't default to 'plain vanilla' operation if left untouched. Graham |