Who is working with the SAM9263?
in [Embedded]
|
From: Jim Granville on 31 Mar 2007 04:07 Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > I am well aware of the TV-Shop paradigm... > > If you get a kit free of charge, do you really care if it cost $200 or > $5000? > You assume that pricey kits cannot be had free of charge. > I dont understand why not, if the business case is right. Well, nearly. I'd imagine Rick and many others would be less keen to accept a $5000 'freebie' than a $69 'freebie' - why if they are both Free, you ask ? Well, there is clearly a higher 'obligation' on the $5000, and so the 'brush off' is harder. Some companies may even have firm policies on such things, to prevent 'abuse by leverage' cases, from either end of the sales chain. So a $69 kit, grabbed from the discretionary monthly spend budget via Digikey (et al) gives a nice low profile way to get a real working device on your bench - and real devices are becomming more important, (as I mentioned before), where the data is falling behind.... -jg
From: rickman on 31 Mar 2007 08:11 On Mar 31, 4:07 am, Jim Granville <no.s...(a)designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote: > Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > > I am well aware of the TV-Shop paradigm... > > > If you get a kit free of charge, do you really care if it cost $200 or > > $5000? > > You assume that pricey kits cannot be had free of charge. > > I dont understand why not, if the business case is right. > > Well, nearly. I'd imagine Rick and many others would be > less keen to accept a $5000 'freebie' than a $69 'freebie' > - why if they are both Free, you ask ? > Well, there is clearly a higher 'obligation' on the $5000, > and so the 'brush off' is harder. > > Some companies may even have firm policies on such things, > to prevent 'abuse by leverage' cases, from either > end of the sales chain. > > So a $69 kit, grabbed from the discretionary monthly spend budget > via Digikey (et al) gives a nice low profile way to get a real > working device on your bench - and real devices are becomming > more important, (as I mentioned before), where the data is > falling behind.... No, it is not an issue with "accepting" an expensive kit. It is the willingness of the vendor to offer. My point is that the more familiar with the devices the engineer is, the more likely he is to use the part. If a project is in the early stages and an eval board is provided, that part is much more likely to be used. The early stages of any project carries a lot of risk, including spec changes that eliminate a type of processor and even cancelation of that portion or the entire project. My experience is that salesmen weigh offers for cost vs. benefit and risk. So with a significantly less expensive kit, the cost factor makes it possible to toss them around to engineers if they just say the word ARM vs. having to weigh the likelyhood of a project taking off and selecting the part in question. I have seen this in action. It is not uncommon that engineers consider parts from different vendors to be equivalent and base their selection on other factors, availability of tools, support from disits and the manufacturer and even perceived cost of project startup. Having a eval board in hand is one of those things that provides a natural slant, even more than taking the engineer to lunch ;^)
From: Anton Erasmus on 1 Apr 2007 07:35 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:11:29 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: >"rickman" <gnuarm(a)gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet >news:1175172664.914528.170940(a)e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 29, 1:26 am, "Ulf Samuelsson" <u...(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: >>> "rickman" <gnu...(a)gmail.com> skrev i >>> meddelandetnews:1175129175.899218.6800(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >I am looking at using the SAM9263 and noticed that they use a 16.36766 >>> > MHz crystal rather than the 18.432 they use on the SAM7 eval boards. >>> > Anyone know why they picked this value? Do they use this value on the >>> > other SAM92xx eval boards? >>> >>> > In general, what are your experiences with these parts? >>> >>> It might be related to the undocumented GPS receiver on the chip. >> >> Anything is possible, but the two frequencies are not related by an >> integer combination I can find. This seems odd to me since they >> specify the frequency so exactly to 7 decimal places. This is about >> the limit of what a reasonable crystal can provide. >> > >Some people find it difficult to with the 2% requirement of RS-232. >Communication by Radio to something in the stratosphere >may require a little better crystal. > >There is nothing to stop you from switching to a different >crystal (I.E: 18,432 Mhz) in your own design. > >Since the GPS is not accessible, you have no need for that >frequency. > > >> >>> Some restrictions I have found: >>> >>> Cannot use SDRAM on EBI1, only on EBI0 >>> or you will lose the Ethernet due to the muxing >>> >>> PSRAMs are next best alternative, the ST one on the >>> board appears to be obsolete already , but there is >>> a replacement from Micron. >> >> I also noticed that the eval boards for the SAM9 devices are around >> $1,000 US. I think the only one significantly less is for the SAM9260 >> which is about $600. Why are they so expensive? >> > >Because someone wanted cheaper development boards >than those for the AT91RM9200 which started off at $5000 >and went down eventually to $1250. > >Someone told me some years ago that the AT91RM9200EK PCB >in Atmel volumes is about $100. > >I am lobbying for a new way of building development tools >which should allow Atmel to bring down its cost structure. The raisonance kits seem to be a good compromise. They have a standard motherboard which they presumely can manufacture in higher volumes. They then have a memorystick type CPU board which plugs into this motherboard. A different stick for each type of processor. When I was looking for an STR9 dev kit, theirs were by far the best value for money. Anton Erasmus
From: rickman on 1 Apr 2007 12:32 On Apr 1, 7:35 am, Anton Erasmus <nob...(a)spam.prevent.net> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:11:29 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson" > > > > <u...(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: > >"rickman" <gnu...(a)gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet > >news:1175172664.914528.170940(a)e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > >> On Mar 29, 1:26 am, "Ulf Samuelsson" <u...(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: > >>> "rickman" <gnu...(a)gmail.com> skrev i > >>> meddelandetnews:1175129175.899218.6800(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >>> >I am looking at using the SAM9263 and noticed that they use a 16.36766 > >>> > MHz crystal rather than the 18.432 they use on the SAM7 eval boards. > >>> > Anyone know why they picked this value? Do they use this value on the > >>> > other SAM92xx eval boards? > > >>> > In general, what are your experiences with these parts? > > >>> It might be related to the undocumented GPS receiver on the chip. > > >> Anything is possible, but the two frequencies are not related by an > >> integer combination I can find. This seems odd to me since they > >> specify the frequency so exactly to 7 decimal places. This is about > >> the limit of what a reasonable crystal can provide. > > >Some people find it difficult to with the 2% requirement of RS-232. > >Communication by Radio to something in the stratosphere > >may require a little better crystal. > > >There is nothing to stop you from switching to a different > >crystal (I.E: 18,432 Mhz) in your own design. > > >Since the GPS is not accessible, you have no need for that > >frequency. > > >>> Some restrictions I have found: > > >>> Cannot use SDRAM on EBI1, only on EBI0 > >>> or you will lose the Ethernet due to the muxing > > >>> PSRAMs are next best alternative, the ST one on the > >>> board appears to be obsolete already , but there is > >>> a replacement from Micron. > > >> I also noticed that the eval boards for the SAM9 devices are around > >> $1,000 US. I think the only one significantly less is for the SAM9260 > >> which is about $600. Why are they so expensive? > > >Because someone wanted cheaper development boards > >than those for the AT91RM9200 which started off at $5000 > >and went down eventually to $1250. > > >Someone told me some years ago that the AT91RM9200EK PCB > >in Atmel volumes is about $100. > > >I am lobbying for a new way of building development tools > >which should allow Atmel to bring down its cost structure. > > The raisonance kits seem to be a good compromise. They have a > standard motherboard which they presumely can manufacture in higher > volumes. They then have a memorystick type CPU board which plugs into > this motherboard. A different stick for each type of processor. When I > was looking for an STR9 dev kit, theirs were by far the best value for > money. That is fine if you don't want to evaluate anything other than ST Micro parts. I can't find where they support anyone else's devices. I also didn't see where their prices are all that good.
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 1 Apr 2007 15:36
>>I am lobbying for a new way of building development tools >>which should allow Atmel to bring down its cost structure. > > The raisonance kits seem to be a good compromise. They have a > standard motherboard which they presumely can manufacture in higher > volumes. They then have a memorystick type CPU board which plugs into > this motherboard. A different stick for each type of processor. When I > was looking for an STR9 dev kit, The STR9 does not have a MMU, and runs at < 100 MHz, No cool Linux port available.... Have to be cheap ;-) - 89 Euro / single qty. You can get the real thing from www.mechtronicbrick.dk www.ronetix.ch www.cogcomp.com www.iotech.dk www.liab.dk The I/O tech has 8 MB Flash and 16 MB SDRAM and sells for 68 Euro(a)1k You can get it with up to 16 MB flash and 64 MB SDRAM There is also an FPGA option with Spartan III (up to 1.2 Mgates) and another 64 MB SDRAM, all for 149 Euro(a)1k The fact that low cost modules are available, and people still buy the more expensive dev kits is interesting. > theirs were by far the best value for > money The new AVR32 board at $69 should be real good value. This is not just a module, it has a lot of connectors and expansion possbilities. > Anton Erasmus > -- 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 |