uC lifetime
in [Embedded]
|
From: David Brown on 13 Dec 2009 15:32 Tim Wescott wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:11:04 +0100, JeGy wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> I need some kind of analysis/report that covers lifetime, production >> time, market availability, etc. >> for newer uControllers, e.g. PIC, AVR, ARM, H8, etc. >> >> >> I have googlet a lot, but not found anything useable. >> >> Anyone knows about such a report? > > Well, _I_ would like a detailed report about the profitibility of all the > companies that I might like to invest in that is 100% accurate and > extends out to the next 10 years. > > Then I won't have to work. > > Any and every microprocessor in the world today will be available > forever, or until the manufacturer loses interest (check out Intel's > history on this), whichever comes first. > > Since that doesn't help at all, the best you can do is check how > manufacturers have done historically on this point (i.e. Microchip = > good, Intel = bad bad bad, Freescale = usta be good, probably is good, > but who knows with all the changes, etc.). > Haven't you heard the "past performance is no indication of future results" disclaimers? Distributors can give you some fairly reliable indicators, as can the manufacturers themselves (if you are big enough). Other than that, budget for buying extra long-term stock as necessary.
From: Ben Bradley on 13 Dec 2009 16:00 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:44:30 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >larwe wrote: > >> On Dec 13, 11:00 am, Mike Harrison <m...(a)whitewing.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>Microchip has historically scored very well in this regard, despite the huge number >> >> >> Their unofficial boast is that they have never discontinued a part. I > >Motorola/Freescale is good with old parts availabitity, too. Intel and >Atmel are the opposite: they drop product lines just like it. > >> assume this means that they still have the old fab equipment to make >> some of those ancient parts like the SPO256A-AL2 and CTS256... > >I guess Freescale redesigns old parts for new technologies. I've heard of this happening (a part being converted to a newer, denser, cheaper and 'better' process and keeping the same part number) and causing a problem (usually with a design that took advantage of something not well documented) more than once over the decades. Then-Motorola did this with a 68HC05 about 12 years ago, or they made a newer "fully compatible" part with the same specs (ISTR there was a string of parts they were obsoleting, but they made new, compatible parts except one detail, the "keyboard interrupt" required a code change - this may have been one of those parts but this product didn't use that interrupt). The company I was with had a long-term product that wasn't working properly with the new model HC05. A manufacturer's rep spent a few days tracing it down. The product's design relied on (whether by design or by accident) the controller pulling a certain amount of current in a certain low-power state, and the new chip was of course more efficient and pulled less current than needed for the product to work. >How could >you explain that modern HC12 de-facto can run at ~70MHz, while old >datasheet specifies 25 MHz? > >VLV
From: -jg on 13 Dec 2009 16:22 On Dec 13, 11:11 pm, "JeGy" <gydesen.jensREM...(a)THISgmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I need some kind of analysis/report that covers lifetime, production time, > market availability, etc. > for newer uControllers, e.g. PIC, AVR, ARM, H8, etc. > > I have googlet a lot, but not found anything useable. > > Anyone knows about such a report? > > Thanks in advance, There is no crystal ball going forward, but you can search for EOL announcements, and look back, to get some ideas. Generally, chips are made until the market demand falls below some economic threshold. On longer life-cycle parts like 80C51 and older PICs, there are newer versions being released that can footprint replace older parts. Where this is possible, the impact of an EOL is almost invisible, but if you have backed a core+device, and BOTH go EOL, then the impact is very high indeed. These days, EOL is probably less of an issue, as 5V ie re-emerging as a widely supported standard. Vendors have realized that customers will not design in narrow-Vcc parts, and there are factors like not being able to buy serious < 5V MOSFETS. -jg
From: D Yuniskis on 13 Dec 2009 16:37 Ben Bradley wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:44:30 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> larwe wrote: >> >>> On Dec 13, 11:00 am, Mike Harrison <m...(a)whitewing.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Microchip has historically scored very well in this regard, despite the huge number >>> >>> Their unofficial boast is that they have never discontinued a part. I >> Motorola/Freescale is good with old parts availabitity, too. Intel and >> Atmel are the opposite: they drop product lines just like it. >> >>> assume this means that they still have the old fab equipment to make >>> some of those ancient parts like the SPO256A-AL2 and CTS256... >> I guess Freescale redesigns old parts for new technologies. > > I've heard of this happening (a part being converted to a newer, > denser, cheaper and 'better' process and keeping the same part number) > and causing a problem (usually with a design that took advantage of > something not well documented) more than once over the decades. > Then-Motorola did this with a 68HC05 about 12 years ago, or they made > a newer "fully compatible" part with the same specs (ISTR there was a > string of parts they were obsoleting, but they made new, compatible > parts except one detail, the "keyboard interrupt" required a code > change - this may have been one of those parts but this product didn't > use that interrupt). The company I was with had a long-term product > that wasn't working properly with the new model HC05. A manufacturer's > rep spent a few days tracing it down. The product's design relied on > (whether by design or by accident) the controller pulling a certain > amount of current in a certain low-power state, and the new chip was > of course more efficient and pulled less current than needed for the > product to work. Motogorilla is notorious about being lax on specs on their "newer" parts. Everything is "typ" -- nothing *guaranteed* (I guess it gives them an out if something doesn't work as *you* expect it would: "Well, there's no guaranteed max/min on that parameter -- and we don't test it, either!") I can recall avoiding '05s for an issue like this (IRC, something in the reset circuit that I wanted to exploit "outside the box")
From: Jon Kirwan on 13 Dec 2009 16:31
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:11:04 +0100, "JeGy" <gydesen.jensREMOVE(a)THISgmail.com> wrote: >I need some kind of analysis/report that covers lifetime, production time, >market availability, etc. >for newer uControllers, e.g. PIC, AVR, ARM, H8, etc. > >I have googlet a lot, but not found anything useable. > >Anyone knows about such a report? I certainly don't know of such a report. I can only offer some comments. In my experience, Microchip is unique in the field of micros in that they support their professional tool line (debugging, programming, etc) tools 'forever' and support your purchased equipment long after they stop selling it. That appears to go for almost all of their microcontrollers, as well. I'm sure there are exceptions (the PIC17 comes to mind.) But they are rare. I had a problem with an old production tool from Microchip a couple of years back. The power switch wasn't working quite right and I needed to wobble it into the middle in order to turn it on. I'd purchased this unit in 1991 and bear in mind that Microchip doesn't sell this unit, anymore. It's very old. But it is a production tool. So they support it. Microchip said: "We're sending you out a new unit. When you get the box, put the old one in there and send it back to us." I received it the refurbished/new unit the very next day. Separately, that year, I had a similar thing happen with an old module for that old unit, which also seemed to be showing 'weak drivers,' by way of a message at powerup. I was shipped another one of those under the same circumstances. Unlike the main unit, which was discontinued but supported, they do still sell those modules for it and other ones, as well, _because_ that's just how they see what it means to support their old production tools even after they don't sell the main units anymore. Owners of old units _may_ still need to buy new modules for them, because they might not have purchased a full complement at the start. And Microchip knows this and takes it very seriously. I should also mention that their support staff never once gave me the "it's not currently supported" message, over the phone or by email. Never once did I even get a clue that the unit wasn't supported or that they wanted difficult-to-find documentation. They wanted what I could easily give them, the serial number from the back. That's all. No grilling, no worries. Just "we'll get one right out to you." By comparison, I have a similar circumstance with Analog Devices, using an old tool I also bought around 1991 for their ADSP-21xx line. I was told that the tool was no longer supported, that I couldn't get replacements, and that they couldn't help me with problems except to suggest a couple of places where I visit their web pages. That's it. The support staff was 'sorry' about it, but helpless. This is just one such example. When thinking about designing with a product where I want and may need support for a product or product line a decade or two into the future, Microchip's actual demonstrated support tells me a lot. That said, I don't always choose them because the application itself often dictates otherwise. But on these points, there is no other company I trust as far in terms of a business relationship that works for me. Here, better 'lifetime' is the accident of fate that such a company as Microchip has this kind of demonstrated track record and thus, there is at least some hope for more of the same. ..... Separate subject. The ARM7TDMI core is widely found from a variety of _active_ suppliers. Although the controllers vary regarding the add on functions, which vary everywhere from memory protection schemes to UARTs, the development toolsets that you use and invest valuable time learning well can often be used from one to another. Which does help set aside some serious problems (not all, obviously) when forced to consider "switching horses." In some sense, then, you gain a little in terms of security regarding lifetime because of the number of players involved, the diversification of the products they are found inside of, and the fact that a common toolset can often be selected and applied to other options should the one you first selected disappear. Also, there are some great tool selections available for this family, software and hardware. The 8051 core is almost like that, in that Analog Devices (a few specialized devices), Atmel (AT89), Dallas Semi, Infineon, SiLabs, and STMicro (PSD3200?) make some options. I still have a box or two of Intel's. But Intel no longer makes them. Of those, SiLabs is probably the only one betting on their core. Dallas is owned by Maxim, which makes other micros it is pushing hard. Atmel, obviously, is putting almost all its efforts elsewhere and has a demonstrated record that would worry me. Analog Devices selections are just plain too narrow and they are expensive and may be dropped, in my opinion. STMicro also has other families it is pushing. So it's not really as diversified a field as the ARM7TDMI family is. Not to mention tool questions, here. Jon |