Advice on switching microntrollers



Why not just switch to the ATmega128 in QFN package = 9 x 9 mm. The AT90CAN128 will give you the CAN controller. The ATmega644 will give you at least 64 kB memory in a 7 x 7 mm QFN. The AT91SAM7 could be alternatives, but there is no 32 KHz clock.

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:55:01 -0700, larkmore wrote:

<yadda yadda>
sounds like a job for a dspic to me. Maybe a dsPIC30F2010. They are pretty nice, particularly if you have pic16 experience.
--
Regards,
Bob Monsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, it's a matter of not really being satisfied with anything that I have so far. PICs are a little power hungry, kinda large and don't play nice with C compilers as I've mentioned. Atmel has some hardware bugs that are really hurting us and don't seem to be getting fixed anytime soon. It's been some time since I used the HC11/12/16 series so I'm not up to date on what they are like these days.

I'm not too worried about a $1 versus a $10 microcontroller, more about paying out the nose for support tools. Since we do pretty unique and one-of projects around here we're not looking for volume discounts or large scale manufacturing.

Yeah, I have nothing against hardware timers generating PWM. I just don't want to resort to bit-banging in software....

Well, thye defintiely can be done using software, but the real power of microcontrollers is having the hardware take care of the messy stuff and the software is presented with nicely formatted data. This is especially important for our applications because we have so much going on at one time that trying to manage SPI and I2C and serial (UART) and reading encoders and generating PWM, etc. etc. would quickly swamp any microprocessor out there that we might consider. I'm looking for hardware support for the various peripherals to decrease load on the ALU and avoid having to do (even more) nasty software timing analysis.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Thanks to everyone for their advice! I'll take a look at the ones suggested and see what strikes the fancy.
-Will
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Try the 8051 series. There's a huge range of peripheral and speed options, a range of mature compilers and other tools, and a common core.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

No 8 bit Embedded uC is going to play really nice with a C compiler; but as you _are_ being bitten by single source, and have a wide range of designs to cover, then you need to look at the uC with the most sources, and most variants : The 80C51, & also 80C51 + CPLDs
If price is "don't care", & volumes small, I'd still also look at the ARM devices.... [they also avoid the single source bite...]
Depends really on the SW complexity : One is a Microcontroller, and one is a Microprocessor moving into the Microcontroller package/price space.
-jg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.