Nabble - PIC - [PIC]

Re: Software PLL using a dsPIC30F series chip...

2008-09-05T14:38:52Z

Antonio L. Benci (by way of Barry Gershenfeld) wrote:
> [Just a guess, that a PIC tag will net you more responses] -- Barry
> * *
>

Sigh. I already replied once to this, but with all your email troubles, you
must have missed it.

Antonio L. Benci wrote:
> I'm stuck...
>
> I have been asked to develop a digital PLL, using a micro, dsPIC in this
> case. Using a reference clk of 10MHz to derive an 80MHz clk. Corrections
> within the loop will be 250nS discrete time jumps.

What does that mean? 250 ns is 20 cycles of 80 MHz. How can you build a PLL
on that basis?

Perhaps you should draw us a block diagram of what you have in mind. Show
which functions would be in hardware and which in software.

I have a lot of experience with PLLs -- analog, digital, hybrid -- using
both FPGAs and DSPs (many years in the telecom business). If I can figure
out where you want to go with this, I can probably help out.

I don't know if it's relevant, but I also have an article in the works for
Circuit Cellar about building a software timebase for embedded firmware
that's precisely synchronized to an external reference. But that probably
won't appear until early 2009.

-- Dave Tweed
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T14:20:06Z

Dave Tweed schrieb:

> lk <stowoda@...> wrote:
>
>> Dave Tweed schrieb:
>>
>>> You might check out Stuart Ball's article, "Prototyping with QFP Parts",
>>> in Circuit Cellar #218 for further thoughts about this approach:
>>>
>>> http://www.dtweed.com/circuitcellar/caj00218.htm#3698
>>>
>>
>> I can not access the article. There is no link at the site..
>>
>
> Sorry, if you don't already have access to the issue, see the links at the
> bottom of the page to order a back issue or CDROM.
>
> If you want, I can email you a PDF of the article (757 KB, zipped). Is that
> a valid address for off-list mail?
>
> -- Dave Tweed
>

Yes You can use this email, i would be grateful.

Lukas
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T14:14:13Z

lk <stowoda@...> wrote:
> Dave Tweed schrieb:
> > You might check out Stuart Ball's article, "Prototyping with QFP Parts",
> > in Circuit Cellar #218 for further thoughts about this approach:
> >
> > http://www.dtweed.com/circuitcellar/caj00218.htm#3698
>
> I can not access the article. There is no link at the site..

Sorry, if you don't already have access to the issue, see the links at the
bottom of the page to order a back issue or CDROM.

If you want, I can email you a PDF of the article (757 KB, zipped). Is that
a valid address for off-list mail?

-- Dave Tweed
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Software PLL using a dsPIC30F series chip...

2008-09-05T14:13:13Z

[Just a guess, that a PIC tag will net you more responses] -- Barry
* *

I'm stuck...

I have been asked to develop a digital PLL, using a micro, dsPIC in this
case. Using a reference clk of 10MHz to derive an 80MHz clk. Corrections
within the loop will be 250nS discrete time jumps.

I do have reasonable experience in designing analog PLLs BUT none what so
ever in digital PLLs.

Pointers or any good texts would be very helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Antonio Benci.

begin:vcard fn:Antonio Benci n:Benci;Antonio org:Monash University;School of Physics adr:;;PO Box 27;Monash University;VIC;3800;Australia email;internet:nino.benci@... title:Professional Officer / E&IS Manager tel;work:+613 9905 3649 tel;fax:+613 9905 3637 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.physics.monash.edu.au version:2.1 end:vcard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T13:57:54Z

The PIC18F8680 i am using has no internal oscillator, so i have to get
another chip to do the test.
The next thing i will do is to redesign the adaptor and add the bypass
cap, and the smd oscillator.
If i´ll find a way i´ll also try to make vdd/vss thicker as it was
mentioned before by Sphero Pefhany.

I am not sure if it would be practically to let the adaptor have 2x2
rows of pinheads.. I have to think about it.
Maybe i gonna use a double sided pcb.

So far, thank You all for Your opinion.

Regards
Lukas

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T13:40:03Z

2008/9/5 lk <stowoda@...>:
> I can not access the article. There is no link at the site..

It's just an index, I presume you need to buy the back issue.

--
Jon Baker
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T13:13:32Z

Dave Tweed schrieb:

> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
>> Quoting lk <stowoda@...>:
>>
>>> i am wondering if my selfmade TQFP 80 adapter is working well.
>>> Maybe You can just look at the picture and tell me if it is basically
>>> possible to get it to work with such an adapter.
>>> Of course there are no hazards!
>>> I ve red that the oscillator should be as near to the OSC pins as
>>> possible. Using that adapter it cant be close at all...
>>> I already have run a simple LED blinking program on that chip, but am
>>> not sure if everything worked well.
>>> Is there generally the possibility of crosstalk et cetera?
>>> There are not much information i am giving You, but maybe You can give
>>> me some advise by just looking at the picture.
>>>
>>> http://home.arcor.de/luka5/DSC06977.JPG
>>>
>> Traces are pretty narrow-- it might be a good idea to widen the Vdd/Vss
>> traces and maybe add a bypass cap or two near the TQFP, even if you need
>> to add wire jumpers.
>>
>
> Take it a step further than that, even. Instead of a "totally generic"
> QFP80 adapter, make one that's specific to the chip (or family of similar
> chips) insofar as providing the power and ground connections, bypassing,
> crystal/oscillator, reset and a programming connector. This (once debugged)
> will make all of these non-issues in any particular application.
>
> You might check out Stuart Ball's article, "Prototyping with QFP Parts",
> in Circuit Cellar #218 for further thoughts about this approach:
>
> http://www.dtweed.com/circuitcellar/caj00218.htm#3698
>
> If you want to plug it into a white breadboarding socket, consider having
> the adapter span four rows rather than just two. This would make it about
> 2" square rather than 4" long. Obviously, this means that half of the
> connections would need to be made before you plug the adapter into the
> socket, but if the pins are long enough, this shouldn't be too much of a
> problem.
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
> +---------------------------------------+
> x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x ---
> | | ^
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | Make
> Power x x x x| |x x x x this
> Rails | | length
> (opt.) x x x x| |x x x x match
> | | your
> | | setup.
> | | |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | |
> x x x x| |x x x x |
> | | v
> x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x ---
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x
> +---------------------------------------+
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
>
> With regard to your existing adapter -- How well does the chip run when
> configured with its on-chip oscillator? Try writing some small test
> programs in that mode to exercise the I/O and pin down what is or is not
> working.
>
> -- Dave Tweed
>

I can not access the article. There is no link at the site..
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T12:16:51Z

M. Adam Davis schrieb:

> I don't know what speed you're running at, but if you're using a
> crystal faster than 4MHz you should put it closer to the chip - the
> TQFP adaptor lines might be too long and introduce too much noise.
>
> Have you already checked each line for shorts and opens?
>
> -Adam
>
> On 9/5/08, lk <stowoda@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> i am wondering if my selfmade TQFP 80 adapter is working well.
>> Maybe You can just look at the picture and tell me if it is basically
>> possible to get it to work with such an adapter.
>> Of course there are no hazards!
>> I ve red that the oscillator should be as near to the OSC pins as
>> possible. Using that adapter it cant be close at all...
>> I already have run a simple LED blinking program on that chip, but am
>> not sure if everything worked well.
>> Is there generally the possibility of crosstalk et cetera?
>> There are not much information i am giving You, but maybe You can give
>> me some advise by just looking at the picture.
>>
>> http://home.arcor.de/luka5/DSC06977.JPG
>>
>> Regards
>> Lukas
>>
>>
>> PS:I hope that this message will not appear twice or more often at the
>> piclist. I tried several times to post but without any result...
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>>
>
>
>

Yes i have checked everything for shorts and opens.The device is running
at 20MHz.
It will be difficult to put the crystal closer to the chip.. Maybe a smd
one would fit.
I will also try to add the bypass cap (100n) ? and widen the vdd/vcc´s.

Regards
Lukas

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T12:12:04Z

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> Quoting lk <stowoda@...>:
> > i am wondering if my selfmade TQFP 80 adapter is working well.
> > Maybe You can just look at the picture and tell me if it is basically
> > possible to get it to work with such an adapter.
> > Of course there are no hazards!
> > I ve red that the oscillator should be as near to the OSC pins as
> > possible. Using that adapter it cant be close at all...
> > I already have run a simple LED blinking program on that chip, but am
> > not sure if everything worked well.
> > Is there generally the possibility of crosstalk et cetera?
> > There are not much information i am giving You, but maybe You can give
> > me some advise by just looking at the picture.
> >
> > http://home.arcor.de/luka5/DSC06977.JPG
>
> Traces are pretty narrow-- it might be a good idea to widen the Vdd/Vss
> traces and maybe add a bypass cap or two near the TQFP, even if you need
> to add wire jumpers.

Take it a step further than that, even. Instead of a "totally generic"
QFP80 adapter, make one that's specific to the chip (or family of similar
chips) insofar as providing the power and ground connections, bypassing,
crystal/oscillator, reset and a programming connector. This (once debugged)
will make all of these non-issues in any particular application.

You might check out Stuart Ball's article, "Prototyping with QFP Parts",
in Circuit Cellar #218 for further thoughts about this approach:

http://www.dtweed.com/circuitcellar/caj00218.htm#3698

If you want to plug it into a white breadboarding socket, consider having
the adapter span four rows rather than just two. This would make it about
2" square rather than 4" long. Obviously, this means that half of the
connections would need to be made before you plug the adapter into the
socket, but if the pins are long enough, this shouldn't be too much of a
problem.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
+---------------------------------------+
x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x ---
| | ^
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | Make
Power x x x x| |x x x x this
Rails | | length
(opt.) x x x x| |x x x x match
| | your
| | setup.
| | |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | |
x x x x| |x x x x |
| | v
x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x ---
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
x x x x|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|x x x x
+---------------------------------------+
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

With regard to your existing adapter -- How well does the chip run when
configured with its on-chip oscillator? Try writing some small test
programs in that mode to exercise the I/O and pin down what is or is not
working.

-- Dave Tweed
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T11:57:06Z

I don't know what speed you're running at, but if you're using a
crystal faster than 4MHz you should put it closer to the chip - the
TQFP adaptor lines might be too long and introduce too much noise.

Have you already checked each line for shorts and opens?

-Adam

On 9/5/08, lk <stowoda@...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> i am wondering if my selfmade TQFP 80 adapter is working well.
> Maybe You can just look at the picture and tell me if it is basically
> possible to get it to work with such an adapter.
> Of course there are no hazards!
> I ve red that the oscillator should be as near to the OSC pins as
> possible. Using that adapter it cant be close at all...
> I already have run a simple LED blinking program on that chip, but am
> not sure if everything worked well.
> Is there generally the possibility of crosstalk et cetera?
> There are not much information i am giving You, but maybe You can give
> me some advise by just looking at the picture.
>
> http://home.arcor.de/luka5/DSC06977.JPG
>
> Regards
> Lukas
>
>
> PS:I hope that this message will not appear twice or more often at the
> piclist. I tried several times to post but without any result...
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
EARTH DAY 2008
Tuesday April 22
Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet
http://www.driveslowly.org
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T11:08:04Z

Quoting lk <stowoda@...>:

Traces are pretty narrow-- it might be a good idea to widen the Vdd/Vss
traces and maybe add a bypass cap or two near the TQFP, even if you need
to add wire jumpers.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
s...@... Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

TQFP adapter, selfmade.

2008-09-05T10:35:21Z

Hello,

i am wondering if my selfmade TQFP 80 adapter is working well.
Maybe You can just look at the picture and tell me if it is basically
possible to get it to work with such an adapter.
Of course there are no hazards!
I ve red that the oscillator should be as near to the OSC pins as
possible. Using that adapter it cant be close at all...
I already have run a simple LED blinking program on that chip, but am
not sure if everything worked well.
Is there generally the possibility of crosstalk et cetera?
There are not much information i am giving You, but maybe You can give
me some advise by just looking at the picture.

http://home.arcor.de/luka5/DSC06977.JPG

Regards
Lukas

PS:I hope that this message will not appear twice or more often at the
piclist. I tried several times to post but without any result...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Still need help programming a PIC16F72 in C

2008-09-05T07:11:12Z

Thanks for this suggestion, John.

I finally found a solution that works for me: the free version of
HI-TECH C PRO (not to be confused with PICC-LITE) with MPLAB 8.10 and
Windows XP. HI-TECH C PRO does not work with Windows 98.

I am still interested in programming PIC microcontrollers in D a m n
Small Linux, and I will revisit that and tackle the "dependency hell"
issues at a later date.

On 9/1/08, John Temples <piclist3@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Jason Hsu wrote:
>
>> I have been able to get PICC-LITE to work, but the most sophisticated
>> microcontroller it's compatible with seems to be the PIC16F84.
>
> PICC PRO, in Lite mode, supports all PIC 10/12/16 parts without memory
> limitations, but without optimization:
>
> http://microchip.htsoft.com/products/compilers/piccpro-modes.php
>
> --
> John W. Temples, III
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
Jason Hsu
http://www.jasonhsu.com/swrwatt.html
http://www.jasonhsu.com/swrwatt-source_code.txt
NOTE: I am seeking employment as an embedded electronics engineer.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: C mailing list

2008-09-05T06:58:09Z

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Gerhard Fiedler
<lists@...> wrote:

> Grant Brown wrote:
>
>> Quite some time ago someone suggested a really good "C" mailing list
>> that was quite active but now I can not for the life of me find it again.
>>
>> At the time they indicated the the list was also used by quite a lot of
>> PIC programmers as well.
>>
>> So can anyone tell which list it was or suggest a good alternative.
>
> Not sure about the list you're talking about, but in general the compiler
> manufacturers have forums, which are probably in most cases a good place,
> especially since general C is good to know for PIC C programming, of
> course, but the details of each compiler are just as important.

If you are interested in the C language in general, such as it's C99
specifications, you might try the comp.lang.c newsgroup.

Or they might be able to suggest a good list / group for your
particular implentation of C.

Bill

--
Psst... Hey, you... Buddy... Want a kitten? straycatblues.petfinder.org
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Using C instead of Assembly language

2008-09-05T06:27:41Z

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Michael Rigby-Jones
<Michael.Rigby-Jones@...> wrote:
>
> The only Hitachi/Freescale parts I've ever used have been the HC11 and
> H8S, so I'm not really up to speed on them. Do the Coldfire devices have
> any significant advantages over ARM based ones?
>

Hitachi is now Renesas (Hitachi+Mitsubishi) and they claim to be
the No. 1 MCU maker. H8 and M16C are both still quite popular.

ColdFire is more prominent on the higher end (more like MPU)
especially those with embedded RTOS support like Linux. ARM7s
(also Cortex M3) can not run Linux since they do not have MMU.
You need ARM9/Xscale for that. The choice of ARM9 is not as
great as ARM7/Cortex M3. So ColdFire is still competitive in
some markets. Now it seems that Freescale is really pushing
quite hard on the 8-bit and low-end 32bit with Coldfire V1 core.
I think V1 core will target Cortex M3.

Still I would say ARMs are still the most popular MCU core
today and I have doubts whether PIC32 can compete with
Cortex M3. STM32 really catches a lot of attentions now.
NXP LPC1000 is also out.

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

RE: Using C instead of Assembly language

2008-09-05T04:35:18Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On
Behalf
> Of Xiaofan Chen
> Sent: 05 September 2008 04:35
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [PIC]Using C instead of Assembly language
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Martin <martin@...> wrote:
> > I would be really excited to see a PIC32 in a bit smaller package
like a
> > TQFP 44. I think it needs a better ADC too.. but maybe that's a
noise

> > limitation.
>
> Some of the Freescale ColdFire V1 (and a few V2) MCUs start to look
> interesting here even though the choices are still very limited. But
> they seem to be very competitive against PIC24/PIC32, especially
> on the higher end (Ethernet, USB, etc).
>
> >From the product summary brocure:
> 10k SRP of MCF51QE32/64/128 is US$1.94/3.30/3.80. LQFP64
> 10k SPR of MCF51JM128 is US$3.65 with 44LQFP option.
> 10k SRP of MCF52212/213 is US$2.84/3.74. LQFP64.
> http://www.freescale.com/coldfire
>
> All have 12bit ADC. Some have USB Device/Host/OTG. Some have
> MAC. All have US$99 development board. The special edition
> CodeWarrior has code size limited C compiler (64KB for V1
> and 128KB for V2).
>

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=CW-SUITE-
> SPECIAL
>
> Xiaofan

The only Hitachi/Freescale parts I've ever used have been the HC11 and
H8S, so I'm not really up to speed on them. Do the Coldfire devices have
any significant advantages over ARM based ones?

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: C mailing list

2008-09-05T04:22:03Z

Grant Brown wrote:

> Quite some time ago someone suggested a really good "C" mailing list
> that was quite active but now I can not for the life of me find it again.
>
> At the time they indicated the the list was also used by quite a lot of
> PIC programmers as well.
>
> So can anyone tell which list it was or suggest a good alternative.

Not sure about the list you're talking about, but in general the compiler
manufacturers have forums, which are probably in most cases a good place,
especially since general C is good to know for PIC C programming, of
course, but the details of each compiler are just as important.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Using C instead of Assembly language

2008-09-04T20:34:56Z

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Martin <martin@...> wrote:
> I would be really excited to see a PIC32 in a bit smaller package like a
> TQFP 44. I think it needs a better ADC too.. but maybe that's a noise
> limitation.

Some of the Freescale ColdFire V1 (and a few V2) MCUs start to look
interesting here even though the choices are still very limited. But
they seem to be very competitive against PIC24/PIC32, especially
on the higher end (Ethernet, USB, etc).

>From the product summary brocure:
10k SRP of MCF51QE32/64/128 is US$1.94/3.30/3.80. LQFP64
10k SPR of MCF51JM128 is US$3.65 with 44LQFP option.
10k SRP of MCF52212/213 is US$2.84/3.74. LQFP64.
http://www.freescale.com/coldfire

All have 12bit ADC. Some have USB Device/Host/OTG. Some have
MAC. All have US$99 development board. The special edition
CodeWarrior has code size limited C compiler (64KB for V1
and 128KB for V2).
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=CW-SUITE-SPECIAL

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Using C instead of Assembly language

2008-09-04T19:36:51Z

Martin wrote:
> Hi Vitaliy,
> I agree with everything you say.

Oh-oh. :)

> The new 18F..J parts seem particularly
> nice IMO. The 18F67J10 costs ~US$2.65, has 128k flash and 3904 bytes
> RAM. Yeah, it's a 64TQFP but you can get carrier boards really cheap.
> I like the specs on the 24H parts as well but getting a C compiler for
> them is probably a little more expensive.

We've successfully used both the C18 and the C30 compilers at work. The
Student version is free, and one would have to write a lot of code in order
for the optimizations to start to matter.

> I would be really excited to see a PIC32 in a bit smaller package like a
> TQFP 44. I think it needs a better ADC too.. but maybe that's a noise
> limitation.

Honestly, I don't know that much about PIC32. Given the fact that it takes
Microchip an average of 18 months to fix the errata and make new silicon, I
think we'll wait a year or so before getting our feet wet. Hopefully by that
time, there would also be plenty of example code, and we'll be able to
google solutions to the more common problems.

> I especially agree
> with the statement that time is increasingly expensive. If you're not
> factoring in time you're probably wasting it.

Yeah, but it goes both ways -- see Byron's post. If you are already familiar
with the 16F, have the toolset, and don't need more resources (pins, RAM,
ROM) then the cost of switching to a new processor family is likely to be
greater than the benefits.

Vitaliy

----
"We buy other people's mistakes." -- Steve Sanghi, Microchip CEO
----

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Function scope in MPLAB C

2008-09-04T09:01:43Z

Harold Hallikainen wrote:

> As you and others have pointed out, the key is to make the function
> static. I've always thought the dual use of the word static was strange.
> It makes most sense to me in declaring a local variable. There, the word
> static is the opposite of the word dynamic. The memory is statically
> (permanently) allocated as opposed to being allocated just within the
> function, the deallocated.
>
> The other use of the word static (outside a function) speaks to the scope
> of the variable (or function) instead of how the memory is allocated.
> Static here means the variable or function is visible only in this source
> file. I can't really think of why the word "static" was used here. In the
> memory allocation case, it makes sense, as static is unchanging. The
> allocation does not change. But how do we make sense of the word static
> with regard to scope? Or was this just a way of saving a little space in
> the parsing mechanism of the compiler (fewer key words to deal with - the
> meaning depends upon the location)?
>
> Harold
>

If you enable extended mode on your PIC 18F and the C18 compiler, you
cannot use 'static' mode for parameters.

Extended mode reduced my code size by 16%
-
Martin
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Using C instead of Assembly language

2008-09-04T07:40:14Z

Hi Vitaliy,
I agree with everything you say. The new 18F..J parts seem particularly
nice IMO. The 18F67J10 costs ~US$2.65, has 128k flash and 3904 bytes
RAM. Yeah, it's a 64TQFP but you can get carrier boards really cheap.
I like the specs on the 24H parts as well but getting a C compiler for
them is probably a little more expensive. OTOH if you get the microchip
C compiler you can go between the dsPICs and PIC24s. I especially agree
with the statement that time is increasingly expensive. If you're not
factoring in time you're probably wasting it.

I would be really excited to see a PIC32 in a bit smaller package like a
TQFP 44. I think it needs a better ADC too.. but maybe that's a noise
limitation.

-
Martin

Vitaliy wrote:

> In my opinion, unless your project is a very high-volume, extremely
> price-sensitive commercial product, you shouldn't be using the PIC16F, or
> programming in Assembly. I know this statement has the potential of starting
> a flame war, but please bear with me as we look at the facts.
>
> The 16F is cheaper than the 18F or the 16-bit PICs, but for one-off or
> low-volume projects, the difference is negligible (about $1). See for
> yourself -- click on the product series, and sort by price in ascending
> order (also pay attention to what you get for the money):
>
> PIC16F: http://tinyurl.com/9akkz
> PIC18F: http://tinyurl.com/2yg3zw
> PIC24H: http://tinyurl.com/2x9k2w
>
> For anything but high-volume projects (many thousands), or projects
> requiring very little code, you will spend *more* per unit if you go with
> the PIC16F.
>
> Microchip has free Student versions of the C18 and C30 compilers.
> Programming in C has many advantages over assembly, but the main one is that
> it makes the code much easier to write, understand, and reuse. It lets you
> focus more on the design, rather than the implementation details, of your
> program. Another big advantage for a beginner, is that there are many more
> resources available for C (books, websites, expert programmers), than for
> the PIC16F flavor of Assembly.
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Hitech C bug

2008-09-04T07:06:00Z

> Probably they need a complete, minimal C source that shows the problem,

The one line that causes the problem is included in the listing as a
comment (first line)

> plus the version of the compiler,

Hitech C (Pro) Lite (as I mentioned) is what I downloaded, earlier today

> plus the command line/options used for compilation.

dunno, I simply activated it in MPLAB and compiled...

But the discussion Mike pointed to seems to be about the same issue, a
pity they did not update their main download. To get the patched version
I must again register, sigh...

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Hitech C bug

2008-09-04T06:20:40Z

Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Any HiTech guys listening?
>
Not a HiTech guy... :)

> I am trying Hitech C Lite, I ran into this bug:
>
> 1733 ;test1.c: 861: TRISB4 = 0;
> 1734 0F7A 1003 clrc
> 1735 0F7B 1803 btfsc status,0
> 1736 0F7C 2F80 goto u2331
> 1737 0F7D 2F82 goto u2330
> 1738 0F7E 1683 bsf status, 5 ;RP0=1, select bank1
> 1739 0F7F 1303 bcf status, 6 ;RP2=0, select bank1
> 1740
> 1741
> 1742 0F80 u2331:
> 1743 0F80 1606 bsf (1076/8),(1076)&7
> 1744 0F81 2F83 goto u2344
> 1745 0F82 u2330:
> 1746 0F82 1206 bcf (1076/8),(1076)&7
> 1747 0F83 u2344:
>
> The problem is that the bsf/bcf instructions that select bank1 are in
> the wrong place: they are never executed..

Probably they need a complete, minimal C source that shows the problem,
plus the version of the compiler, plus the command line/options used for
compilation. Otherwise it can be tricky or impossible to reproduce the
problem.

Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

RE: Hitech C bug

2008-09-04T06:13:58Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On
Behalf

> Of Tamas Rudnai
> Sent: 04 September 2008 14:06
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Hitech C bug
>
> Also this is very clever:
>
> 1734 0F7A 1003 clrc
> 1735 0F7B 1803 btfsc status,0
>
> The whole lot should be 3 instructions at the most without any
> optimization.
>
> Tamas

That implies that Wouter is using the PICC Pro compiler in Lite mode,
since all optimisations are disabled. If this is the case it's a know
problem and there is a patch to fix it.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Hitech C bug

2008-09-04T06:05:53Z

Also this is very clever:

1734 0F7A 1003 clrc
1735 0F7B 1803 btfsc status,0

The whole lot should be 3 instructions at the most without any optimization.

Tamas

2008/9/4 Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@...>

> (sorry, retry with a subject line!)
>
> Any HiTech guys listening?
>
> I am trying Hitech C Lite, I ran into this bug:
>
> 1733 ;test1.c: 861: TRISB4 = 0;
> 1734 0F7A 1003 clrc
> 1735 0F7B 1803 btfsc status,0
> 1736 0F7C 2F80 goto u2331
> 1737 0F7D 2F82 goto u2330
> 1738 0F7E 1683 bsf status, 5 ;RP0=1,
> select bank1
> 1739 0F7F 1303 bcf status, 6 ;RP2=0,
> select bank1
> 1740
> 1741
> 1742 0F80 u2331:
> 1743 0F80 1606 bsf (1076/8),(1076)&7
> 1744 0F81 2F83 goto u2344
> 1745 0F82 u2330:
> 1746 0F82 1206 bcf (1076/8),(1076)&7
> 1747 0F83 u2344:
>
> The problem is that the bsf/bcf instructions that select bank1 are in
> the wrong place: they are never executed...
>
> --
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
>
>
> --
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
Rudonix DoubleSaver
http://www.rudonix.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

RE: Hitech C bug

2008-09-04T06:02:30Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On
Behalf

> Of Wouter van Ooijen
> Sent: 04 September 2008 13:36
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [PIC]: Hitech C bug
>
> (sorry, retry with a subject line!)
>
> Any HiTech guys listening?
>
> I am trying Hitech C Lite, I ran into this bug:
>
> 1733 ;test1.c: 861: TRISB4 = 0;
> 1734 0F7A 1003 clrc
> 1735 0F7B 1803 btfsc status,0
> 1736 0F7C 2F80 goto u2331
> 1737 0F7D 2F82 goto u2330
> 1738 0F7E 1683 bsf status, 5 ;RP0=1,

select bank1
> 1739 0F7F 1303 bcf status, 6 ;RP2=0,
select bank1

> 1740
> 1741
> 1742 0F80 u2331:
> 1743 0F80 1606 bsf (1076/8),(1076)&7
> 1744 0F81 2F83 goto u2344
> 1745 0F82 u2330:
> 1746 0F82 1206 bcf (1076/8),(1076)&7
> 1747 0F83 u2344:
>
> The problem is that the bsf/bcf instructions that select bank1 are in
> the wrong place: they are never executed...

This sounds familiar. Which compiler are you using; the original PICC
Lite, or the PICC Pro in 'Lite' mode? If it's the latter then this may
help:

<http://forum.htsoft.com/all/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=pic&Number=69422&S
earchpage=1&Main=68992&Words=bank+lite&topic=&Search=true#Post69422>

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Hitech C bug

2008-09-04T05:36:25Z

(sorry, retry with a subject line!)

Any HiTech guys listening?

I am trying Hitech C Lite, I ran into this bug:

1733 ;test1.c: 861: TRISB4 = 0;
1734 0F7A 1003 clrc
1735 0F7B 1803 btfsc status,0
1736 0F7C 2F80 goto u2331
1737 0F7D 2F82 goto u2330
1738 0F7E 1683 bsf status, 5 ;RP0=1, select bank1
1739 0F7F 1303 bcf status, 6 ;RP2=0, select bank1
1740
1741
1742 0F80 u2331:
1743 0F80 1606 bsf (1076/8),(1076)&7
1744 0F81 2F83 goto u2344
1745 0F82 u2330:
1746 0F82 1206 bcf (1076/8),(1076)&7
1747 0F83 u2344:

The problem is that the bsf/bcf instructions that select bank1 are in
the wrong place: they are never executed...

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Re: Connecting a PIC16F84A to MPLab via ICSP

2008-09-04T05:25:06Z

Grant Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How does one connect a PIC16F84A device to MPLab via the ICSP port.
>
> As it turns out this device is not supported by my Real ICE adapter so
> which adapter/hardware do I use ?

Any "programmer" that supports the 16F84A.
There are a *lot* of programmers doing that...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Connecting a PIC16F84A to MPLab via ICSP

2008-09-04T04:53:22Z

Hi,

How does one connect a PIC16F84A device to MPLab via the ICSP port.

As it turns out this device is not supported by my Real ICE adapter so
which adapter/hardware do I use ?

--
Kind Regards
Grant Brown

SiteDoc Pty Ltd
mob: 0412 926 995
www.sitedoc.com.au

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

C mailing list

2008-09-04T04:50:10Z

Hi,

Quite some time ago someone suggested a really good "C" mailing list
that was quite active but now I can not for the life of me find it again.

At the time they indicated the the list was also used by quite a lot of
PIC programmers as well.

So can anyone tell which list it was or suggest a good alternative.

--
Kind Regards
Grant Brown

SiteDoc Pty Ltd
mob: 0412 926 995
www.sitedoc.com.au
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This email message together with any attachments is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply email (or telephone SiteDoc Pty Ltd on +61 2 42291185) and immediately delete this email together with any attachments from your computer. If you are the intended recipient, you must not copy, disclose, reproduce or distribute this communication together with any attachments without the authority of SiteDoc Proprietary Limited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient. Unless specifically stated by the sender as the views of SiteDoc Proprietary Limited, any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and no responsibility will be borne by SiteDoc Proprietary Limited for its content or outcomes.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Setting up a new PIC32 project

2008-09-04T04:41:32Z

Hi List,

I have a PIC32 that I am intending to use on my next project,

I am looking for some advise on how to go setting this up.

Do I for example us a super loop (eg While(1) etc) or would a
scheduler/RTOS be a better starting point.

If a RTOS is the way to go then which one as I have zero experience with
RTOS so I need something with an easy learning curve if possible.

The devices that need to be handled are

(1) UART Devices - 3 off
(2) I2C Devices - 5 off
(3) SPI Devices - 4 devices
(4) LCD Devices - 1 off
(5) LEDs - 10 off
(6) Input Switches - 4 off
(7) Input Push buttons - 10 off

Any advice and or example code is most welcome and will be very much
appreciated.

--
Kind Regards
Grant Brown

SiteDoc Pty Ltd
mob: 0412 926 995
www.sitedoc.com.au

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

RE: Using C instead of Assembly language

2008-09-03T20:50:35Z

Vitaliy wrote:

>
> In my opinion, unless your project is a very high-volume, extremely
> price-sensitive commercial product, you shouldn't be using the PIC16F,
> or
> programming in Assembly. I know this statement has the potential of
> starting
> a flame war, but please bear with me as we look at the facts.
>
> The 16F is cheaper than the 18F or the 16-bit PICs, but for one-off or
> low-volume projects, the difference is negligible (about $1). See for
> yourself -- click on the product series, and sort by price in ascending
> order (also pay attention to what you get for the money):
>
> PIC16F: http://tinyurl.com/9akkz
> PIC18F: http://tinyurl.com/2yg3zw
> PIC24H: http://tinyurl.com/2x9k2w
>
> For anything but high-volume projects (many thousands), or projects
> requiring very little code, you will spend *more* per unit if you go
> with
> the PIC16F.

I agree with this - unless you want a PIC with less than 18 pins. In that
case, your choices are a 14-pin 16F, a 8-pin 12F, or a 6-pin 10F.

Now, you can argue that with modern surface-mount devices, an 18-pin device
can be physically quite small, but remember that this discussion was about
hobbyists, and DIPs are definitely more hobbyist (or even professional
prototyping) friendly.

E.g. check out my Christmas Star project -
http://www.gooligum.com.au/kits/xmasstar/xmasstar.html. I wanted something
that easy for hobbyists to build (hence a DIP), but I wouldn't have wanted
anything bigger than an 8-pin device in the middle of that star. No 18F
would do. And besides, it's much more fun to get an 8-pin device to drive
20 independently-addressable LEDs - where's the challenge in using an 18-pin
device? :-)

David Meiklejohn
www.gooligum.com.au

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist