Just received an invitation to a seminar about Cypress PSoC. It seems they'll introduce PSoC Express, for the most part. I checked out the tutorial on Cypress' site and at first glance it looks quite similar to the VisualState package IAR offers for the MPS430 and others. I kicked the tires on that one a bit but found it isn't really geared towards guys that have to process signals. It's more for state machines.
Any experience with PSoC Express? Can a guy who knows a bit or two about C-algorithms get stuff such as intricate PID loops going on it?
On another note, what do you think about today's Cypress PSoC in general? The Mitsubishi uC core in there looks enticing. The analog features, well, they don't exactly float my boat yet. So, until now I usually ended up designing it all analog except for an 8051 here or there.
You could go to a conference, or a seminar, or some sort of presentation in Silicon Valley almost every day of the year, and not work at all. Few are worth the time, and you can read a datasheet and a few appnotes in the time it takes to park. Personally, I can't sit through these things; the bit rate is just too low.
"Without writing a single line of code, without learning a complex In-Circuit-Emulator, a system designer creates an application by combining objects such as LEDs, switches, sensors, and fans. PSoC Express' firmware generation engine transparently handles all of the details of the microcontroller application code, reducing design cycles to a few hours instead of weeks or months. Because the generated code is built from standardized, fully-tested software components, the overall design quality and maintainability increase dramatically."
I get it: the programmers who wrote those modules know more about electronics and more about my application than I do.
Usually true. But I found that a few of them where they send app engineers along are really good (TI, for example). They are typically able to answer 80% of my questions, with the remainder never being answered. Probably because some guy in a tie said that it's too confidential.
Parking? Not a problem here. But after paying $20 plus tip for 2hrs in S.F. I am certainly cured from doing that again ;-)
The higher the abstraction level the more we have to trust the guys who engineered it. With some Windows software we all know where that is leading. But here I am hoping for something that can help if one has to whip out a prototype or even a design in a jiffy and where code efficiency isn't paramount. I don't know about their claim regarding design quality but it would be nice not to have to write all the digital control stuff and being able to concentrate on a few lines of C for an embedded control routine. When I took a close look at some of the sub-routines that came with the IAR compiler they were quite good. Same for some of the "architectures in a can" that were shipped with filter design software.
After all, we are used to include "pre-cooked" code in our C programs all the time.
"Joerg" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Ar_jh.11811$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
[PSoC Express] If your're serious about the PSoC functionality I suggest using PSoC Designer instead. The learning curve is very time-consuming but you can much better control the architecture. Cypress spent big man-power into Express lately and you can even write now your own Express add-in modules. I think they want to reach the PIC folks to expand market reach - "PICs" typically not so technical experienced. There is still a big gap between the beginners design-limited Express and full-functionality Designer!
BTW: The PSoC M8C core is not a Mitsubishi M8 core! I heard rumors they once bought a startup for getting USB knowledge and the core was already built-in and so they decided to use an already-owned core for the later PSoC project. The M8C is of similar functionality like the 8051. Next year Cypress will add at least an Cortex-ARM line into. So the very simple M8C core is not a problem anymore. They will even package the new chips (lower pin-count variants) into non-BGA (for developer-friendly).
The analog functionality is not so bad. Indeed it is for a mixed digital system very interesting. Internal routing of the resources is sometimes a problem as it is not possible to place all modules on all places. There are a few design flares you can live with. If price and single-source is not the problem and you like to integrate (sometimes powerful if you can think different) analog functionality, then PSoC is the way to go for low volume productions. There is no other alternative on the market.
Negative: The badly-optimizing C compiler. You can easely reach the border of the maximum of 32Kbytes Flash. Positive: Very good developer support by Cypress.
Your synopsis is very good. I have been looking that the PSOC devices ever since they came on the market and it seems they have always been a bit difficult to figure out, especially if you are just trying to determine if they will do what you need in your app. I think the disconnect has been in the details of the programmable hardware. They seem to provide just enough info to interest you, but if you really want to understand the limitations of the system, you have to dig very deep into the documentation. The new PSOC express seems to be the head guy's response to how tricky the tools can be to use (which in my opinion is a reflection of how tricky the hardware is). But rather than dig into how users want to work with tools, they decided that a one button type approach was the way to go.
So now they have a tool that they can claim eliminates writing code. I have only seen that once before in my career and that was a full page ad in Byte magazine some 20+ years ago. I never saw anything further from that company. :^)
I have been pursuing info on the new PSOC3 chips and I am pretty sure I have the straight scoop on it now. They will be coming out with two new PSOC3 lines, one with an 8051 type CPU and one with an ARM Cortex-M3 CPU. Both lines will have the new, NEA (no excuses analog) programmable blocks. I hope they can also improve on the digital blocks. I have a small, 10 input multiplexer that I would like to implement in the PSOC instead of having to add a CPLD. But the current PSOC can't really do this.
Don't hold your breath for the PSOC3 parts. They are still banging on the keyboard writing the upfront documentation, so samples may be available a year from now.
"rickman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news: snipped-for-privacy@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thanks. I also delayed my intro to PSoC several years. And that was a good decision, as there were several problems they had on chips and software.
It works very good if you like to implement for example a simple heater control or such. It is for people to implement a small working system in a day without having knowledge of C or assembler. STM makes a similar SDK for one of their chips. Besides that look for example OOPIC.
There is no way around to read more than 100 app notes of Cypress. Sometimes using the right implementation structure is very important with PSoC. For example for sinus generation, modem apps, using sleep timer, etc.
I heart of the 8051 version but I think it is not very useful to implant a no more powerful core. You can use the Keil compiler then, which is a very effective but expensive system. Maybe that is a real marketing decision just to reach interested people the first time (via Google...).
I don't understand the problem to make a 10 input multiplexer but never tried it.
Personally I often run the CPU most of the time doing almost nothing. There is not enough onchip RAM to design a system with a real power-hungry application. There it is better to add an external ARM doing digital algorithms.
One thing I'm really interested in is the question, how they integrate a core with a very fine structure AND at the same time will improve the analog system. That is paradox because the linearity of chips is bounded to have thicker structures. At 90nm you can forget analog linearity.
Agreed, although I have been to a few really good ones... Xilinx had one where an application engineer stood there and told you pretty much everything that was broken in their tools, what wasn't, and otherwise how to *really* use them (which was rather different than what the manuals might suggest), and I remember one from OnSemi about switching power supplies that -- given my pretty much non-existant power supply design skills at the time -- was quite helpful to get a good idea for "this is what really happens in the commercial world," which can be difficult to gleam from reading textbooks and sometimes even application notes.
That's why you take your laptop and work on your latest project simultaneously!
I haven't bitten yet either. Every time I looked the analog sections appeared to be too paltry. Pricing was quite ok but single-source is an issue. Now I am going to hit an application where PSoC could be useful but only if programming is as easy as getting a LabView routine going. No problem if the code is wasteful because the uC routines are rather mundane.
IMHO an 8051 only makes sense if that leads to 2nd sources. That is "the" reason why a lot of controller boards still use the 8051 architecture. So did I. One of those design is now in its 12th year of production and the client doesn't really have to worry about anything going obsolete. The way it goes they might still produce it when I put my teeth into a jar at night.
Poor linearity, leaks, offsets are often not such a big deal. The low number of analog modules is a problem. You can get a quad opamp in a tiny TSSOP package for around 10 cents and a Volks-BJT can be had for about one cent. That's the direction my designs tend to follow, usually.
The PSOC3 is a whole new chip design, so they had the chance to rethink their CPU selection. The M3C is a no-name core from a no-name source and has very poor software tool support. I expect that is a major limitation, not the availability of second sources. Other than the
8051, what MCUs have second sources these days?
Sure, if your design has lots of room it is no big deal. But many of the apps these things go into are squeezed on space as well as budget. Besides, there are any number of designs that demand you to eliminate a
10 cent part if you can.
The newer PSOC3 devices will likely be reaching for some new territory. The CM3 flavor device will still be affordable, but will give a lot more processing power. I think the main hurdle for them will be to make the full device something that you can easily use and understand without having to give up all control to a one button design tool.
"Joerg" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:XBekh.37333$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
LabView cannot run in a tiny 8 pins device. That is the point.
a
very
just
If they drop the M8C this seems useful (even if it just to get rid of the M8C C-compiler). But as this would break the already acquired customers they surely drive the M8C way a long time... (M8C programs typical have a mix of (machine-dependent) assembler and C) The ARM core is not so cheap but very powerful. They announced more Flash and RAM...
analog
have
Joerg, if you drive the chinese way (cheap cheap cheap) then this may be a problem. If you can imagine the benefit having a single or dual-side PCB instead of 4-layers and a spy glass to count pins... then spend a dollar more and have an almost single chip system. And why not use a dual PSoC system?
If you can more specify your analog system I can try if it fits into PSoC.
None AFAIK. That's why the 8051 architecture remains so popular. Plus you can find a local code expert almost anywhere.
Size is, surprisingly, a decreasing concern. One of my designs this year had to be smaller than a couple of postage stamps. Yet I did it all analog with around 60 parts. Going to 0402 was the answer and there would have been even smaller parts available. A uC solution would have cost more. So yeah, if you can save the 10c part that's fine but if that requires a uC that costs 25c more it's just not feasible.
Still a "one button tool" is nice as long as there is an open path towards more intricate design. Think of it like you do about Excel. This is a rather simple tool that let's you key in almost any formula just as it comes to mind. Some programmer has already implemented the code that executes it and we trust that process for the most part. If it's not enough we can still fire up the C-compiler but in 95% plus of cases we don't need to. All my biz book-keeping is done in database. Took less than half a day to set up. In C that would have taken weeks.
I only mentioned it as an example. LabView lets you configure a complicated process control on a PC in one morning session. If PSoC Express could perform a similar job for PSoC that would be pretty cool. But I am not the expert here which is why I posted. I don't know if PSoC Express can really do that.
A Dollar is a huge amount of money in production costs for most of my designs. I am used to turning around every penny. And yes, some of that is then produced in China. One of the tricks is to make do with dual layer and on, gasp, phenolic board.
Glass? Well, I did have to buy a pair of 3X glasses for work in the lab. Some of the parts are the size of a grain of salt.
Thanks but I'd get shot if I did that ;-)
The current one has about 10 analog stages, a PID loop, 3-4 coarse digital timers (built around a hex Schmitt, like usual) and a fast PWM in the 500kHz range. Oh, plus some 100MHz RF stuff.
"Joerg" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Fdgkh.9725$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
I know in general what LabView is. More, I once was involved on a LabView-like product for Apple Mac. I don't think you can simulate all the functionality of LabView in PSoC Express.
a
20 years back I saw a dual-sided PCB in a Sharp Pocket Computer with a additional structural plastic 5-wire cable across the PCB. phenolic board: FR-2? no no no!!!
I cannot count the chips I counted pins on. FPGA 208-pins, count count count... Almost all pins doing most of the time just nothing. Stupid world.
PSoC.
You're a one-person company? Hm. What can I do with a system specified as in1, in2, in3, out1, ou2, out3, matrix function x//y ??
That should fit into a smaller PSoC excluding the 100MHz RF stuff.
BTW: PSoC: Analog elements have about 5 to 10MHz GBW and linearity to at least 15-bits. Digital blocks can clock between 12 and 48MHz in multiples of
8-bits. All modules can be on-the-fly reconfigured. Onchip oscillator is
2.5% accurate and can be PLLed to a cheap 32kHz clock quartz. Onchip reset controller, analog reference, temp sensor, SMPS control in the bigger ones, resource-less sleep-timer and i2c, EEPROM. And the best: Your analog design would be copy-protected!!!
It would be nice if it could at least provide some of it.
You'd be surprised how much is done in phenolic these days. Just open your TV remote as an example. Or, if you have kids, some of their electronified toys.
Yes, but my clients aren't ;-)
That's pretty much how it looks like. Three inputs, two outputs plus one RF out, and a few digital lines for status indicators.
Possibly. Maybe I should go to that Cypress seminar then.
I don't know the newer ones much but a year ago I did look and it was like an expensive restaurant. Lots of delicious stuff on the menu but the portions were kind of smallish. IOW, not enough analog blocks.
"Joerg" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:wQgkh.9730$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
I don't think so but never tried newer LabView versions or the lately PSoC Express versions.
A couple of weeks back I had a "random blinking" St. Martin candle light to repair for my daughter. I opened it and the wire immediately fall out. It was "soldered" with PLAIN lead. And this lead must be directly out of the mine. Sure, it was cheap to buy but I must add my work on it to the price. The other side "Papa repaired it!" ;-)
I hate phenolic for quality and smelling, I hate electrolytic capacitors others than OS-CON. I have a big list to hate ;-)
out3,
So I can move on with your design to copy it. Thanks!
Hm. You can but it is more effective to read the datasheets, device selector, almost all app notes (even if in the beginning not all is understood), install PSoC Designer and updates, build a little hardware to play on, look for prices, read postings in psocdeveloper.com and Cypress PSoC forum.
Googling around is not very effective if you seek PSoC infos. Seems that most people like keeping all secret.
If your're analog-only concentric, look for Anadigics. Don't know if they still exist. Zetex analog-cell is dead (at least directly from Zetex. Hans seems to make them to date).
multiples of
reset
ones,
You had the same problem as myself. The deeper understanding is for example, that an analog bandpass filter module have input voltage scaling and output comparator onboard in ONE module! You MUST read the app notes to learn the tricks! The same is true for the analog multiplier.
But in general your statement seems true: The resources are very constraint. The chip must be cheap in production.
Yes. As far as I know the protection-scheme was never cracked.
As a kid and in my college days I built all my stuff on phenolic except for some RF gear. Most of that is still in use here in the lab and I didn't have one single electrolytic fail in 25+ years. Tantalums, now that's another story.
First you'd have to know the other 3-4 pounds of stuff connected to it and what we want to do with that :-)
So far anything other than Cypress PSoC was out of cost range. Often way out. Interestingly TI is beefing up their MSP430F2xxx family with analog functions. So far only two opamps but who knows what will come next. A multiplying DAC would be really nice for gain control apps.
I did read a lot of their app notes back then but the presented applications were typically quite a bit thinner than what I usually need. It may be entertaining to read about a seat heating controller but I can do that with a 50c micro ;-)
I still don't understand the darth of analog functions. The production cost of the old LM324 is probably under a penny for the die but you get four really nice opamps for that and they can even sense below the negative rail. Can't be rocket science to add a few CMOS varieties of these.
Who knows, hacks of this sort are usually kept secret. Very secret. But they should be quite safe in that respect.
I have been working with the PSOC for the last 6 monts now. My recommendation to learn the ins and outs of this device is to lock yourself into the lab for a week or two to get a prototype up and running. The key is to dwelve into the PSOC, the seminars are no use since they are to superficial. When you get into trouble use the PSOCDeveloper.com forum. Its great. Moreover DON'T use the "Sublimation" and "Condensation" modes of the compiler. The compiler is buggy and these optimization functions simply dont work (I learned the hard way tracking down a bug for two days to find it was just the checkmark in the compiler options that was the culprit)
The analog functions are ok - I hope they wil be even better with the PSOC3
Regarding price, our production takes about 2cents to place an SMD component. So the last design I saved about 50parts using the PSOC, and that means I got the PSOC almost free of charge. Moreover, the reliability is increased due to less parts and the lock-up modes are removed since you can build in intelligence into the analog functions
The idea, of course, is that you only need to make it secure enough that it's cheaper to just re-design the unit based on the functionality rather than trying to break the protection and outright copying it.
This leds me to wonder... what's the chance a consultant such as yourself has ever been contacted by someone to help reverse engineer a device that, it turns out, they themselves designed in the first place? :-)
Slapping a well-known name on the widget can more than make up for even poorer designs (say, more expensive to manufacture), I imagine...
Yep. I doubt that reverse-engineering ever really pays off.
I have never been asked to do reverse-engineering. What I am often asked is to find out why a certain device doesn't work as well as a similar one from a competitor. But all we do then is run them both, note the differences and then take a good hard look at the circuitry that my client has used so far, then re-design it. After that it typically beats the competitor's performance so taking their unit apart wouldn't have gained us much anyhow :-)
Doesn't work in the long run. Consumers will quickly find out and spread the word. In these days of the Internet that can be a matter of just a few days.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.