8051 derivative 2nd sources

I'm starting a new project and I intend to use an 8051 derivative. Specifically, I'm looking for a chip that has at least 3MIPS, 64K FLASH, an SPI port, and must be RoHS compliant.

The real reason that I'm posting is that I want to use a chip(s) that are truly second sourced. We intend to produce this product for maybe

10 years or so, so we don't want to have to be concerned about having a chip manufacture stopping production.

For example, I know that the Philips's P89V51RD2 is second sourced by SST's SST89E516RD2. Atmel makes an AT89C51RD2, but the SPI signals are pined out differently then the first two chips. But this is the only second sourced chip that I can find with the above mentioned requirements. I was wondering is anyone knows of other 8051 type chips that are second sourced.

Thanks George

snipped-for-privacy@powis.com

Reply to
george_d
Loading thread data ...

The SPI is a relatively new extension to the RD2 family. You can consider the AT89C51ED2 an 'almost' second source for AT89C51RD2 - the ED2 is the EEPROM version.

For other suppliers of 44 Pin RD2[PCA+MoreRam] Cores, which I think is what you are asking,look at :

Winbond, STC (China), STC89LE516RD+, STC89LE516AD Maxim?, maybe Syncmos maybe CoreRiver

Ramtron have some std C51's, that may include RD2, Philips also have a new 89V664 being released.

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

Try SiLabs...

Bo

Reply to
Bo

Hi Bo,

Thanks for the info!

Do you mean Silicon Labs? I can't find a company named SiLabs. Do you know their web site?

Thanks george

Reply to
george_d

Ehhrrr....

formatting link
?

Meindert

Reply to
Meindert Sprang

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your time and info!

I'm looking for 8051 derivatives other than the RD(2) family. We have three sources for that one. But it's the only 8051 derivative that I can find 2nd sources for. Considering the popularity of the

8051, I'm surprised that other derivatives are not 2nd sourced. I'm trying to find other 8051 derivatives (that are 2nd sourced).

Regards george

Reply to
george_d

That's Silicon labs. I know them.

They make some pretty amazing chips, but they don't have any 2nd sources, and my company is apprehensive about no 2nd sources. George

Reply to
george_d

Then you're probably out of luck; most of the interesting 8051 derivatives are sole-sourced.

You could always do an 8051 in an FPGA.

-a

Reply to
Andy Peters

I hear that a lot. And I wonder if needing second sources is really a valid argument. It is used many times by 8051 "addicts" but there are so many processors around that do not have second sources. See for instance DSP's. I hear noboday complain about that. And look at the amount of PIC's used in automotive; no second source.

Meindert

Reply to
Meindert Sprang

I know of one firm that designed in an 80186 back during its heyday. At the time AMD was a second source. The application is super-critical, and required ungodly validation of both hardware and software, which validation costs much more than the development or manufacture. So they don't change a thing. When advised of EOL (end-of-life) of the 80188 they bought in a large amount of unpackaged but processed wafers so they could continue producing the system. They dread running out.

New and shiny is not necessarily better.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Sad to say, but second sources ended in the 90's(excluding Memory)..... In the 90's everyone had a 68HC11, 8051...2nd source. Your company needs to update its purchasing requirements.

Personally I'm glad second sources, for most IC's are dead.... it forces purchasing to buy the parts that were designed and protoyped in... not just a spec check.

8-16week lead times are now common place for IC's.... We just have to convince managment that inventory isn't such a bad thing now days:)

10 year life cycle for a product... I would switch to an ARM7 instead of using 8051 as you platform.... 8051s are cool, but I see the new

32bit processors replacing 8-bit ones in the near future.... but that is a whole other thread.

Eric

Reply to
Eric

There are multiple aspects to 'Second sourced' - a) Some worry about an exact physical replacement, and for them, yes you can get that, if you are prepared (not surprisingly) to work with a subset of all parts. PLCC44 and DIP20 are the sweet spots here.

b) Some worry about functional replacement, and a PCB respin is not nearly as risky as a core change - smallish PCB respins are actually common. For those, you need "Same core, Similar Size package"

- and that definition of second source widens up the candidate list.

eg 80C51 with 24 bit ADC :

Silabs, TI, ADi, and even TDK all have vey similar resourced devices

c) Then there is 'Second Fab sourcing' - you will often see larger suppliers mention that they have more than one FAB qualified to run their devices. That gets close to having another supplier, and covers physical risks to FABs, as well as reduces process EOL risks.

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

This "2nd source" term is probably a conflated mush of more exact ideas.

There is a 2nd source meaning that is strict, in that the processor packaging and pin layout, electrical specifications of various kinds, peripheral mix and their programming methods, CPU instructions, etc., are equivalent for the purposes of the product. In that it can simply be dropped in, from a different vendor, and work properly with binary production images used with existing production tools, unchanged.

In that sense, I think the 8051 core may offer some limited options of

2nd sourcing where very few other possibilities exist. But then, I haven't directly experienced such a project outside of hobbyist ones using very basic, generic cores with only standard features and DIP packaging (which makes sense, for boards where the board maker isn't sure which processor someone intends to drop in. However, at least it is possible to consider.

There are other facets to what 2nd source means to each, from FABing to embedded development toolset investments.

And yes, so long as companies have a demonstrated record in providing what your business requires, then even a single source is often just fine. The Microchip PIC is an excellent example. Their transition from providing them in million-lots to rice cooker makers, into deciding to provide them to hobbyists and smaller businesses was significant. But they have carried it off with extreme competence and it shows in the loyalty they have earned over time.

Jon

Reply to
Jonathan Kirwan

Thanks for your reply.

In general my opinion about 2nd sourcing of micros is this: It strikes me that many (maybe most) micro applications are consumer based. That is, MP3 players, VCRs, and "rice cookers". These products only have a 6 to 12 month product life. So those companies may not be concerned if a micro is out of production in 12 months. On the other extreme, there are companies (like mine) that build instrumentation. These products can be around for 3 to 6 years. Also, it would make since for a company to stay tooled for one micro family. It's not just a matter of the physical tolling but, even more so, the learning curve for the company's engineers to learn a new micro. Many instrumentation companies are small, so learning a new micro can be a big chunk of time (aka $).

As for Microchip; Until a few years ago I used to be a Microchip junky. But I keep finding bugs. Bugs in their documentation, chips, IDE, emulator, and other things. The last straw for me was when I read some where that if you program a cell in the on-chip EEPROM, you should rewrite the cells on ether side of it, because they might be affected by the write of the first cell.

It's hard enough to design a controller, and the last thing I need is to have unreliable development equipment, chips, documentation, etc.

Reply to
george_d

Does it really take that long to learn to use a new micro? I've used 8-10 different architectures over the past 25 years, and I don't recall it ever taking more than a few days (maybe a week) to get reasonably up to speed with a new part.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I wonder if I could
                                  at               ever get started in the
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Hello Jim,

I do agree that there are degrees of freedom to 2nd sourcing. However, most of my applications are industrial and are in production for 3 to 6 years, so I need parts that will be around for that long. Sometimes I find a close fitting parts and I only need to make a second set of traces on the PC card for the 2nd sourced part. Sometimes we buy a years worth of a sole sourced part, so we have a year's lead-time incase a part goes out of production.

That actually happened once. We discovered that our primary MPU was being phased out. We bought years worth of parts and designed a new generation product. As it turned out, the product was very due for a new generation anyway.

So if things are well planed (and with some luck), even having a sole sourced part go pfffit! should not be the end of the world.

George

Reply to
george_d

Hello Erik,

Thanks for the reply.

We where actually considering ARM for our new generation product's MPU, but we thought that the processing power is way overdoing it, so were back to 8051.

George

Reply to
george_d

Hi Grant,

It's been my experience that it takes time to really know an MPU well. It's only at that point when one can see if there are bugs in the chip (see my reply above about the EPROM). Also one (at least I do) really needs to know the chip inside and out to take advantage of the part's futures.

George

Reply to
george_d

Another thought about Erik's reply.

Most controller applications are cheep little 8 bit ones. Do you really think the 8 bit MPU is dying out?

George

Reply to
george_d

Hi Meindert,

Some companies are just better at producing a part longer. I guess if one is concerned about 2nd sourcing, that kind of chip manufacture would be the primary.

By the way, I read on the Microchip board that someone thought that Microchip might be discontinuing one of the popular PIC18F... chips.

George

Reply to
george_d

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.