Faster LIN or simpler CAN or ...? PIC16 or Cypress FX2LP or ...?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
To support various modules inside a machine.  The likely architecture is a
front end PC talking USB 2.0 to a Cypress FX2LP in the machine.  That then
splits the control work out to various nodes (spinner, motor, shutter,
laser, etc), connected by a bus.



a) CAN involves me in checking each message was received once and only once.
There's not a lot of space in the Cypress for that sort of thing.



b) We could use LIN but it seems jolly slow.  Would mean a nice simple
processor in each node with a little programming and offering some
flexibility.



c) We could use a modified form of I2C but that means no intelligence at
each node (and no programming, which is quite a good thing, in some ways).



Can I do LIN master in the Cypress FX2 (8051 based with a couple of UART's)?

Is there a reasonably standard way for doing LIN slave?  I'd prefer 8051
based (so I can go on using the Keil compiler) or PIC16 (which we have also
used).

Any other thoughts (but not too innovative - this is a development project)?



tia,

    Bill



Re: Faster LIN or simpler CAN or ...? PIC16 or Cypress FX2LP or ...?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


How about an SPI bus ?
Some of the receivers, such as control pins can be as simple as a
shiftregister '595.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Re: Faster LIN or simpler CAN or ...? PIC16 or Cypress FX2LP or ...?
We use SPI bus quite a lot but the limiation that it assumed the data
arrived to designation,  more like datagram. It can be dangerous if
there is fault within the SPI bus CAN bus includes protocol that verify
the data and send response if damaged, more like telephone (ie you get
feedback from other end). The other benefit that it use fewer line than
SPI bus.

PIC is very popular, it used everywhere due to excellent technical
support, training package, forum and lot of sample program they
developed. It very cheap to setup as well. There are limitation in
debugging, you cannot monitor local field variable (within C), only the
global field variable.


Re: Faster LIN or simpler CAN or ...? PIC16 or Cypress FX2LP or ...?
snipped-for-privacy@SynectixLtd.com says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just design your higher level protocol so it doesn't care if the same
message is received multiple time.  IE send motor speed absolutely not a
speed increment.  Set a relay state rather than a toggle etc.  Then you
can just forget anout the fact that a message can show up multiple times.  
There are times where you have to care (mostly when abusing CAN to
send large amounts of data) but most control messages can be set up so
that it doesn't matter.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's been a while since I looked but doesn't LIN have the same
possibility as CAN of receiving the same message multiple times?


Robert

Re: Faster LIN or simpler CAN or ...? PIC16 or Cypress FX2LP or ...?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Look into the 80C51 9 Bit mode : that sits between CAN and LIN in speed,
and is simpler than LIN to code, as you use the inbuilt HW support.

You can use CAN transceivers, on a 9 Bit UART datastream.

i2c has the poorest noise immunity.

LIN has high immunity, because it is large swing, and slow.
LIN has very small payloads, and is really for the last-link usage.

CAN is multimaster, and has CRC included, whilst 9 Bit mode is single
master, but can use much lower cost silicon.
80C51's with UARTS start well under $1, and in tiny packages, and
support data rates higher than CAN.

-jg




Re: Faster LIN or simpler CAN or ...? PIC16 or Cypress FX2LP or ...?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Control stuff feom a PC and use of USB throughout?
No Central CPU, just some Hubs.
AT89C5131 is 8051 with USB

Run a Fast USART : TXD,RXD,SCLK (driven by master)  over RS485.
This is supported by AVRs and AT91 ARMs.
You would  need a resonator with each node, but the speed is higher.
 There are free GNU compilers /AVR Studio for the AVR.
ARMs up to 32 kB (AT91SAM7S321) compilers are
quite often free of charge (Code restriction <= 32 kB).

I think You would enjoy AVR or ARM programming over 8051/PIC. Most do.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline