Hey, we aren't slave drivers out here. None of the companies I've worked with uses child labor and they are run with western-style clean rooms. Top notch.
Often their own and that won't help you. But I've got one that does take outside orders and might be interesting for you if the volume isn't a bazillion per month. Well, maybe even then. I occasionally see some assembly samples from them and it's quite impressivbe. Do you have an email address other than hotmail? Then I'll send the contact info to you.
On a side note: Many companies over there can't easily be reached via Internet right now including the one mentioned above. The earth quake in Taiwan has ripped some undersea fibers. A ship from Tyco is on the way but it might take a few days until connections improve.
We have usually tried not to use any exotic on-chip peripherals. If you do you may get pretty much stuck with one manufacturer, even in the 8051 world. Don't expect total compatibility but what can be done is, for example, to provide two footprints.
Not a real issue. Chip mfgs know that unless you are really pushing the envelope for a certain process you could jump ship any time. So the pricing there is more stable and low. Also, the main reason for 2nd sourcing in off-the-shelf parts is mitigation of the risk of delivery problems. IOW those dreaded allocation siuations. It's less of an issue with custom chips because you commit to a certain number of wafers per delivery and so does the manufacturer. Those schedules are often mapped out over more than one year. Other than technical problems such as a process gone astray I have never seen much in delivery problems.
I don't think so. The ARM is a very old idea and all the chips gone custom. Later there was a market opening for some more generic versions, e.g. LPC210x to replace typical 8051.
That is the generic anwser: Don't use much or special of chip functions.
The only versions I know of are type number 8051 and 80C154.
Chip manufacturers typical make the chip production in hugh volume at one time and store the wafers for later assembling depending on market needs later. The wafers don't need much space.
See, you've just described the problem by calling ARM "old". In my line of work I can't use stuff that becomes "old" after 10-15 years and then slowly disappears. I need parts that remain popular and in production for several decades :-)
No one can foresee the future. But as out of my experience the ARM architecture will drive at least the next 20 years and will completely replace (almost) all 8051. It is a very effective system - both technical and in the market. One problem all high-speed cores with Flash have is the problem how to get code/data fast enough out of the Flash. See for example how Philips that handles in the LPC210x. The logical answer was to compress code: That is the M3 Cortex. Besides that there is more space in Flash -> cheaper.
Several decades - good joke!! Have a good rutsch :-)
With the enourmous amount of ARM based controllers available these days having two footprints could be an option. I think it is possible to have one piece of firmware run on different ARM based microcontrollers.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
Not a joke at all. I am still designing with the CD4000 series and probably will be for a long time. Those are from the 70's when the Beatles were playing on the radio all day. Then there is the 2N3904 which is a lot older.
Have a good rutsch :-)
Same to you. We'll do fondue with a few friend here at our house.
I don't get what you are saying. The various ARM chips have custom peripherals, but they all have the same CPU and instruction set.
I see two ways "second source" has utility. The first is true "second source" that allows you to use any of several suppliers without changing a thing in your design. Aside from a very limited subset of the available 8051 chips, this is just not an option. The other is to be able to write code that is enough removed from the hardware, that a different board layout will let you use any of several parts. This is very useful to get the best price possible even after you are in production.
The first approach limits you to a very few of the least powerful MCU devices available in a common footprint. The second approach allows you to use many vendors of ARM MCUs and in some cases where you are careful to avoid *any* hardware dependancies, you can even swap different CPUs.
BTW, what is "generic" about the LPC210x?
But then you lose a lot of capability and have to rely on external hardware or use a lot more software and CPU time. Often this is not only expensive in terms of CPU time but also power consumption.
I guess there are some uses for ancient devices just for longevity, but it has got to be an extreme example to limit a design in so many ways.
When it comes in SOT-23-6 and 8-MSOP, it may begin to replace PIC and
8051. So far, I think the smallest package ARM I've seen is in the
48-pin arena. They also come with far too much on-chip resource, which I pay for in terms of active power and pricing. Way above what I want, most of the time.
I'm not holding my breath for an 8-MSOP ARM. I hope to see a 28/32 pin device, someday. That might actually reach down into the upper end of my territory.
Check out the Luminary Micro parts. They have a low end ARM Cortex-M3 chip in a 28 pin SOIC, IIRC, that can go for under $1 in huge quantity.
If you need low power, check out both the Philips and Atmel parts. They can work at lower power than a comparible AVR when running at the same clock rate.
As to a 6 pin chip, I don't think you will see that with an ARM in it for quite a while. But the rest of it is well within reach in the coming year.
No PWM until I get to 48-pin devices; a 32kHz input siphons off one CCP pin and the LM3S101 only has one of them; etc.
They also require me to register in order to get data sheets. Not appreciated. I have their CD that comes with their LM3S811 eval kit, and even it doesn't include the other data sheets. Just the one. I'm not particularly happy with that -- every other kit I've ever gotten from any manufacturer, at all, that included any data sheets always included a great many others on the CD. Not these folks.
My qty's are 2k-5k/yr, typical.
Atmel is in a probationary period with me. I won't spec them, just yet. And the recent news about selling FABs and letting loose of 1300 employees isn't helping their probation.
Philips is a maybe. Hated searching their web sites, before. Dog slow on some of my machines and not entirely simple to navigate if ignorant about their products, as well. I'm looking now...
Ah. I see an LPC2101 as the smallest memory chip (too big for my needs, but let's see, anyway...) Ah, hah. 48-pin beasts. Cripes. I see the Digikey pricing is __aggressive__ though. Hard to beat buying
48 pins for under $2 in 100's. 4 cents a pin is really low pricing. Dual supply!?! Nope. I also see "TBD" on a lot of important power requirement specs. I _do_ see a typical for the 1.8V supply of 7mA at
10MHz.
Nope. No 48-pin beast requiring dual supplies. Even at that price.
We shall see. Frankly, I don't think folks manufacturing ARMs (or having them manufactured for them to sell through distribution) really see 8- and 16-bit register application spaces with small numbers of highly-repurposable I/O pins as their near-term future. I don't think we are even on their radar.
I predate the 8051 in embedded work. So yes, I remember those days and before and, no, I didn't imagine sot23-6 for PICs or 8051's back then.
We shall see. Situation is substantially different than then, in diversity of options, as well as application spaces. So I've no idea why you feel that historical period should predict a new one in an vastly different context. On the other hand, given the length of time since that time, I'd be willing to imagine some nice -6 and -8 parts for ARM. But by then, I can also imagine so many other changes.
For now, I'll stay with my suspicions that folks manufacturing ARMs don't see 8- and 16-bit register application spaces with small numbers of highly-repurposable I/O pins as their near-term future. And I'll be _very_ glad to be wrong about it!
"Jonathan Kirwan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Once upon time the functional chip itself was big and the border around was filled with i/o pads. Process shrunked a lot and now the core is very small and there is a problem how to effective add the pads around if the inner area is so small. That can leave chip area unused and that is very costly and so prohibited.
So the natural way is that newer chips CAN have less pin-count (That means a smaller case too). Probably newer ones will go more in the direction of having more complex high-speed serial i/o. The other point is that casing is costly (production money and space), so a smaller case is better.
So what are your requirements again? Seems like they are a lot more extensive than you had originally stated.
I don't see where the CCP and the 32kHz are mutually exclusive. I think you may be mistaken on this.
I also don't get your aversion to the 48 pin TQFP package. They are not hard to solder and they are a lot smaller than the 28 pin package you seem to think is ok. The lead pitch is finer, but I have not found many applications where 20 mil lead pitch is a problem.
If you look in more detail at the Philips line you will find any number of devices with a single supply. All of the Atmel parts are single supply and they have a new AT91SAM7S16(1) coming out in the 48 pin packages (both TQFP and QFN). It should be around $2 in quantity. The lowest price I have seen from Atmel is $3.35 on one of the two SAM7S32 flavors. There was some confusion on pricing between the SAM7S32 and SAM7S321. The SAM7S321 is the same part in the 64 pin package with all the same functionality of the other parts in the series while the SAM7S32 is in the 48 pin package with reduced pinout and functionality. The pricing I received was within $0.06 of each other so maybe the higher pin count for the same price will do something for you. BTW, these quantities are for 4K per year.
I didn't state them, earlier. At least, not with any intention.
I was looking at this site:
formatting link
If you scan the list, on the left side you will see this description, "External 32 KHz Clock (uses CCP pin)" This is where I got it.
The 8-MSOP mentioned isn't quite .5mm spacing, but close at .65mm. For larger packages, say 16-pin, they are also .65mm spacing and 4mm on a side.
I take clear note of the fact that you seem to be arguing (separately from Henry) that no one should have any problem with 48-pin packages and that anyone suggesting fewer pins for their application is simply wrong about it. If that is your position in some attempt to defend Henry's point, "the ARM ... will completely replace (almost) all
8051," I can't agree with you or Henry about this.
I will do that, then. But since I was already looking at devices with more flash and more ram than I want, and they were the smallest devices I could easily find, my suspicion is that finding single supply devices will push me up the curve a bit into territory even further away from where I'm usually at. But I'll look more.
I know this, at one time, wasn't true. Because I actually went through Atmel's list (as I know you have, too) and found dual supply ARM devices (from their France operation.) Perhaps that has changed, but I doubt it. Are you certain that _all_ Atmel ARM devices are _not_ dual supply?
Not that it will matter to me. For now, I won't spec them.
As I said, I won't spec them right now. But in the 2k-5k area?
Oh, I must have misunderstood your context then about the $2 figure. Were you talking about Atmel, then?
I'm confused.
Okay. But really, I don't want higher pin counts. I'm already fine with 16-20 pins and with 6 and 8 pins, as well. Debating over 48 and
A smaller case is not always cheaper. Smaller means the prodcution equipment has to be of better precision (more expensive), and the Pick&Place machine also is more expensive
For example we have looked at the resistor arrays with 4x0603 in one
1206 pack, but our production cant solder that reliable. The placement error rate rises dramatically.
Also using fine pitch devices (TSSOP or smaller), there is an increased risks of solder bridges.
You might try reading the data sheet. I am no expert on this part, but when I look at the pin lists and the block diagrams, I don't see the CCP and 32 kHz clock being mutually exclusive.
I am not trying to argue anything. I am suggesting that you have not explained the issue with using a 48 pin TQFP in place of a 28 pin SOIC. I read in another post where someone had trouble assembling 1206 multicaps. I don't know the resolution required for this particular part, but these days an assembly house that can't mount a 0.5 mm pitch part is getting pretty long in the tooth. I understand the issues of amortizing equipment, but at some point the incremental cost of staying current (or at least within 10 years of current) gets pretty low.
But if you are locked into using assembly houses that are this out of date, then those are your requirements.
The Philips line is a bit convoluted. They have a number of single supply parts and a number of dual supply parts and never the twain shall meet. By that I mean, unlike the Atmel parts that let you go either way, the single supply parts from Philips do not allow you to separately power the core if you want. There is also no coorellation to the other features on the chips.
There is a site with a comparison chart of various ARM7 devices. You can get a quick view of what is available. Go to
formatting link
and click to the Resources page. Then scroll down to the section and click on the ARM Device Comparison chart.
Sorry, not all ARM devices, all SAM7 devices. They can be used either way. They bring the LDO output to a pin which you connect to the Vcore pin or you can power Vcore separately. The internal LDO has two modes to save on quiescent current when you have throttled back the CPU.
Atmel makes other, older ARM devices that are pretty universally larger and/or more power hungry.
I don't have a quote on the SAM7S16(1) parts, I am speculating that given the pricing on the other parts, the new 16 KB part should be around $2. It is due out in the summer.
I'm not using 28-pin SOIC. But the issues aren't merely size, though that is important. Power consumption, which I noted earlier, and the number of supplies is important to me. I'm balancing many trade offs.
If I need only a dozen I/O pins, though, and do NOT need an external bus, for example, there are more problems with going to 48 or 64 pins when they aren't needed at all, than mere size. Surely, you must see this.
In some cases, we actually wire these onto ceramic and place them in hermetically sealed cans.
Okay.
Will do.
Ah. I gather your point.
Yes.
If this is Atmel and "due out in the summer," I will plan on seeing an actual sample arriving at my desk about 10 months later. From prior experience.
But in any case, I'm not finding any "48 or 64" pin suggestion as being very persuasive.
That looks like a pricey boutique part. Interesting. Anyhow, I'd make sure your production can at least handle regular 0402 parts. That is pretty much state of the art these days. I just debugged a design I had completed today and it had some of those teeny parts. Luckily there wasn't much debugging needed. My eyes don't get any younger ;-)
There I'd really sit down for a chat with the production manager. TSSOP is absolutely standard. There are many parts that you simply cannot obtain in any package larger than TSSOP.
BTW, none of my current clients assembles circuit boards in house anymore. Some used to do that but, as you mentioned above, the investment in equipment can become prohibitive if you don't have enough volume to operate most of the machines around the clock minus regular PM intervals. Not all of them outsource to Asia, some have it produced here in the US but at companies that are highly specialized in SMT assembly.
Layout plays a big role which is why I am using a layouter with about three decades under the belt. It is important to talk about production capabilities with the factory before beginning the layout. In his case that's often not needed because he already knows. The footprint suggested by a part manufacturer is not always the cat's meouw and only experienced layouters or SMT production folks can really tell you how to optimize.
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.