1. Home
  2. Embedded Programming
  3. Re: Atmel AVR CAN

Re: Atmel AVR CAN

> >How about an industrial controller which needs to be able to do self

>> >programming >> >and to set different parameters from a PC. >> > >> >* USB Device Firmware Upgrade >> >* USB Device Communication Class >> >> >> Yes. thats true. I suppose there are CAN applications like Devicenet >> as well. >> >> Anyway I suppose like a lot of people, I am currently faced with the >> same problem, ie. death of the serial port on PCs. Maybe you can >> tell me when Atmel will produce an ARM7 processor with USB, a decent >> amount of Flash, and RAM on board? >> >> I would like about 1MB Flash and 256kB RAM. > >Unfortunately, that is "indecent" with current 0,18u Embedded Flash process. >I think that you will see devices with USB + CAN and 256 kB Flash quite >soon. >(AT91SAM7A3 will arrive this year). > > >Atmel has ARM7 + USB for large volume ASSP customers. > >You could try the ARM9 (AT91RM9200) which of course needs external >flash/SRAM.

Thanks for the info. But how come there are other AT91 chips with 2M Flash and 256KB RAM?

Basically I am looking for a highly integrated and low-cost solution. I think a SOC approach is a great from a reliability and manufacturing point of view. External SRAM also tends to be expensive especially towards the end of its production life a few years from now, which could become a problem for us.

I need a lot of flash for storing about 400KB of configuration data. So an external Flash might be a decent solution.

regards, Johnny.

Reply to
Johnny
Loading thread data ...

These are dual die solutions in BGA packages. See my other post about Intel also making stacked-die XSCALE (ARM) pocessors for Cell Phones.

Serial FLASH is getting quite cheap, and there are ARM uC from Philips and STm with 256K bytes FLASH and 64K Bytes of SRAM, which I would have called 'quite a lot' in a single chip device. Of course, one designers' "Quite a lot" is anothers "not nearly enough" :)

Why do you need 256K Bytes of RAM ?

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

Jim, You mentioned the ST devices STR710FZ2 and STR712FR1. Following your links and searching the ST site gives me no answer about the CAN module integrated. Can you help. Or may be one of the ST listeners?

The data sheet only says "CAN 2.0B" compatible. That says nothing about what I can expect from the CAN controller. Besides this, CAN2.0B is the old Bosch Spec. Now a CAN controller should be compatible with ISO DIS 11898. This standard is available since years. No idea why manufacturers follow the old Bosch Spec.

Regards Heinz

--

with best regards / mit freundlichen Grüßen

   Heinz-Jürgen Oertel
+===================================================================
| Heinz-Jürgen Oertel  port GmbH  http://www.port.de
| mailto:oe@port.de
| phone +49 345 77755-0     fax   +49 345 77755-20
| Regensburger Str. 7b,     D-06132 Halle/Saale,  Germany 
| CAN Wiki    http://www.CAN-Wiki.info
| Newsletter: http://www.port.de/engl/company/content/abo_form.html+===================================================================
Reply to
Heinz-Jürgen Oertel

I think stacked dies would be fine for my application.

the product has two functions, one is a network bridge/gateway and also as something similar to a PLC controller.

I am guessing that I need around 120k for cacheing of status for up to

1000 network nodes. I also need at about 40kB for buffering of network data. At the early stages of the project is is difficult to tell exactly how much we need, so more is generally better.

regards, Johnny.

Reply to
Johnny

I some negative feeling about Xscale because it seems to me that they are used for consumer products such as PDA's and phones. This is a technology that is still evolving. They might be good value for money at the moment while the volumes are high, but I don't want to have to revise the hardware design when the processor becomes obsolete 2 or 3 years from now. I would hope there is a chance that whatever silicon I choose will still be available in 5 years from now. I know people who had bad experiences with StrongARM designs from Intel being made obsolete.

regards, Johnny.

Reply to
Johnny

A good point. I'd talk with Intel, as they are still a big player in Embedded MCU/MPU/Comms controllers - it's just mormally buried under the Pentium revenues - under that even $1B looks small :) Intel do have embedded product lines, where they extend the design lifetimes. I think some of the StrongARM issues were fab closure related, in the move from Digital to Intel ? XScale is all Intel, and it is being used in some longer-life semi-consumer products.

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

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.