Any experience with Cygnal processors.

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Hello all,

I'm considering the C8051F310 for a new design, any bad (or good)



Re: Any experience with Cygnal processors.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We use the F310 in a couple of designs.  Great processor.  You will
definately get hooked on the speed.  The development system is also
a treat to work with and the entry price very attractive.

The peripheral crossbar takes some time to get used to, but Cygnal has
some good tools to help you configure it for the first time.  Once you
have configured it and gained some confidence with it, it will become
second nature.

Re: Any experience with Cygnal processors.

We are using the F320 in an application with a USB interface.  I bought
the development board and all of the tools including a restricted C compiler
for $229 (USD).  The examples were good and the tools were easy to use.
I'm very happy.

Dave Rooney

Gerard wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Any experience with Cygnal processors.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

    We've done more than a few applications using the '310 and even brought
out a 'Gadget' based on that part which permits prototyping with a free
Forth, Basic, and assembler development environment:

    All in all the Cygnal line has been very error-free and well designed in
addition to being inexpensive and powerful.  Good choice!

-- Regards, Albert
AM Research, Inc.                  The Embedded Systems Experts (916) 780-7623

Re: Any experience with Cygnal processors.
Using an 'F020 on an image processing product (it runs the control panel as
well as the FPGA).

I love the processor.  The only issues I may have are:

1- The crosbar switch scares me.  If, for any reason, you need to change the
configuration after having boards made, well, you are out of luck.  I think
it should have been a full matrix rather than the approach they took.  In
other words, if I layout a board that does not use the second uart, but,
after the prototype is made, decide that I need it, all the signals
following the uart pins will shift down the device.  You get to respin your
board.  This is the most unnerving part of using these components.  A full
matrix would allow you to plop down the chip and deal with the IO later.
Peace of mind.

2- I'd love to see some extensions to the basic 8052 architecture.  Several
DPTR registers would be great, for example.  Also something as simple as a
DEC DPTR instruction.  Maybe they can add a number of these extensions and
let you set a config bit to either go "by the book" or use all the enhanced

Other than that, the speed is just great.  Very nice chips.

Martin Euredjian

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Any experience with Cygnal processors.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We had the same initial fears.

The crossbar is really a mental and not a physical block.  Simply pick a set
of assignments and stick with it.  From that point forward, simply treat the
chip as if it is made that way.  Then it is like any other chip that once you
design it in, you live with.  If you chose your initial assignments wisely, you
will find out that you actually do have more flexibility than what a hardwired
chip would give you.

The more you use the part, the more comfortable you will become with the
XBAR.  Ultimately, you will come to embrace it.

Re: Any experience with Cygnal processors.
Thanks, for the replies!


Site Timeline