PSOC it to me!

I have been watching the PSOC for some time now and I have never had an application where it was remotely applicable. But now I think I may have a use for it. I am having trouble finding a good low power MCU that has the peripherals that I need. The PSOC, with its configurable hardware, can morph into whatever I need.

In the past when I have looked at the tools, I was not impressed. In the early days the configurations process was to tell the factory what you wanted and they would make it work. A few years later when I checked back with them again, they said they had tools to let you do your own design. The training consisted of teleconferences with the factory, but you were likely the only person in the session. I guess that was good, but it is still not even as easy as using a CPLD or the like.

Now they have a lot of new chips out and the last time a salesman talked to me about them I was assured that the software was ready for prime time. So I am going to give them a hard look. Anyone have experiences they can relate?

Reply to
rickman
Loading thread data ...

Some time ago I used PSOC. My only complaint was it had limited resources, but this is at least 3 years ago (might be 4 now) and besides it met my needs. The tools I had at that time were acceptable and I had them on my system. Not particularly intuitive at the time, but they worked and I didn't have to consult the factory for any changes (although the support I got when necessary was definitely good).

No idea if they are still that good at support, although I would expect the tools have made strides (one hopes so!).

Cheers

PeteS

Reply to
PeteS

Hello Rick,

In the past I was mostly disappointed when studying the data sheets. Low GBW, too much offset, not enough modules. Went the discrete route every time.

Cypress? Which device were you thinking about? I find it hard to use their web site. There isn't really a good overview sheet or anything. The way the app notes are organized is IMHO a mess. Seriously, they need to hire someone who can create a web site for them that works.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply to
Joerg

I have completed several projects using the PSoC and I am ver enthusiastic about it. It is FUN to use, although as a processor it doe have some limitations (as do most others). With a few more details on you application you may get more detailed opinions.

The Cypress website leaves a LOT to be desired, but there is an unofficia website at

formatting link
which is very supportive.

-Aubrey

>
Reply to
antedeluvian

Last time I looked their low level info was very sparse, and now see they pitch "no Code' development. I also note their newer parts are more like common uC, with more std peripherals, and less of the hyped 'configurable' (but how?) stuff. Let us know if you do get details on the low level workings, and any decent SW access to that.

Reply to
malcolm132

I couldn't agree more. I hate going to their site and tryign to get any sort of a useful overview or selection guide is impossible. TI has one of the best sites, but this time it only let me confirm quickly that they can't meet my needs. But I always go there first.

Reply to
rickman

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I expect I will be installing their software and taking a good look at it. I'll let you know how that goes.

Reply to
rickman

It was 2 years ago. The tools were fine. The compiler was a little week. It used a "27" part. It was not low power. With the analog turned on it was on the high side. The Data sheet list the CPU core current only. There was a spread sheet to figure what it really used.

Reply to
Neil

...

For a mere $35 you can obtain an experimenters kit from Digikey (the Miniprog). Get some first hand feedback about tool quality and chip strengths and limitations. I believe all tools are free. I don't know anything about for-pay tools.

We have a consultant doing our PSOC code work. I keep a close eye on him and listen to his stories of success and failure with that device. He relates that the tools are underdocumented and have major bugs code output bugs. He has a close relationship with Cypress tech support and they are responsive to his queries for help.

ambitions are limited to the straightforward applications for which the chip was designed. If you stray outside of that realm, you'll have some big challenges. The solutions to these challenges are mostly undocumented, my consultant reports. And the tools are slightly inadequate beyond that.

FWIW, PSOCs are supposedly used in Apple ipods and, hence, the PSOC might just be a one-customer device for Cypress, practically speaking.

JJS

Reply to
johnspeth

Thanks for the inputs. One thing I noticed looking at the development tools is that it appears that the PSOC does not use the typical JTAG interface for debug. It looks like they use a hardware emulator. I don't think I can get that past the software people here. I think most of the objections to hardware emulators are overblown, one major issue is the fact that you have to replace the MCU on your board to use the emulator. That may not be an issue with socketed DIPs, but QFNs do not like being lifted and resoldered very much. I doubt that I would be able to use such an emulator.

Reply to
rickman

The PSoC is used for the capacitative touchwheel in the iPod. (Rumor has it that a future iPod is going to use a resistive tablet and the need for a PSoC will evaporate). A rep told me recently that the same kind of slide-your-finger sensing technology will be used in thermostats and so forth. However, PSoCs have other uses - for instance, replacing obsolete parts.

EMI is a fairly big problem to watch out for with these parts.

Reply to
larwe

Can you give some details on the EMI problems?

Reply to
rickman

Hello Rickman,

Seems like they do much of their biz in Asia where a proper web presence may be less important. Many of the app notes are in Japanese or Chinese and they didn't even bother to list the ones in English separately. PSoC are a marvelous idea but they need to do a better marketing job.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply to
Joerg

I get what you are saying, but they are marketing to their market. They sell these things really cheaply and it looks like they are doing well with them as I see them expanding the product line every year. But the archaic hardware emulator is just too much to deal with for us. My organization is very political and everything I do is inspected by the committee of the entire company. So I don't get to try much that is perceived as the least bit risky, now matter how much confidence I have in my abilities to make it work.

As someone in another thread once said, I have to do ten times the work and everyone else pays for it!

Reply to
rickman

They are giving away a kit (normally $99) comprising two evaluation boards and two chips, with a little USB programmer. I got one a couple of weeks ago. The chips have improved a lot since I first tried them five years ago, and the software is better.

Leon

Reply to
Leon

Yes, that is a disadvantage. I think it is a consequence of the old M8 architecture they are using.

The simulator is quite good, though.

Leon

Reply to
Leon

Thanks for the info. But I don't think it matters. We just can't use an MCU with a hardware emulator. Our equipment requires continued support and not being able to attach an emulator to an assembled board is a no-go. I really can't believe this is not a major hindrence to them in the marketplace.

Reply to
rickman

Hello Rick,

I am sure it is. So is the fact that Cypress is pretty much the only game in town. AFAICT you can't easily redesign a board should a PSoC chip become unavailable for whatever reason. Many engineers try to avoid those kinds or risk early on.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply to
Joerg

Not a great deal (employer stuff). It was proposed to use a PSoC to replace a sole-source last-time-buy mixed-signal device. The product contains a UHF receiver. Large problems arose with PSoC emissions creeping into the receiver. Cypress sent someone over to work on this problem, and some of the weird "it no worky" stuff, for something like a week; it was mitigated a great deal, but still not as good as the ASSP it was replacing.

Reply to
larwe

I had to nix the PSOC for use at this company because of the lack of emulation capability without desoldering the part. On the other hand, I have heard about a new PSOC on the drawing board that would use an ARM! I'm not sure which one, but if they make it a low power ARM, like maybe the Cortex-M3, it could be a really good combo with the PSOC programmable blocks.

I remember when Xilinx bought Triscend and then shut it down just to keep ARM from getting their hands on it. I have always thought a good combo would be to include a good MCU with an FPGA core. Of course the logistics of selling all the different combos of FPGA size, pin count, Flash and RAM sizes could get to be a nightmare. But I don't see that as being a real show stopper.

I expect they will be making this well known in a few months. We'll see what they think an ARM PSOC should look like!

Reply to
rickman

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.