Author Topic: MCU Recommendations  (Read 28424 times)

Offline SteveT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
MCU Recommendations
« on: March 03, 2010, 12:36:56 AM »
Hi All,

I am new to uTasker and so far it seems to be a very impressive package!  Nice job!

We are starting a new product and I am curious if anyone has recmmendations for a MCU family.

I am doing the evaluation using the Coldfire M52259DEMO and was originally targeting the M52235 device with the built in PHY.    I very much prefer the single chip solution, with internal flash/phy etc.

I also see the LM3SXXXX Stellaris (Luminary) also include the PHY and at first glance seem like very capable devices.

Does anyone have any overall recommendations, including the devices, performance, software tools, debuggers etc?

Thanks all,

SteveT

Offline mark

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
    • View Profile
    • uTasker
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 12:38:42 PM »
Hi SteveT

One can write great lengths about the pros and cons of individual chips and development environments so I will restrict this to a few initial comments on the Coldfires and the Luminary Micro with internal PHY.

1) The Coldfire development package is a strong incentive to use these parts. If one orders a demo board one has more or less everything to complete a project - the special compiler edition is often adequate (128k code size limit) and in the worst case an additional debugger needs to be purchased. Most people stick with CodeWarrior so all is very standardised.

2) Luminary boards also contain debuggers and can be used as debuggers to other boards too. They are a bit slow (as debuggers) but usable. There is generally a greater choice for development environment and so ARM projects tend to be less standardlised in this respect. It can be a bit overwhelming as a new user of these chips to decide on the development environment and debugger to choose for first project work.

3) The M5223X and M5225X allow a good choice between an integrated PHY solution or an external one (with additional benefits of more memory, a memory interface and USB). The external PHY will generally be more flexible (auto-crossover etc.) and lower power, but requires more space.

4) Some Luminary parts have integrated PHY with auto crossover and have a surprisingly good power consumption (the chips get less hot) - http://www.utasker.com/forum/index.php?topic=126.0. The newer parts have large memory and also USB and so are very impressive.

5) The Coldfire parts are very mature and also very popular for uTasker based projects. At the moment I would be more nervous with a Luminary part due to the fact that they have recently been taken over by Texas Instruments and are still in a phase of being fully integrated. This means that supply of parts may be a concern until the production has been fully integrated (see the Luminary Forum, check stocks and delivery times). There have also been a number of errata being solved in newer silicon versions, so it may pay to observe the progress until the time is right to make the most of what they have to offer. (Note that this is a personal opinion and progress changes with time so contact the company directly for up to date news).

6) One of the main goals for the uTasker project was to make development flexible concerning the part finally used. For this reason learning curves between changing parts (even mid-stream) should be minimum - this means that reacting to changes (newer parts, better features, better performance, better availability, etc.) becomes easier. Although of course at some point a commitment does have to be made;-)

Regards

Mark


Offline mhoneywill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 03:03:32 PM »
Hi Steve,

We use the Luminary Micro processors with uTasker and have been very happy with them so far.

Advantages
- Built in PHY with Auto MDX (no more X over cables)
- Large family range with many features
- Good StellarisWare driver library showing you how to use the peripherals.
- Hardware Quadrature decoders on Chip
- UTasker support :-)

Disadvantages
- We have had some issues getting parts, but this was during the takeover by TI, so might be a short term thing

Marks comment about development tools is relevant, we use Rowley as our compiler www.rowley.co.uk good product but not cheap $1500 its still cheaper than the IAR and Keil compilers. You can also go the GNU route but its more difficult to debug on the Target that way.

Mark has commented that Luminary Micro support in uTasker is not as mature as Coldfire support, We have used IIC, UART, GPIO, Ethernet, H/W Timers (used in modbus module) and ADC support. And all seem to work.

Good luck which every way you go, The support from Mark on uTasker is VERY good so I think you will not have to many problems with that

Cheers

Martin

Offline aaronlawrence

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2010, 04:21:43 AM »
I have to add a little vote AGAINST NXP, they don't seem very responsive and offer relatively little in the way of development tools, although feature wise they are OK and 3rd parties do support them.

Offline SteveT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2010, 12:45:08 AM »
Thanks to all for excellent comments!

Our project has just taken a new turn and we now require a MCU with two CAN ports as well as the Ethernet-Phy.   This more or less forces us toward the Luminary parts, so I guess I'll dip my toe in and see how cold that water is.

I ordered up a LM3S8962 Eval kit just to get a feel for all.   Mark: I'll need to get the uTasker kit for that.

I am planning to try out the CodeSourcery path, as they only require $400.

Let me know if anyone has had any bad experiences with CodeSourcery.

Thanks All!

SteveT

Offline mhoneywill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2010, 10:30:28 AM »
Hi Steve,

FYI Rowley use the CodeSourcery compiler, but have created there own library's. They do a personal licence for $150 but it can't be used for commercial development.

Looking at the CodeSourcery website it seems that their personal version $399 looks like it can be used for commercial development. Its important to be able to debug on the target hardware so it would be interesting to see how good the JTAG support is. Please feed back to about how well you get on.

One other IDE to look at is CodeRed http://www.code-red-tech.com/index.php

Note CAN is not currently supported in uTasker for the Luminary targets, I am planning to look at porting it but have had no time at the moment. You could quite easily use the CAN libraries supplied by Luminary in StellarisWare they just wouldn't be integrated within uTasker.

Cheers

Martin
 

Offline mark

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
    • View Profile
    • uTasker
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2010, 12:42:03 AM »
Hi Steve

There are some NXP LPC23xx and new LPC17xx parts (up to 120MHz!!) that also have 2 CAN controllers.

The LM3S8962 is an older part (as old goes and doesn't have DMA) but is well established so should "still" give good results.

Regards

Mark

Offline SteveT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2010, 04:25:10 AM »
Hi,

I am moving forward with LM3S8762 Eval kit just get my bearings.  I'll switch to another chip for actual development.

It may be of interest to others, I discovered an apparent small "secret" about CodeSourcery for Luminary.  You can get a full license for only $199!   It is restricted to Luminary ARM M3 devices, but otherwise is generally full featured.  They did remove a few features such as the code simulator and support for 3rd party JTAG, but it works with the FTDI JTAG included in the 8762 eval kit, so I'll try that out.    Otherwise the $399 license works for all ARM families.

Thanks again for all good comments.  Now on to the real work...

SteveT

Offline phomann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
    • Homann Designs
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2010, 04:54:29 AM »
Hi,

As I understand the Code Sourcery licences, they need to be renewed per annum. I purchased the personel licence a few years ago and it expired after 12 months. I forgot to read the fine print I guess.  Needless to say, I did not renew.

The good thing about uTasker, the need for an in-circuit debugger is greatly reduced as a lot can be debugged in the simulator.

Cheers,

Peter

Offline mhoneywill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2010, 11:02:24 AM »
I've just noticed that TI have introduced Luminary support to their CodeComposer IDE see http://www.luminarymicro.com/products/whats_new.html this is another compiler option $445.

This makes yet another Eclipse based IDE avaliable.

CodeComposer http://www.ti.com/ccstudio $445
CodeRed http://www.code-red-tech.com $1000 for Luminary - From $525 for LPC17xx
Yagarto http://www.yagarto.de $free
CodeSoucery http://www.codesourcery.com $400 or $200??

And probably more.

Also Steve I guess you know the newer Luminary LM3S9Bxx chips have CAN too.

Cheers

Martin

« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 12:57:56 AM by mhoneywill »

Offline sloell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • uCs and electronics
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2010, 04:18:25 PM »
Hi SteveT and others.

Sorry for interrupting this thread with other MCUs, but I'm also right in the middle of making a choice between two types, and your thread had a headline which might attract other MCU types for discussion. If my post is to far from the subject I will move it.

The MCUs I'm looking at are the NXP LPC1768 ARM or the Atmel UC3A0512 AVR32.

I recently purchased the EVK1105 which turned out to have all HW features for our project.
The uTasker also seems to have a perfect match for drivers etc. for this HW.
However some higher ranking people prefer ARM Cortex for reasons like price and ARM core.
The two MCUs have approximate the same HW periphials and speed. Therefore the choice will be very much dependant on tools and easy-to-use factor.

I don't have any level of experience between the MCUs allthough the AVR32 seems as a good platform due to the AVR32 + GNU + Software frameworks coming from Atmel.

I would like to hear your opinion and experience on those MCUs. What tools (compiler and debuggers) and boards you are using?

Simon


Offline mark

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
    • View Profile
    • uTasker
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2010, 08:19:29 PM »
Hi Simon

It seems to me that ARM is becoming the Microsoft of the embedded processor world. It is certainly the safe way to go.

However it is also nice that AVR32 is there as an alternative - as well as the Coldfire, which is also a very able player. It seems to me that the AVR32 is competitively priced and its family members do cover low power to high data throughput applications.

Basically I am sure that all will do the job (they all have great features) and the decision may have more to do with availability (also long term), price, and confidence in the manufacturer.

Regards

Mark

Offline sloell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • uCs and electronics
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2010, 08:42:21 AM »
Thanks Mark!

Yes I also concluded that both processors will do a good job.
However I do not have the experience in tools, compilers etc. for both worlds.
As far as I can see there is no uTasker support for the LPC1768 yet?

Keep in mind that I'm nearly new to the 32-nit world and easy get confused of all the setup just to compile a project, compared to simple 8-bit projects.

Offline mark

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
    • View Profile
    • uTasker
Re: MCU Recommendations
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2010, 01:58:55 PM »
Hi Simon

There is a Beta version of the LPC17XX project available.

The nice thing about the LPC17XX is that it has almost identical peripherals to the LPC23XX, meaning that porting the code is not that difficult (and efficient). The Cortex M3 core means that larger parts of the project are also compatible with the work done on the Luminary project too.

Presently I am using the LPC1766 in a development, which means that the new package is being well tested and continuously extended - so essentially there should be no reasons for not choosing this family based on uTasker support.

Always use the uTasker simulator as starting point - it will also compile the project for the target using GCC (just needs to be installed on the PC). For ARM the free Eclipse (Yagarto) tool chain can be used - Rowley Crossworks (also GCC based but very good debugging and general support), or IAR and Keil for a more main-stream (but more costly) solution. All will do the job and again, it often boils down to personal favorites and the level of support required.

Regards

Mark