| ??? 01/18/08 21:56 Read: times |
#149720 - Perfect??? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
OK, this is negativistic; but I see the '51 on the losing side from this perspective. Sorry, the manufacturers of '51 are not as flexible as they might be - see the competition. Or they simply don't want the garage- and hobby-scale customers, so they hush them away with their approach. Or they simply just try to collect as much money as possible with the old dusty designs, without throwing in an another money. This is the status quo. See Lynn Reed's report from the embedded conference.
I said it long ago - let's throw together the money, design, and get THE PERFECT 8051 manufactured ourselves. JW Well, let's see ... Perfect ... What would that mean? ... Well, first of all, it would have to run at, say, 10 GIPS, with ALL instructions taking exactly one clock. It would have to have an interrupt latency of one clock. One wouldn't have to clear those TI and RI bits in the UART, since read of the receive buffer and write to the transmit buffer would clear 'em, and Mode0 would have to be capable of transferring bytes synchronously without any latency between bytes. The external bus interface would need to be extensible to at least a microsecond in, say, 100 ps steps. It should be able to source and sink 25 ma from all I/O's, and operate from a 5-volt down to 2-Volt supply at full speed. It should have a negative-going RESET, referenced to GND! It needs a WRC instruction (there is one unused opcode, right?) so you can write to the totally non-volatile, and non-corruptible, program store at full speed. It needs a 64KB on-chip program store, and a 64KB on-chip xRAM, with mapping such that external I/O can be provided. Oh, yeah ... it needs to be able to read my mind, too, so it knows and does what I need, and not just what I tell it. RE |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| What micro would you use? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| LPC9xx | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that would be a good option... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how do they use them then? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I don't use them... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I was just asking if someone would use that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| We are talking about devboards, do we? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "slightly less than mass" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| UART-ISP is not an option... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes I know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: How do they use them? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no one | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Perfect??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You missed one... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh goodness, yes! That's very important ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Depends upon the required functionality .. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Cygnal TQFP package , I would avoide any | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You can | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SILabs (nee Cygnal) a warning | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Erik even they dont hate calling their forum | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| only a few digital I/O | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ... or the VRS for that matter, but ... | 01/01/70 00:00 |