| ??? 01/24/05 22:23 Read: times |
#85711 - Cost Saving Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
baudrate with 11.0502 and T1 is max 57k6 not 19k2 That is good news. I could only find standard rates up to 19.2K in the bible. I don't want to use timer2 which has a 16 bit autoreload because a) this code may be used on a very low end 8051
For a piece of code this simple, it does not make sense to code based on a "may" It is intended that this code should be able to run on a wide range of 8051 variants but especially the low end ones. Hence the 'may' is 'must have' unless I can convince myself that all usefull low end 8051 variants have a Timer2. The price differential between a "basic" and "advanced" derivative is (at volume) so small that it take an awful lot of product to go beyond
engr hour $/volume < HW cost savings/unit At 1 million units 1 cent saves 10,000 dollars. That's a lot of engineering time In addition, it is known that, "fancy costsaving engineering" is more error prone than "straight engineering"
No, it's is just harder. I am not advocating "go ahead and use a Rolls Royce when a VW will do, but, in my opinion. 95% of the efforts in saving HW cost are misplaced.
I don't know what the figures are but I made a good living out of it for twenty years. Ian |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Timer 0 Mode 0 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no and why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| CD quality sampling freq.? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oops | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| alternatives | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Alternatives | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| comment | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 16 vs 13 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why not T2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| uC crystal ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| uC Crystal | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| cost saving because of may | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Cost Saving | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| at those volumes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| baudrates | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Baud Rates | 01/01/70 00:00 |