Searching \ for '[PIC]: PIC Based Logic Analyzer' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'PIC Based Logic Analyzer'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: PIC Based Logic Analyzer'
2003\11\16@000849 by Herbert Graf

picon face
I'm happy to announce I finally got a page up detailing my PIC based logic
analyzer. If anyone has any questions/comments please feel free to let me
know. Enjoy! Thanks, TTYL

http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@004111 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
Nice work Herbert! I especially like the pictures...I bet I can guess
where some of the parts came from :) Few questions/comments.

-There's a typo on your page...under What does it consist of, you say 3
major things, then list 4.
-Why use a max202 over a 232?
-Do you know a local source for the CPLD?
-If downloading at 19.2K takes awhile, have you thought of increasing
the speed?

I may just have to build this...assuming I can get the CPLD!

Thanks,

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Herbert Graf wrote:
> I'm happy to announce I finally got a page up detailing my PIC based logic
> analyzer. If anyone has any questions/comments please feel free to let me
> know. Enjoy! Thanks, TTYL
>
> http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@004733 by Charles Craft

picon face
Digikey has a couple varieties of the 9536 in stock or you can order off the Xilinx site.


-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Koffman <listsjoshspamKILLspam3MTMP.COM>
Sent: Nov 16, 2003 12:28 AM
To: .....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: PIC Based Logic Analyzer

Nice work Herbert! I especially like the pictures...I bet I can guess
where some of the parts came from :) Few questions/comments.

-There's a typo on your page...under What does it consist of, you say 3
major things, then list 4.
-Why use a max202 over a 232?
-Do you know a local source for the CPLD?
-If downloading at 19.2K takes awhile, have you thought of increasing
the speed?

I may just have to build this...assuming I can get the CPLD!

Thanks,

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Herbert Graf wrote:
> I'm happy to announce I finally got a page up detailing my PIC based logic
> analyzer. If anyone has any questions/comments please feel free to let me
> know. Enjoy! Thanks, TTYL
>
> http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@011103 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Nice work Herbert! I especially like the pictures...I bet I can guess
> where some of the parts came from :) Few questions/comments.
>
> -There's a typo on your page...under What does it consist of, you say 3
> major things, then list 4.

       Very true, I had a few different versions of that list before I settled on
that count, thanks for the correction.

> -Why use a max202 over a 232?

       Very simple: that's what I had on hand! :) As a hobbyist project that's
what usually drives parts selection. There is no reason you couldn't
substitute any other RS232 transceiver.

> -Do you know a local source for the CPLD?

       Nope, got my through digikey.ca. If you just want one I have a programmed
9572 15ns I can sell you (I bought it in case the 36 wasn't big enough).

> -If downloading at 19.2K takes awhile, have you thought of increasing
> the speed?

       Yup. The problem was the PC side. I found that on the older PCs I tried to
run it (a Pentium 200) it couldn't keep up at any speed past 19200kbps, so I
left it. Of course, I'm not doing things in the most efficient way on the PC
side so I'm sure this could be improved. In the end I didn't see it being
necessary, a 128k sample is rarely needed, I do almost all my debugging with
the smallest sample size.

> I may just have to build this...assuming I can get the CPLD!

       Hehe, well I built it because I needed one to debug some I2C problems on
another problem, and I'd always wanted to build one. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@013007 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
I'd be more than happy to take you up on your offer. Plus, it would mean
finally getting to meet you. Amazing concept...we live in the same city
for 4 years, but never meet!

Anyway, I assume we should take this offlist...is that ok with you?

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Herbert Graf wrote:
> > -Do you know a local source for the CPLD?
>
>         Nope, got my through digikey.ca. If you just want one I have a programmed
> 9572 15ns I can sell you (I bought it in case the 36 wasn't big enough).

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@081617 by

picon face
Josh Koffman wrote:

> Anyway, I assume we should take this offlist...is that ok with you?

And what about all us others ? :-) :-)

Now, before everyone jumps off and begins building something
from whatever they has at hand, a few thoughts...

There are some "special" components here, like the CPLD.
How many interested are there on the PIC list ? Maybe we
could do some common efforts ?

And what about a PCB ? I'd be happy to try to put together
a simple design (would be with the limitations of the free
Eagle version) and either make some home-made PCB's or
try to make a "panel" of PCB's at some PCB house (Olimex)?

If we are 10-20 or something lihe that, we could
maybe get some discount on some of the parts, not ?

I'd very much like to build this one, and scrap the
(overworked) Elektor (AVR based) design !

Jan-Erik.


Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Herbert Graf wrote:
> > -Do you know a local source for the CPLD?
>
>         Nope, got my through digikey.ca. If you just want one I have a programmed
> 9572 15ns I can sell you (I bought it in case the 36 wasn't big enough).

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@092635 by Andrew Kieran

picon face
Jan-Erik,
I think you have a great idea here.  If there is enough interest
for someone to put together a PCB and CPLD, then a bunch of
PICListers would probably jump on this project.  (Me included.)
Well done, Herbet.


---- On    , Jan-Erik Soderholm XA
(TakeThisOuTjan-erik.xa.soderholmEraseMEspamspam_OUTERICSSON.COM) wrote:

> Josh Koffman wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I assume we should take this offlist...is that ok
with you?
{Quote hidden}

something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of
complete
> fools.
>         -Douglas Adams
>
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > > -Do you know a local source for the CPLD?
> >
> >         Nope, got my through digikey.ca. If you just want
one I have a programmed
> > 9572 15ns I can sell you (I bought it in case the 36 wasn't
big enough).
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply
us!
> email RemoveMElistservspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the
body
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply
us!
> email listservEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the
body
>
>


________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@092839 by Michael J. Pawlowsky

flavicon
face
>
>If we are 10-20 or something lihe that, we could
>maybe get some discount on some of the parts, not ?
>



I would be willing to chip in on a PCB and PLCD that was pre-programmed.

I've organized this before for other projects. If you do this, here are my recommendation.
If you have a PayPal account that would be easiest. Figure out the total cost of the project including postage, enveloppes, PayPal costs etc.
and see how many pieces can be made in one batch. Probably the amount of PCBs you can get made on one panel.
Post the costs to the list and come up with a price.

Then get people to pay in advance before placing the order. A lot more people are always enthuisiastic about these projects before they pay as when it comes to the time for paying for them. However so far I've been lucky enough that when someone was no longer interested there were others around to take their place.

Also perhaps Herbert should get first crack on this and could add a couple of bucks for "Handling". He won't make any great riches from it, but perhaps it will pay for his PCB and some of his parts. Just so the person that took the time to put the project together at least gets something out of it.


Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@103312 by Marcel van Lieshout

flavicon
face
It's great! :-)

Count me in for chips and pcb, too!

Marcel

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@115805 by

picon face
Oh my, what have I started... :-)

(First, I realy don't want to take over the tiller
(just looked that up :-) ) from Herbert, I'm just
throwing som ideas around at the moment...)

If we have enough interest from the PIClist, and we
(and Herbert !) agree to make this into some kind of
common project, I have a few ideas about it.

First,
I Think we should have a finit time limit (2-3 weeks ?)
for a few initial investigation. If these shows that
there are some seriouse problem with doing it this way,
well, we are just back were we started, with everyone
on his own. Nothing lost realy (besides of 2-3 weeks time).

Then some of the points that could be part of
the initial investigation :

- Upgrade for 16-bit operation ?
 Maybe only need some firmware upgrade ?

- Look over and verify the max logging frequency.
 (Herbert has run it in 4Mhz, but he says that up to
  40Mhz would be possible.)

- The SRAM. Alternatives ? Or should everyone "use"
 the Dallas sample service ?

- The CPLD. Socket ? Direct solder to PCB ? The Xilinx
 XC9536-15PC44C (15 ns version) is $3.05 each in Quant:25
 at Digikey. The 9572 with double capacity is $4.35.
 Check eBay ?

- Optional power supply from the target ?

- 3V/5V operation ? Or how to test 3V targets ?

- ICSP socket for both the PIC and the CPLD ? I don't know
 these CPLD's, so it might not be possible...

- CMOS (HC or AHC) logic instead of LS ?

- Using CLKOUT from PIC instead of separate osc for feeding the CPLD ?

- PCB ? Traditional vs. SMD ?

- Pullup (-down ?) (9-pin 470k(?) resistor SIL networks) on inputs.
 Keeps unconnected inputs at a "know" level.

- A more common 232 interface IC (MAX232 or clone).

Phu ! Was that to much ? :-)

Regards
Jan-Erik.

Andrew Kieran wrote :

> Jan-Erik,
> I think you have a great idea here.  If there is enough interest
> for someone to put together a PCB and CPLD, then a bunch of
> PICListers would probably jump on this project.  (Me included.)
> Well done, Herbet.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@122539 by Charles Craft

picon face
If you head down this path it'll be like the universal programmer and PIC dev board from last year - nothing.

"As ugly as it is" do the board for the current design and parts.
If people want to do a rev 2 in the future then great.

My $.02
chuckc


{Original Message removed}

2003\11\16@131357 by

picon face
Charles Craft wrote:

> "As ugly as it is" do the board for the current design and parts...

Just a observation, the selected SRAM (Dallas DS1258Y)
is about $40.00 at Digikey. Min Qty = 9 and it's "Non-stock".

A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".

Now, everyone *could* of course use the sample service
at Dallas...

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspamspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@132434 by Charles Craft

picon face
I didn't say it was a perfect plan. :-)

Get rev 1 out in the hands of a few people - early adopters.

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\16@144335 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Charles Craft wrote:
>
> > "As ugly as it is" do the board for the current design and parts...
>
> Just a observation, the selected SRAM (Dallas DS1258Y)
> is about $40.00 at Digikey. Min Qty = 9 and it's "Non-stock".

       Wow, never realized it was that expensive.

> A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".

       Just about any SRAM would work fine, although the one I have is 128k x 16
you could of course tie the 17th address line to ground on a 256k part. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@144750 by Ishaan Dalal

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Jan-Erik Soderholm XA (TN/PAC)"
<jan-erik.xa.soderholmSTOPspamspamspam_OUTERICSSON.COM>

> Just a observation, the selected SRAM (Dallas DS1258Y)
> is about $40.00 at Digikey. Min Qty = 9 and it's "Non-stock".
>
> A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".

The DS1258Y is NONVOLATILE SRAM.

Cheers,
Ishaan

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservSTOPspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@144959 by

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> > A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
>
> Just about any SRAM would work fine, although the one I have is 128k x 16
> you could of course tie the 17th address line to ground on a 256k part. TTYL

The only 128k*16 SRAM at Digikey is NV (the one you used)...

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@145209 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Josh Koffman wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I assume we should take this offlist...is that ok with you?
>
> And what about all us others ? :-) :-)
>
> Now, before everyone jumps off and begins building something
> from whatever they has at hand, a few thoughts...
>
> There are some "special" components here, like the CPLD.
> How many interested are there on the PIC list ? Maybe we
> could do some common efforts ?

       If there is enough interest I can start supplying programmed CPLDs, it
would take me a few days to get things together though.

> And what about a PCB ? I'd be happy to try to put together
> a simple design (would be with the limitations of the free
> Eagle version) and either make some home-made PCB's or
> try to make a "panel" of PCB's at some PCB house (Olimex)?

       I've never thought about getting a PCB together, I only wanted to build one
so it never came up. Designing the PCB should be quite straightforward, the
only "hitch" would be the 44 pin CPLD socket, I used a through hole version
so I'd recommend going with that one.

> If we are 10-20 or something lihe that, we could
> maybe get some discount on some of the parts, not ?
>
> I'd very much like to build this one, and scrap the
> (overworked) Elektor (AVR based) design !

       I'd certainly be interested in putting effort into more fully completing
things if enough interest appears. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@145210 by

picon face
Ishaan Dalal wrote:

> > A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
>
>The DS1258Y is NONVOLATILE SRAM.

Correct, that's why it costs 4-5 times more and has a much
larger package (including a lithium battery)...

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@145827 by Tom Deutschman

flavicon
face
If you don't already have someone to do the PCB design, count me in for
that. I use Ivex WinBoard and WinDraft.

TomD
Tom at wizbangdesigns dot com


{Original Message removed}

2003\11\16@145828 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Jan-Erik Soderholm XA (TN/PAC)"
> <spamBeGonejan-erik.xa.soderholmspamKILLspamERICSSON.COM>
>
> > Just a observation, the selected SRAM (Dallas DS1258Y)
> > is about $40.00 at Digikey. Min Qty = 9 and it's "Non-stock".
> >
> > A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
>
> The DS1258Y is NONVOLATILE SRAM.

       Very true, however, as I mention on my page, the non volatility is not
required for the application at hand. It just was a part I had on hand. It
does make things hand such that the last capture is available on fresh
powerups, however if this feature isn't wanted (the client allows the saving
of captured waveforms) using a "regular" SRAM is not a problem. In fact the
SRAMs used on old 486 boards would probably work (although it would likely
be a multichip solution). TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@150901 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > > A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
> >
> > Just about any SRAM would work fine, although the one I have is
> 128k x 16
> > you could of course tie the 17th address line to ground on a
> 256k part. TTYL
>
> The only 128k*16 SRAM at Digikey is NV (the one you used)...

       Wow, strange, well the 256k part could of course be used as long as the
upper address bit is wired low. The CPLD COULD be modified to be capable of
256k samples, but this would require modifications of the CPLD, and the
client software. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistserv.....spamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@153354 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> >
> >If we are 10-20 or something lihe that, we could
> >maybe get some discount on some of the parts, not ?
> >
>
>
>
> I would be willing to chip in on a PCB and PLCD that was pre-programmed.
>
> I've organized this before for other projects. If you do this,
> here are my recommendation.
> If you have a PayPal account that would be easiest. Figure out
> the total cost of the project including postage, enveloppes,
> PayPal costs etc.

       Personally I'd be against any plan that used PayPal. Any OTHER service
would be fine, but considering the kind of "policies" PayPal has, along with
the TON of spam they have sent me I will NEVER do any business with them.
Same with UPS due to their incredibly huge "brokerage" fees.

{Quote hidden}

       Hehe, I like that idea! :) I'd certainly be willing to put in some work if
enough interest remains. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservKILLspamspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@155053 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Then some of the points that could be part of
> the initial investigation :
>
> - Upgrade for 16-bit operation ?
>   Maybe only need some firmware upgrade ?

       16bit operation would require an upgrade of the firmware in the PIC and the
client software. This would mostly require a slight change to the protocol
between the two. I've never needed more then 4 channels so implementing the
software for 16 just never came up.

> - Look over and verify the max logging frequency.
>   (Herbert has run it in 4Mhz, but he says that up to
>    40Mhz would be possible.)

       I could be up for this one, it would just require dropping a different
oscillator can in and making sure it captures properly.

> - The SRAM. Alternatives ? Or should everyone "use"
>   the Dallas sample service ?

       Most SRAMs out there could probably be dropped in without any change, if a
change were necessary I would think only the CPLD would need reprogramming.

> - The CPLD. Socket ? Direct solder to PCB ?

       I used a through hole 44pin PLCC socket and wire wrap wire for
interconnects.

> The Xilinx
>   XC9536-15PC44C (15 ns version) is $3.05 each in Quant:25
>   at Digikey. The 9572 with double capacity is $4.35.
>   Check eBay ?

       Wow have prices on those parts dropped, they were in the $10 range only a
year ago!

> - Optional power supply from the target ?

       Haven't thought of that one, personally I always keep power supplies
separate.

> - 3V/5V operation ? Or how to test 3V targets ?

       That would certainly be possible. It would require the use a 3V parts, or
level shifters. Level shifters might be the better solution.

> - ICSP socket for both the PIC and the CPLD ? I don't know
>   these CPLD's, so it might not be possible...

       Not sure either on that one.

> - CMOS (HC or AHC) logic instead of LS ?

       Hehe, here's another case of "I used what I had", the part I'm using is at
least 15 years old! Using a CMOS part would be better for target circuits
(less "drain" on weak drivers).

> - Using CLKOUT from PIC instead of separate osc for feeding the CPLD ?

       This one I thought of and decided against. Since the speed of the PIC
doesn't have to be anywhere near as fast as what feeds the CPLD, and since
the CPLD could possible run past 20MHz, I decided to keep those clocks
separate.

> - PCB ? Traditional vs. SMD ?

       As a hobbyist I'd personally recommend staying with a through hole design.
Makes debugging and expanding much easier.

> - Pullup (-down ?) (9-pin 470k(?) resistor SIL networks) on inputs.
>   Keeps unconnected inputs at a "know" level.

       That's something I've actually thought about including. Generally TTL based
logic "remains" at a state when unconnected, so it hasn't "bit" me very
much, yet.

> - A more common 232 interface IC (MAX232 or clone).

       A 232 could, I think, be directly dropped in as a replacement, only change
would be the caps, the 232 requires 1uF caps IIRC, the 202 only needs 0.1uF
caps (and guess which caps I had on hand?). :)

> Phu ! Was that to much ? :-)

       Not at all, they are all very interesting suggestions, I might not
personally agree with some but don't let me hold anything back! TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@160302 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>         Personally I'd be against any plan that used PayPal.
> Any OTHER service
> would be fine, but considering the kind of "policies" PayPal
> has, along with
> the TON of spam they have sent me I will NEVER do any
> business with them.

Totally OT with respect to this discussion, but can you suggest another
service for international payments?

I use paypal now for my webshop. If this deters some people from using
my shop it might be worth the effort to add another service. I must say
I never saw any spam from PP.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@160924 by Marcel van Lieshout

flavicon
face
What about USB instead of serial?

Marcel, who likes the initiative!

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@161547 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> >         Personally I'd be against any plan that used PayPal.
> > Any OTHER service
> > would be fine, but considering the kind of "policies" PayPal
> > has, along with
> > the TON of spam they have sent me I will NEVER do any
> > business with them.
>
> Totally OT with respect to this discussion, but can you suggest another
> service for international payments?

       Not off hand, for paying I try to stick with shops that take VISA, that
gives the most protection for the buyer. For selling I've stuck with money
orders, not the most secure for buyers I admit, but I don't sell too much,
I'm honest, and have never had a buyer disappointed. I believe bidpay is an
alternative service.

> I use paypal now for my webshop. If this deters some people from using
> my shop it might be worth the effort to add another service. I must say
> I never saw any spam from PP.

       My credit card on their file was expiring. I was contemplating whether to
update the info or not, I was busy with a few things and didn't get around
to doing it. What did paypal do? They sent me a message, EVERY SINGLE DAY,
for 114 days straight, asking me to update my record with them. No message
requesting them to stop was every answered. Nothing I tried made the
messages stop. Obviously after that I won't do ANY business with them.

       Oh, that, and when I opened the account they took out $1 to "confirm" the
card I gave them, that $1 remained in my account for a few months. Then, all
of a sudden, it "disappeared". I enquired, they said they had "no record". I
told them my VISA bill showed their deduction, they denied it. I wasn't
going to fight more with them over $1, but I certainly wasn't going to give
them an extra penny after crap like that. Just remember, they are NOT a
bank, they can change their rules overnight, and you have NO say. If their
records say something you have no chance of convincing them otherwise. There
are far more horror stories on the web about the scam this company pulls on
people. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@161548 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> What about USB instead of serial?
>
> Marcel, who likes the initiative!

       There is nothing in the design that prevents the use of one of those
USB-RS232 chips. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@162208 by

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote :
> > What about USB instead of serial?
>
> There is nothing in the design that prevents the use of one of those
> USB-RS232 chips. TTYL


Or, for anyone to hook ut up using one of these external
USB to serial converters, which would do the same
thing whithout changing the design of the analyzer as such...

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@163829 by Marcel van Lieshout

flavicon
face
I know but if a pcb is being developed...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <@spam@mailinglistRemoveMEspamEraseMEFARCITE.NET>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: PIC Based Logic Analyzer


> > What about USB instead of serial?
> >
> > Marcel, who likes the initiative!
>
>         There is nothing in the design that prevents the use of one of
those
> USB-RS232 chips. TTYL
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email @spam@listservspam_OUTspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@165320 by Michael J. Pawlowsky

flavicon
face
I have also heard od all kind of horror stories, but I've been using them for several years now an no complaints with many transactions.
I keep both a US and a Candian account with them. I even reversed a transaction once which took a bit of work to do, but it was fine.

My main reason for using them is convenience. I can deduct from my credit card, bank account, deposit to my accounbtg and the service is quick.

Also the price is pretty good. WIth BidPay if it's a small amoiunt I pay more for their service than the item at times!

But to each their own. The reason why I brought up PayPal was that I didn't think an individual would have a commercial account to take credit cards.


Mike



>        Not off hand, for paying I try to stick with shops that take VISA,
>that
>gives the most protection for the buyer. For selling I've stuck with money
>orders, not the most secure for buyers I admit, but I don't sell too much,
>I'm honest, and have never had a buyer disappointed. I believe bidpay is an
>alternative service.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@165321 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> There
> are far more horror stories on the web about the scam this
> company pulls on
> people. TTYL

I am aware of this, but for lack of an alternative I still use PP. Kagi
comes close but has higher margins, required me to register each product
separately (impossible for me) and is not a bank either.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistserv@spam@spamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@165941 by Michael J. Pawlowsky

flavicon
face
I say keep it how it is.

It's done, it works don't spend 2-3 months trying to improve it or this will never get off the ground.

I sell some finished products and kits or I allow people to take the code, PCB design, schematic etc. and do what they want to it.
This is how I think this should be done. In my case I simply want to buy a kit. (complete or missing some general easy to find parts).
Everyone will want to do something different to it, if you start that it will never end in my opinion.

Once one batch is done, then maybe make the project public and have changes made to it.

If Herbert wants I don't mind putting it up on a CVS server. This way you can have different version, different branches etc. For instance a branch for a USB interface, another for the RS-232 interface.

Mike




*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 11/16/2003 at 10:08 PM Marcel van Lieshout wrote:

>What about USB instead of serial?
>
>Marcel, who likes the initiative!
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email .....listserv@spam@spamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservRemoveMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@170810 by Michael J. Pawlowsky

flavicon
face
>> - PCB ? Traditional vs. SMD ?
>        As a hobbyist I'd personally recommend staying with a through hole
>design. Makes debugging and expanding much easier.

I just want to second that statement!


As for the 232s

Most are interchangeable. I like the 232A also for the 0.1 caps.
There are 233s I think it is that don't use any caps but they are quite a bit more expensive anbd more pins.

The difference in price between the 232 and 232A is small and the 0.1 caps are a lot cheaper then 1 uF caps so it comes to about the same.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservSTOPspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@172053 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
I haven't downloaded the PC client to check it out yet. My only request
would be that it allows you to select serial ports higher than com4. I
have a bunch of serial devices, and I use USB-serial convertors, so that
I have com5-8. Usually this is where devices like this would get
connected to my system.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@172922 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
One question about this...would upping the CPLD frequency mean that to
capture slower circuits, a larger capture file is needed, as you can't
clock the capture from an external clock? Um...that might sound a bit
confusing. Essentially I mean that with a higher sampling frequency,
you'll get more time slices per given capture time. If you're working on
a slow circuit, won't this contribute to longer transfer periods?

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Herbert Graf wrote:
> > - Look over and verify the max logging frequency.
> >   (Herbert has run it in 4Mhz, but he says that up to
> >    40Mhz would be possible.)
>
>         I could be up for this one, it would just require dropping a different
> oscillator can in and making sure it captures properly.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@173336 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Herbert Graf wrote :
> > > What about USB instead of serial?
> >
> > There is nothing in the design that prevents the use of one of those
> > USB-RS232 chips. TTYL
>
>
> Or, for anyone to hook ut up using one of these external
> USB to serial converters, which would do the same
> thing whithout changing the design of the analyzer as such...

       Good point, didn't think of that. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@174208 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

       Well another service I've recently seen is used by Mr. Anderson to sell the
Warp13. It's from amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1161234/002-0980869-8937642

I would certainly consider that route versus anything to do with paypal.
TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@174413 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> I haven't downloaded the PC client to check it out yet. My only request
> would be that it allows you to select serial ports higher than com4. I
> have a bunch of serial devices, and I use USB-serial convertors, so that
> I have com5-8. Usually this is where devices like this would get
> connected to my system.

       IIRC the current client is hardcoded for com2, modifying it to accept
pretty much any com port is pretty trivial, the basic code is already there.
TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspam_OUTspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@174622 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> One question about this...would upping the CPLD frequency mean that to
> capture slower circuits, a larger capture file is needed, as you can't
> clock the capture from an external clock? Um...that might sound a bit
> confusing. Essentially I mean that with a higher sampling frequency,
> you'll get more time slices per given capture time. If you're working on
> a slow circuit, won't this contribute to longer transfer periods?

       I'm not sure what you are asking here. The capture is based on sample
count, not time. So if you are running the clock at 1MHz a 128k sample would
capture about 130ms of real time. If OTOH you are capturing at say 10kHz a
128K sample would capture about 13 seconds of real time.

       Modifying things to be clocked by the external circuit certainly is
possible, I've never had a reason to do that though. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@181737 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
Yup, you caught the gist of what I was saying. I was just expressing a
bit of concern as you mentioned before the upload time could get long
with longer captures.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Herbert Graf wrote:
>         I'm not sure what you are asking here. The capture is based on sample
> count, not time. So if you are running the clock at 1MHz a 128k sample would
> capture about 130ms of real time. If OTOH you are capturing at say 10kHz a
> 128K sample would capture about 13 seconds of real time.
>
>         Modifying things to be clocked by the external circuit certainly is
> possible, I've never had a reason to do that though. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@183702 by Denny Esterline

picon face
I'm a little late to the thread here, but here's my two cents.

The "prototype" on Herbert's web site makes extensive use of perf
board, are you suggesting the "kits" would be made the same way, or
would there be a PCB.

What tool did you use to program the CPLD? (hardware wise)

Is there a speed improvement over serial with the FTDI chips? (if not
I say leave the USB out and let the user add a converter if they need
it)

Any idea what price you could kit this for? (< $100 US, I'd be very
very interested)

Clarify this sample rate issue for me. Is the sample rate based
strictly on hardware (i.e. different clock can for different rate), or
is it software based (i.e. widget on the PC client software)?


Thanks,
Denny

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\16@184321 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Yup, you caught the gist of what I was saying. I was just expressing a
> bit of concern as you mentioned before the upload time could get long
> with longer captures.

       Yes, since the serial link is running at only 19200bps it takes about a
minute to download a 128KB sample. I usually find 1 to 8k samples to be
enough so the long download never really "hit" me. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservRemoveMEspamSTOPspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@190021 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> I'm a little late to the thread here, but here's my two cents.
>
> The "prototype" on Herbert's web site makes extensive use of perf
> board, are you suggesting the "kits" would be made the same way, or
> would there be a PCB.

       That is the discussion, I never considered the possibility since I didn't
expect this much interest. I'm now reconsidering that stance.

> What tool did you use to program the CPLD? (hardware wise)

       I actually used a programmer at work to do it, that isn't a long term
solution, if interest really is there building a programmer is supposedly
very simple.

> Is there a speed improvement over serial with the FTDI chips? (if not
> I say leave the USB out and let the user add a converter if they need
> it)

       Nope, the current hardware runs at 19200, the limit is the PC software side
on slower computers.

> Any idea what price you could kit this for? (< $100 US, I'd be very
> very interested)

       No clue, as I said, never even thought about expanding this to a kit form.

> Clarify this sample rate issue for me. Is the sample rate based
> strictly on hardware (i.e. different clock can for different rate), or
> is it software based (i.e. widget on the PC client software)?

       Strictly on hardware. The main bottlenecks on speed are the bandwidth of
the probes, the propagation speed of the CPLD and the write speed of the
memory. IIRC when I did some calcs I found the memory was the first
bottleneck to be hit. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@191059 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> > Is there a speed improvement over serial with the FTDI chips? (if
not
> > I say leave the USB out and let the user add a converter if they
need
> > it)
>
>         Nope, the current hardware runs at 19200, the limit is the
PC software side

I guess I meant, "in general". If FTDI chips only emulate a serial
port and can't run faster than a "normal" serial port, just seems like
added complications with little bennifit.

> > Clarify this sample rate issue for me. Is the sample rate based
> > strictly on hardware (i.e. different clock can for different
rate), or
> > is it software based (i.e. widget on the PC client software)?
>
>         Strictly on hardware. The main bottlenecks on speed are the
bandwidth of
> the probes, the propagation speed of the CPLD and the write speed of
the
> memory. IIRC when I did some calcs I found the memory was the first
> bottleneck to be hit. TTYL
>

Granted those would be upper limit concerns, but my question was
pointed more towards daily usage. Is the sample rate software
selectable over some range, or is it governed strictly in the
hardware?

Thanks
-Denny

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@201850 by Robert Rolf

picon face
A few thoughts.

KISS (keep is simple stupid).

Use commonly available CHEAP memory. I you really want non volatile,
add your own lithium battery.

Make it modular. 8/16/24/32 bits is basically an additional RAM device
and a tri state device to handle the data bus gating to the PIC for readout.

Why use a custom programmed CPLD when a common 'HC counter would
do as address generator?
All the address generator really needs is reset and autoincrement.
Easily handled by a bank of 74HC161's or the like. This makes the project
available to more people over the long term.

Some Video DRAMs have the address counter on board.

What about using common SDRAM? It's cheap, damned fast, and not that
hard to talk to. 128MBx64Bits is what, $80?

Is the point of this project to have a logic analyser (in which case
the "parallel port logic analyser" might be quicker/easier,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwasys/old/diy2.html

or to make something with a PIC?


An external programmable clock would allow one to use a PC ECP parallel
port at rates approaching 20Mhz (DMA mode).


Robert

"Jan-Erik Soderholm XA (TN/PAC)" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@202719 by Charles Craft

picon face
I think the spec sheet at Xilinx showed a JTAG port.

Wouldn't that be used for programming the part?
Aren't JTAG interface kits pretty easy to build or inexpensive to purchase?


{Original Message removed}

2003\11\16@203340 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> > > Is there a speed improvement over serial with the FTDI chips? (if
> not
> > > I say leave the USB out and let the user add a converter if they
> need
> > > it)
> >
> >         Nope, the current hardware runs at 19200, the limit is the
> PC software side
>
> I guess I meant, "in general". If FTDI chips only emulate a serial
> port and can't run faster than a "normal" serial port, just seems like
> added complications with little bennifit.

       Agreed, I wasn't the one who suggested a USB solution, I personally don't
"like" USB so I rarely consider it.

{Quote hidden}

       The sample rate is fixed in hardware to 8 discrete steps: osc, osc/2,
osc/4, osc/8, osc/16. osc/32, osc/64 and osc/128 IIRC, osc being the
frequency of the oscillator feeding the CPLD.

       The CPLD also has a clock mux which allows the PIC to provide the clock,
this is used to download the sample from the memory, however there is
nothing stopping someone from modifying the PIC firmware to instruct the PIC
to provide the sample clock as well, in which case the sample rate could be
almost any speed below the PIC's running speed. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@205835 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> A few thoughts.
>
> KISS (keep is simple stupid).

       Actually it is quite simple in current form.

> Use commonly available CHEAP memory. I you really want non volatile,
> add your own lithium battery.

       The memory I'm using was free, through Maxim's sample program, can't get
cheaper then that.

> Make it modular. 8/16/24/32 bits is basically an additional RAM device
> and a tri state device to handle the data bus gating to the PIC
> for readout.

       Not that simple, the PIC is the device that triggers, there isn't enough
I/O left on the PIC for 24 or more channels. You'd have to start
multiplexing data lines, and that's starting to get complicated, or give up
triggering on all channels. I'm not convinced 24 or more channels are even
needed, I think you are forgetting the type of audience that would be
interested in this sort of thing.

> Why use a custom programmed CPLD when a common 'HC counter would
> do as address generator?

       3 reasons:

       1. Speed, a CPLD is MUCH faster then discrete gates.
       2. Size, the CPLD is more then just a counter, the SRAM requires certain
signals to pulse at certain points in the clock waveform, it does more then
address generation. It also has a selectable sample depth (where the counter
stops), an 8 position clock divider and some clock muxes. Again, the number
of chips required to do the same with discrete components starts to get a
little silly.
       3. Simplicity (which is your first thought), one chip handles all the "big"
stuff, the PIC handles the rest.

       I don't understand what's wrong with using a CPLD. It's SUCH an elegant
solution, it's easy to get, it's easy to program, it's CHEAPER then the
discrete solution, it's FAR more flexible, the software for it is FREE, I
just don't get it. Discrete logic, in my mind, is dead.

> All the address generator really needs is reset and autoincrement.
> Easily handled by a bank of 74HC161's or the like. This makes the project
> available to more people over the long term.

       It does more then that, look at the verilog.
       Plus, the 74 series is on the way out, it's far past being obsolete and the
sooner it goes the happier many of us will be.

> Some Video DRAMs have the address counter on board.

       DRAM's usually require refreshing, again, too complicated. Also usually the
packages are killers for hobbyists.

> What about using common SDRAM? It's cheap, damned fast, and not that
> hard to talk to. 128MBx64Bits is what, $80?

       SDRAM requires refresh, has tons of pins, is hard to address (needs rows
and columns), very specific in timing, and WAY WAY WAY overkill for this
application. What are you going to do with 1GB of samples???

> Is the point of this project to have a logic analyser (in which case
> the "parallel port logic analyser" might be quicker/easier,
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwasys/old/diy2.html

       WAY WAY WAY slower, not as many channels, huge load on a system (due to
polling), plus, have you ever done timing critical things with a PC parallel
port and windows? Enough said. I built one like that, it's useful, but
wasn't enough, for me.
       Please note I'm not trying to knock the parallel port approach, I'm just
saying it's not the in the same category.

> or to make something with a PIC?

       I already did.

> An external programmable clock would allow one to use a PC ECP parallel
> port at rates approaching 20Mhz (DMA mode).

       Mine has an external programmable clock.

       I think you've lost sight of things. This isn't a solution for a person
looking for a 4Gsps 1TB sample depth logic analyzer. It's meant as an
"inbetween", between parallel port type solutions and the "big guys".

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservspam_OUTspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@205836 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> I think the spec sheet at Xilinx showed a JTAG port.
>
> Wouldn't that be used for programming the part?
> Aren't JTAG interface kits pretty easy to build or inexpensive to
> purchase?

       Hehe, never even though of that, I programmed it with a universal
programmer, but you are right, it is just a jtag part and other colleagues
have programmed it using simple parallel port connected jtag hardware. That
also suggests that it has inbuilt in circuit programming support. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\11\16@214019 by Dal Wheeler

flavicon
face
Yep, the xc95xx series is dead easy to program through the jtag port.  Just
build a parallel port jtag programmer (2 74HC125's and a few resistors).
The free downloadable software works great.  These things are too cool not
to familiarize yourself with, even if you are a die hard discrete gate user.

http://toolbox.xilinx.com/docsan/3_1i/data/common/jtg/dppb/appb.htm

BTW, the XC9572XL  is a great part that has 5 volt tolerent 3 volt inputs.
~$3.91 in singles  for 10ns 100pin tqfp at digikey.  They are toner transfer
homebrew PCB compatable as well!

http://myweb.cableone.net/wheedal/pcb.htm

Very nice to have one of these on your processor boards in the event you
find you need to add some function and not have to redo the board artwork.
*Very* flexible.

I don't think that discrete gates are dead yet exactly; but it's coming.
-Dal
BTW: A nice tutorial here:
http://www.al-williams.com/pldhome.htm

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@002913 by Denny Esterline

picon face
<snip>


> The free downloadable software works great.  These things are too
cool not
> to familiarize yourself with, even if you are a die hard discrete
gate user.
>
> http://toolbox.xilinx.com/docsan/3_1i/data/common/jtg/dppb/appb.htm
>
> BTW, the XC9572XL  is a great part that has 5 volt tolerent 3 volt
inputs.
> ~$3.91 in singles  for 10ns 100pin tqfp at digikey.
<snip>
> BTW: A nice tutorial here:
> http://www.al-williams.com/pldhome.htm

Well, PICs were complicated too, untill I started learning about them.
Now I reach for a PIC before I reach for a 555. Guess I(we?) have some
learning to do. :o)

After reading the sites Dan posted (above), I think I'll definitely be
looking into CLPD for future projects.

BTW, are they all PLCC, QFP and such, or are there some in DIPs and
SOIC? Seems like all those pins are overkill for a lot of
applications. (not to mention loads tougher to prototype with)

-Denny

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@003533 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

       Most of them are PLCC and other surface mount type packages. Of course,
there do exist PALs, which come in DIP, but I've always found them to be FAR
to restrictive in use. Generally if I need a DIP sized package and speed
isn't the utmost concern I just use a PIC. If speed is important then I'd
generally go for a CPLD. The 44pin PLCC package, once you get used to it's
through hole socket, is actually quite easy to deal with. And they are
certainly getting cheap. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@004815 by Charles Craft

picon face
I'm doing some SMT but all hand soldering not toaster over or hot air gun.

Anyone think these SMT PLCC sockets are hand solderable?

http://www.mill-max.com/images/products/PDF/095.pdf

http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Mill-Max/Photos/1.jpg


> BTW, are they all PLCC, QFP and such, or are there some in DIPs and
> SOIC? Seems like all those pins are overkill for a lot of
> applications. (not to mention loads tougher to prototype with)

       Most of them are PLCC and other surface mount type packages. Of course,
there do exist PALs, which come in DIP, but I've always found them to be FAR
to restrictive in use. Generally if I need a DIP sized package and speed
isn't the utmost concern I just use a PIC. If speed is important then I'd
generally go for a CPLD. The 44pin PLCC package, once you get used to it's
through hole socket, is actually quite easy to deal with. And they are
certainly getting cheap. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@005437 by Tom Deutschman

flavicon
face
I've had some problems with SMT PLCC sockets, both hand-soldered and
reflowed. I would use the thru-hole socket for the PLCC and SMT for as
much of everything else as possible. My 2 cents.


{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@010515 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
I would try to avoid them. I've looked at them in the past, and it just
seems like it would be way too hard to get to the leads without burning
the plastic bits. FWIW I also do all my SMT by hand soldering.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Charles Craft wrote:
> Anyone think these SMT PLCC sockets are hand solderable?
>
> http://www.mill-max.com/images/products/PDF/095.pdf
>
> http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Mill-Max/Photos/1.jpg

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@012104 by Charles Craft

picon face
I pryed a 68 pin PLCC part out of a board here in the office and checked it over.

If the JTAG stuff really works for programming the CPLD then maybe scrap the socket and solder chip to pads?


{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@022650 by Vincent Vega

picon face
Hot air is also hand soldering, so far I can tell.
Low air flow and heating from the under side will
deal with those sockets nicely.
SMD connectors for flat printed cables are much harder,
but still without problems with a Weller WMD1
hot air station.
VV

Charles Craft <RemoveMEchuckseaRemoveMEspamEraseMEMINDSPRING.COM> wrote:

>Anyone think these SMT PLCC sockets are hand solderable?

>http://www.mill-max.com/images/products/PDF/095.pdf

>http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Mill-Max/Photos/1.jpg





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@030424 by

picon face
Charles Craft wrote:

> I think the spec sheet at Xilinx showed a JTAG port.
>
> Wouldn't that be used for programming the part?
> Aren't JTAG interface kits pretty easy to build or inexpensive to purchase?

Actualy, I was think about this while driving the kids
to school this morning...

(Note, I haven't studied the JTAG protocol, but it's two pins,
one "clock" and one "data", right ?)

Why not connect the JTAG pins of the CPLD to two unused (or, if
no unused pins, maybe share pins with something else) of the
PIC. Then a function in the PIC firmware could do the re-programming
of the CPLD from the PC-app. (Is there some high voltage needed
for programming ? Then perhaps a pin-header could be added for an
extenal Vpp to the CPLD ?)

Note that all that have to be done now, is to create the connections
on the PCB, the support in firmware and in the PC-app could be added
later so we don't slow down the whole thing.

In this was, the "hardware" could be adjusted/modifyed on-the-fly.
Thsi would have been much harder with discret 74-type logic :-)

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@030837 by

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> The sample rate is fixed in hardware to 8 discrete steps: osc, osc/2,
> osc/4, osc/8, osc/16. osc/32, osc/64 and osc/128 IIRC, osc being the
> frequency of the oscillator feeding the CPLD.


Now, this might me asking a little to much, but I think
steps in the standard 1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200,500... series are
a little easier to "read" and interpret. It might also be easier
to build the timescale in the PC display application.

Well, as I said, it might be asking to much :-)

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@031707 by

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> > Wouldn't that be used for programming the part?
> > Aren't JTAG interface kits pretty easy to build or inexpensive to
> > purchase?
>
> Hehe, never even though of that, I programmed it with a universal
> programmer, but you are right, it is just a jtag part and other colleagues
> have programmed it using simple parallel port connected jtag hardware. That
> also suggests that it has inbuilt in circuit programming support. TTYL

and Dan Wheeler wrote :

> Yep, the xc95xx series is dead easy to program through the jtag port.  Just
> build a parallel port jtag programmer (2 74HC125's and a few resistors).
> The free downloadable software works great.


As I wrote in another post, connect the CPLD JTAG pins to a couple of
pins of the PIC, and a JTAG download routine in the PIC firmware and add
a CPLD download function to the PC app. Then you could mount
a un-programmed CPLD to the PCB and just begin with a download
of the CPLD "bin-file" from the PC-app. Nice for future upgrades also !


Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@041136 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Sunday, Nov 16, 2003, at 21:28 US/Pacific, Denny Esterline wrote:

>> XC9572XL

The thing I find depressing about CPLDs (and PLDs, for that matter) is
the
power consumption figure.  I've gotten too spoiled my pic, AVRs,
msp430s,
and other low power microcontrollers, and I just get sticker shock when
I get to that line of the data sheet for a CPLD.

(it's like - there is (or was) a "gameboy" software development web
ring,
where people would build their own rom/flash based cartridges with extra
peripherals to make hand-held digitial scopes, their own games, and so
on.
(a gameboy is essentially a z80.  Lots of development SW is available.)
One complexity the the memory banking controller used to address more
than
64k of rom, plus nvram, plus whatever.  nice little custom asic by
nintendo,
I guess.  Not TOO hard to duplicate in static logic, and pretty trivial
to
do in a reasonable PAL-like device.  UNTIL you realize that the average
PAL
probably eats more power than the entire rest of the box combined :-( )

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@042835 by

picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:

> >> XC9572XL
>
> The thing I find depressing about CPLDs (and PLDs, for that matter) is
> the power consumption figure...



The CPLD at hand has a 30 mA (typical) supply current.
(@ 1Mhz, "low power mode", "active", and no load on the
I/O pins). It then goes up with 0.2 mA / Mhz (if all
"macrocells" are used).

In "high performance mode", it's between 50 mA (@ 0 Mhz !)
and 83 mA (@ 100 Mhz).

Anyway, *this* design isn't ment to be battery powered, right ?

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@082953 by Sten Dahlgren

flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

maybe this link could be of some value (have not used them though)

<http://www.xilinx.com> and search for coolrunner

>
> BillW
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@101439 by

picon face
Does Xilinx have a sample program ?
I could just find a on-line store.
I'd like a few CPLD's to "play" with.

Jan-Erik.

B.t.w, I'm going to order the free CD with
development tools, the download was 121 MB  (!!!)
That would take the whole night on my 56k modem...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@101855 by Dal Wheeler

flavicon
face
You'll be surprised at how fast the pincount gets used up.  Especially when
interfacing with more traditional A/D busses (not pic).  Anyway, there are
smaller packages (but for some reason plcc's are a little more expensive).
Actually I think the 100pin tqfp would be ideal for the logic analyzer as
you wouldn't need to multiplex inputs.  Anyway, 100 pins sounds like a lot,
but in actuality you only have 72 or so free for your project.   My current
project actually needs to move up to a larger package, I've run out of pins!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Denny Esterline" <TakeThisOuTfirmwarespamspamRemoveMETDS.NET>
> BTW, are they all PLCC, QFP and such, or are there some in DIPs and
> SOIC? Seems like all those pins are overkill for a lot of
> applications. (not to mention loads tougher to prototype with)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@102614 by Dal Wheeler

flavicon
face
:')  Thats how I got started with the Xilinx line.  I pulled the a PC84
package XC9572 out of an old ISA card, did a quick and dirty pcb and
soldered it directly to the pads.  The board was *Ugly* but it worked!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Craft" <chuckseaRemoveMEspamMINDSPRING.COM>


> I pryed a 68 pin PLCC part out of a board here in the office and checked
it over.
>
> If the JTAG stuff really works for programming the CPLD then maybe scrap
the socket and solder chip to pads?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@102901 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> I pryed a 68 pin PLCC part out of a board here in the office and
> checked it over.
>
> If the JTAG stuff really works for programming the CPLD then
> maybe scrap the socket and solder chip to pads?

       Since the cost of a socket is negligible I'd be against that, simply since
it would restrict future expansion (unless we switch to the 72. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@103313 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> > The sample rate is fixed in hardware to 8 discrete steps: osc, osc/2,
> > osc/4, osc/8, osc/16. osc/32, osc/64 and osc/128 IIRC, osc being the
> > frequency of the oscillator feeding the CPLD.
>
>
> Now, this might me asking a little to much, but I think
> steps in the standard 1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200,500... series are
> a little easier to "read" and interpret. It might also be easier
> to build the timescale in the PC display application.

       Unfortunately dividing by non factors of 2 is "big" in logic. I don't think
the room would be there, plus, if it were, the speed of the CPLD would drop
dramatically. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@103739 by Dal Wheeler

flavicon
face
I've done it; not that I really liked the results.  If you clip out the
plastic "tray" lining the bottom of the socket, you have easier access to
the pins for tight iron soldering.  For some reason they seem to like to
build these out of low temp plastic so they are pretty easy to melt if you
are careless.  It works but not super easy or pretty.  Much easier to solder
the plcc down itself if you have that option.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Craft" <EraseMEchuckseaRemoveMEspamMINDSPRING.COM>

> Anyone think these SMT PLCC sockets are hand solderable?
>
> http://www.mill-max.com/images/products/PDF/095.pdf

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spampiclist-unsubscribe-request.....spamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@105017 by Herbert Graf
flavicon
face
> William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> > >> XC9572XL
> >
> > The thing I find depressing about CPLDs (and PLDs, for that matter) is
> > the power consumption figure...
>
>
>
> The CPLD at hand has a 30 mA (typical) supply current.
> (@ 1Mhz, "low power mode", "active", and no load on the
> I/O pins). It then goes up with 0.2 mA / Mhz (if all
> "macrocells" are used).
>
> In "high performance mode", it's between 50 mA (@ 0 Mhz !)
> and 83 mA (@ 100 Mhz).

       Hehe, wow, but you know, there WAS a time when that WAS considered low
power! :) we're so spoiled these days!

> Anyway, *this* design isn't ment to be battery powered, right ?

       Certainly not, but even so, most of the time the clock isn't running, so
consumption wouldn't be that horrific. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@105434 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Does Xilinx have a sample program ?

       Not as far as I know. I'm sure if you contacted them directly they'd be
open to sending you a few samples, but they don't have an established
program like Maxim or Microchip.

> I could just find a on-line store.
> I'd like a few CPLD's to "play" with.

       I got mine from digikey.ca, I usually have a bunch of stuff "in waiting" to
get. Heck, if you can't fill the order enough to meet the minimum get a few
PICs, they always come in handy! :)

> B.t.w, I'm going to order the free CD with
> development tools, the download was 121 MB  (!!!)
> That would take the whole night on my 56k modem...

       Hehe, I can empathize. I once downloaded a whole redhat ISO over dialup,
took 4 straight nights. Of course, then I got DSL, now 100MB just doesn't
have has much "sway" on the pain scale as it used to! :) TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@105610 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> You'll be surprised at how fast the pincount gets used up.
> Especially when
> interfacing with more traditional A/D busses (not pic).  Anyway, there are
> smaller packages (but for some reason plcc's are a little more expensive).
> Actually I think the 100pin tqfp would be ideal for the logic analyzer as
> you wouldn't need to multiplex inputs.  Anyway, 100 pins sounds
> like a lot,
> but in actuality you only have 72 or so free for your project.
> My current
> project actually needs to move up to a larger package, I've run
> out of pins!

       I agree completely. On my project I think I used something like 33/34 pins
on the CPLD and 31/33 pins on the PIC, pretty much to capacity! Took alot of
planning to get it to fit. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@114206 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Monday, Nov 17, 2003, at 05:39 US/Pacific, Sten Dahlgren wrote:

> William Chops Westfield wrote:
>>
>> The thing I find depressing about CPLDs (and PLDs, for that matter) is
>> the power consumption figure.

> maybe this link could be of some value (have not used them though)
>
> <http://www.xilinx.com> and search for coolrunner

Sure, if your system has 1.8V power :-(

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@124322 by

picon face
Arg, I tried to order the "free" CD with Xilinx
development tools, but they wanted $19.99 in
"shipping and handling", so I backed out.

I'll just wait until I have access to a fast Internet
connection and download directly...

Jan-Erik.

I earlier wrote :
> B.t.w, I'm going to order the free CD with
> development tools, the download was 121 MB  (!!!)
> That would take the whole night on my 56k modem...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@125244 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Arg, I tried to order the "free" CD with Xilinx
> development tools, but they wanted $19.99 in
> "shipping and handling", so I backed out.
>
> I'll just wait until I have access to a fast Internet
> connection and download directly...

       If you want I can download it, burn it and mail it to you? TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@130322 by

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> >
> > I'll just wait until I have access to a fast Internet
> > connection and download directly...
>
> If you want I can download it, burn it and mail it to you? TTYL


(I thought of mailng this a private mail, but could not
find Harberts mail address...)


Now, *that* would be very kind !

But, you know what, I think I'll stick to the
documentations I downloaded for a while (like in
swimming school, when you started learning swimming
*out* of the water on the beach :-) )

And I could actualy drive 30km and have access to a fast network.

But, for safety, I'll save your offer !  :-)

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@150452 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Is there anyway that you could send a PDF of the CPLD logic-equalivancy
schematic? That way we non-XILINX folks can implement the logic in SMD 74F
logic...

--Bob
--------------
Bob Axtell
PIC Hardware & Firmware Dev
Tucson, AZ
1-520-219-2363
"I lose some on each sale but make it up in volume."

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@151114 by

picon face
Interesting.
What would be gained from that ?
Jan-Erik.

Bob Axtell wrote :
> Is there anyway that you could send a PDF of the CPLD logic-equalivancy
> schematic? That way we non-XILINX folks can implement the logic in SMD 74F
> logic...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@152153 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Is there anyway that you could send a PDF of the CPLD logic-equalivancy
> schematic? That way we non-XILINX folks can implement the logic in SMD 74F
> logic...

       I don't have any logic equivalent diagram simply because I designed it in
Verilog. If you are truly interested in building it I can, in the mean time,
send you a programmed CPLD. I'd simply have to build a programmer which is
pretty trivial.

       Due to the apparent interest I am putting together things to see how viable
offering a kit would be. This might take me a while though. There are a
couple changes I need to make to the design to make it possible.

       Everything needed to build it yourself is available on the site if you
don't want to wait.

       Thanks, TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-request.....spamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@152401 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
I'm guessing they want to bypass the use of the CPLD. TTYL

> Interesting.
> What would be gained from that ?
> Jan-Erik.
>
> Bob Axtell wrote :
> > Is there anyway that you could send a PDF of the CPLD logic-equalivancy
> > schematic? That way we non-XILINX folks can implement the logic
> in SMD 74F
> > logic...
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> spampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@154646 by

picon face
Yes, I *did* guess that :-)

My question was realy, what would be gained from *that* ?
Why would one "bypass the use of the CPLD" in a working design ?

Never mind, it's no big deal...

Jan-Erik.

Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-request.....spamspammitvma.mit.edu

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spampiclist-unsubscribe-request.....spam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@160722 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Well, we could use his design but eliminate the cost, power requirement,
and programming of the CPLD.

--Bob

At 01:08 PM 11/17/2003, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--------------
Bob Axtell
PIC Hardware & Firmware Dev
Tucson, AZ
1-520-219-2363
"I lose some on each sale but make it up in volume."

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@161312 by Marcel van Lieshout

flavicon
face
Perhaps someone can be found to create complete products (build and cased)?
I am hesitating trying to solder a 100-pin fpga...

Marcel

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@161313 by Colombain Nicolas

flavicon
face
and ...
1. loose the flexibitlity
2. build a gaz machine :)

I'm not sure if you will gain something in terms of power requirement with
several high speed logic ICs.
Programming of the CPLD is quite simple (JTag programmer)

Nicolas

{Original Message removed}

2003\11\17@161722 by Paul James E.

picon face
Herbert,

Again I can't reach this webpage.  Would you email the details please?
I am very interested in this project.


                                     Thanks and Regards,

                                            Jim

> I'm happy to announce I finally got a page up detailing my PIC based
> logic analyzer. If anyone has any questions/comments please feel free
> to let me know. Enjoy! Thanks, TTYL
>
> http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email .....listserv.....spamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@162342 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Well, we could use his design but eliminate the cost, power requirement,
> and programming of the CPLD.

       Cost of the CPLD is in the $5CND range.
       Power is in the order of 30mA.
       Programmed part can be supplied by me if you wish.

       Frankly, I don't see any benefit to doing it discrete, unless power
requirements are paramount in which case the discrete solution MAY have a
small advantage. But, it's a free world and you are free to implement things
in any way you wish. Good luck, TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@162556 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Yes, just to bypass it. My experience with CPLDs and FPGAs hasn't been
good, and I design them out whenever possible, unless they are VERY simple
like the early GALs. I spent 6 tough weeks troubleshooting a
noise-sensitive XYLINX design, uncovered a floating gate internal to the
array, a problem with the chip itself. Had to reprogram the chip around the
bad gate section. To cause the problem repeatedly, had to make radiation
gadgets (magnet wire loops with buzzing relays) held next to the PCB.
Theoretically CPLD are marvelous devices, but when there is a problem
inside, physically  moving San Francisco a foot further to the left is
easier...

BUT, if I could buy an already programmed PLCC device, I guess that's OK,
too, for a one-up project.

I think you have a good idea, Herbert. I made one years ago (8051), but
it's not deep enough for today's applications.

How do you display it on the PC?

--Bob




At 01:23 PM 11/17/2003, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--------------
Bob Axtell
PIC Hardware & Firmware Dev
Tucson, AZ
1-520-219-2363
"I lose some on each sale but make it up in volume."

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@162807 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Perhaps someone can be found to create complete products (build
> and cased)?

       I am currently researching the options for providing a kit. However, this
might take a while so it might not be good to hold your breath! :)

> I am hesitating trying to solder a 100-pin fpga...

       What 100pin FPGA? The part is a 44pin CPLD in PLCC packaging. The socket
for it is through hole on 0.1" centers, doesn't get much easier then that!
:) I used 30 gauge wire wrap wire from Ratshack, for the record. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@163310 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
>  Herbert,
>
>  Again I can't reach this webpage.  Would you email the details please?
>  I am very interested in this project.

       Done. If anyone else would like a copy please let me know. Thanks, TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@163528 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Yes, just to bypass it. My experience with CPLDs and FPGAs hasn't been
> good, and I design them out whenever possible, unless they are VERY simple
> like the early GALs. I spent 6 tough weeks troubleshooting a
> noise-sensitive XYLINX design, uncovered a floating gate internal to the
> array, a problem with the chip itself. Had to reprogram the chip
> around the
> bad gate section. To cause the problem repeatedly, had to make radiation
> gadgets (magnet wire loops with buzzing relays) held next to the PCB.
> Theoretically CPLD are marvelous devices, but when there is a problem
> inside, physically  moving San Francisco a foot further to the left is
> easier...
>
> BUT, if I could buy an already programmed PLCC device, I guess that's OK,
> too, for a one-up project.
>
> I think you have a good idea, Herbert. I made one years ago (8051), but
> it's not deep enough for today's applications.
>
> How do you display it on the PC?

       Wrote a small GUI that instructs the PIC what to do, when a capture has
been made the data is trasferred to the PC and displayed. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@163907 by Tim Hart

flavicon
face
I'll second that....I have trouble with normal DIP's :)

>>> RemoveMEmarcelspamspamSTOPspamHMCS.NL 11/17/03 03:11PM >>>
Perhaps someone can be found to create complete products (build and cased)?
I am hesitating trying to solder a 100-pin fpga...

Marcel

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@171221 by

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> Well, we could use his design but eliminate the cost,

$3 - $4 USD each at Digikey

> power requirement,

Wait, you did mention "74F logic". A 4-bit bin counter (74F161)
seems to have a power requirement of (max) 55 mA (!). This alone
is probably more then the whole CPLD. I don't know if the 74F
SMD parts are any different.

> and programming of the CPLD.

One of the ideas is that the programming could be done
by "someone else". (Or in circuit by the firmware in the PIC,
as I sugested, but that is still just a shoot in the dark,
and no one has commented on that yet.)


Jan-Erik.

>Bob Axtell wrote :
> > Is there anyway that you could send a PDF of the CPLD logic-equalivancy
> > schematic? That way we non-XILINX folks can implement the logic in SMD 74F
> > logic...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@172635 by

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote :

> Theoretically CPLD are marvelous devices, but when there is a problem
> inside, physically  moving San Francisco a foot further to the left is
> easier...



Theoretically PICs are marvelous devices, but when there is a problem
inside, physically moving San Francisco a foot further to the left is
easier...

Or replace "PICs" with just about anything...

Or is this a know problem with CPLD's *specificaly*.

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\17@234226 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
This was a design problem with a 5000-series Xylinx device. Nobody had
caught it before my client, probably 'cause he used more of the available
gates than most folks did. The gate was supposed to be connected internally
to a pullup, but in fact was floating. All of the parts purchased,
regardless of lot number, acted the same way.

It was very hard to prove that Xylinx was at fault, but I did. Although I
got the part to "work", my client didn't trust 'em anymore, and Xylinx
swapped several thousand devices at $9 USD ea for 7000-series parts (which
didn't have the bug). This was about 7 yrs ago. The reason I am so
suspicious of large gate arrays is just that- it is very hard to be certain
that the array will work for every possible way it can be connected up.

I don't have this concern with PICs or other microprocessors because the
interconnections are FIXED, and therefore are capable of being tested fully
on a functional high-speed tester, at least on a batch basis. Yes, we
occasionally DO find bugs with PIC parts as they become increasingly more
complex, but it doesn't take 6 weeks of agony to locate the problem...

--Bob

At 03:25 PM 11/17/2003, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--------------
Bob Axtell
PIC Hardware & Firmware Dev
Tucson, AZ
1-520-219-2363
"I lose some on each sale but make it up in volume."

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2003\11\18@224629 by Mike Hord

picon face
>         Frankly, I don't see any benefit to doing it discrete, unless
>power
>requirements are paramount in which case the discrete solution MAY have a
>small advantage. But, it's a free world and you are free to implement
>things
>in any way you wish. Good luck, TTYL

A good way to punish undergraduate EE students?

Actually, we had a few times where (just for contrast) we were made to build
really large multi-breadboard discrete logic based systems, then implement
them
with a CPLD.  It was enlightening.

Unfortunately, until now, no one had ever told me that it was as easy to
work
with a CPLD as it is to work with a PIC (or easier!).  We used big, pricey
demo
boards with large TQFP packages that made the whole thing look unusable on
the small scale, and developed with "student" versions of software which
costs
many thousands of dollars.

This thread has been extraordinarily enlightening to me, and I may like to
try to
build my own variation on this, if I ever get a chance, and if Herbert has
no
objections...certainly, I'd never try to profit from his work!

Thanks to all the PICListers for another extremely educational thread!

Mike H.

_________________________________________________________________
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups!  Get downloads, videos,
and more here.  http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\11\18@231539 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> >         Frankly, I don't see any benefit to doing it discrete, unless
> >power
> >requirements are paramount in which case the discrete solution MAY have a
> >small advantage. But, it's a free world and you are free to implement
> >things
> >in any way you wish. Good luck, TTYL
>
> A good way to punish undergraduate EE students?

       Actually I was an undergrad when I designed and built it.

> Actually, we had a few times where (just for contrast) we were
> made to build
> really large multi-breadboard discrete logic based systems, then implement
> them
> with a CPLD.  It was enlightening.

       We had a course where we had to build an analog circuit, something more
complex then say a dual stage op amp. We had to build it out of discrete
nmos and pmos transistors. Was quite educational.

> Unfortunately, until now, no one had ever told me that it was as easy to
> work
> with a CPLD as it is to work with a PIC (or easier!).  We used big, pricey
> demo
> boards with large TQFP packages that made the whole thing look unusable on
> the small scale, and developed with "student" versions of software which
> costs
> many thousands of dollars.

       I though the same until I was introduced to the CPLD I used. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\11\18@235311 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Jan-Erik Soderholm XA (TN/PAC) wrote:
> Charles Craft wrote:
>
>
>>"As ugly as it is" do the board for the current design and parts...
>
>
> Just a observation, the selected SRAM (Dallas DS1258Y)
> is about $40.00 at Digikey. Min Qty = 9 and it's "Non-stock".
>
> A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
>

Jan-Erik,
Is the "normal" 256Kx16 part dip? If so what is the exact part number?

Gaston

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\11\19@002253 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Jan-Erik Soderholm XA (TN/PAC) wrote:
> > Charles Craft wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"As ugly as it is" do the board for the current design and parts...
> >
> >
> > Just a observation, the selected SRAM (Dallas DS1258Y)
> > is about $40.00 at Digikey. Min Qty = 9 and it's "Non-stock".
> >
> > A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
> >
>
> Jan-Erik,
> Is the "normal" 256Kx16 part dip? If so what is the exact part number?

       The only SRAM of any "correct" size I found at digikey was in SOIC form,
which is OK for a hobbiest, not ideal, but OK. TTYL



----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\19@040008 by

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote :

> > >
> > > A "normal" 256k*16 SRAM is about $8.00-9.00 and "In stock".
> > >
> >
> > Jan-Erik,
> > Is the "normal" 256Kx16 part dip? If so what is the exact part number?
>
> The only SRAM of any "correct" size I found at digikey was in SOIC form,
> which is OK for a hobbiest, not ideal, but OK. TTYL


Yes, what I found seems to have been a 44-SOIC SRAM.
512*16 @ about $9.30 :

http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=100536&Row=94108&Site=US

PLCC would have been better, since there are sheap hole-mounted PLCC sockets,
and the CPLD is a PLCC package anyway...

Anyway, there are many different SRAM's there.
As an example, you cold get two 128*8 SRAMs for a total
of less then $6...

And Cypress has 32k*8 SRAM's in DIP package...

Or maybe 2 512k*8 in SOIC (using a pair of cheap SOIC sockets) @ about $8 ?

Or a pair of 128k*8 in SOJ @ about $3 each ?

If one need 16-bit wide RAM, the selection gets a bit more limited...
And with 8-bit wide SRAM's maybe the second "bank" could be made optional ?

Anyway, "someone" has to think over this, I'd guess. :-)

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\19@044901 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>This thread has been extraordinarily enlightening to me, and I
>may like to try to build my own variation on this, if I ever
>get a chance, and if Herbert has no objections...certainly,
>I'd never try to profit from his work!

I would suggest trying to use one of the CPLD types that is RAM internally,
and gets downloaded from external eeprom, rather than one with EEPROM cells.
The PIC could then do the download at power up.

One reason I see for going this way is saving the CPLD programming loop as a
separate operation. I think the RAM types effectively use a JTAG port for
loading as well though.

>Thanks to all the PICListers for another extremely educational thread!

Agreed.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\19@051635 by

picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote :

> I would suggest trying to use one of the CPLD types that is RAM internally,
> and gets downloaded from external eeprom, rather than one with EEPROM cells.
> The PIC could then do the download at power up.
>
> One reason I see for going this way is saving the CPLD programming loop as a
> separate operation. I think the RAM types effectively use a JTAG port for
> loading as well though.

Now, if both the EEPROM based and RAM based CPLD's used a JTAG port to
do the download/programming, what is the difference realy ? Is the
"programming" of the EEPROM a more complicated JTAG-operation then
the "loading" of the RAM ?

Note that if the PIC would have a JTAG routine anyway (for the RAM loading),
that routine could just as well be used to re-load a CPLD EEPROM, not ?

OK, loading the RAM might be faster then re-loading a EEPROM, but, as in
this case, you maybe only has to do this once (a during a few "CPLD firmware
upgrades"), the (possible) speed advantage doesn't matter that much.

You also need a permanent storage in the PIC (EEPROM ?) for storing the
CPLD firmware, of course. In the other case (EEPROM-CPLD) the storage could
be in the PC application and the PIC just need a RAM buffer during download of
the CPLD firmware.

Since I might be issing something I don't currently know,
I'd like to see it myself. Any pointers to one of these
RAM based CPLD's ?

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\19@060318 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Now, if both the EEPROM based and RAM based CPLD's used a JTAG
>port to do the download/programming, what is the difference realy ?

Probably none, but I'm thinking that it is probably easier to update the
CPLD code this way rather then removing the CPLD and programming it.

>Is the "programming" of the EEPROM a more complicated JTAG-operation
>then the "loading" of the RAM ?

Again probably not. Thinking about it more though, I have a feeling that the
RAM based devices tend to use an SPI EEPROM interface for image downloading
as this is extremely simple.

>You also need a permanent storage in the PIC (EEPROM ?) for storing
>the CPLD firmware, of course. In the other case (EEPROM-CPLD) the
>storage could be in the PC application and the PIC just need a RAM
>buffer during download of the CPLD firmware.

True, and at the end of the day there may be no real advantage in going this
route. It just strikes me that the RAM based devices may be easier for
updating in the one-off situation.

>Since I might be issing something I don't currently know,
>I'd like to see it myself. Any pointers to one of these
>RAM based CPLD's ?

Sorry, no, not yet had occasion to get involved with them. However IIRC
Altera make them. Hmm, just looked at the Altera site, and this device
series almost looks made to do the Logic Analyser function.
www.altera.com/products/devices/serialcfg/scg-index.html
Is there some sneaky way of using any free memory as the logic state
collection memory?

It appears that the Xilinx Spartan and Virtex families are SRAM type FPGA's,
and they have app notes on downloading from a micro.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\19@150842 by John N. Power

flavicon
face
> From:         Dal Wheeler[SMTP:RemoveMEdwheelerRemoveMEspamRemoveMEINSIGHTEK.NET]
> Sent:         Sunday, November 16, 2003 9:50 PM
> To:   PICLISTKILLspamspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [PIC]: PIC Based Logic Analyzer

> Yep, the xc95xx series is dead easy to program through the jtag port.  Just
> build a parallel port jtag programmer (2 74HC125's and a few resistors).
> The free downloadable software works great.  These things are too cool not
> to familiarize yourself with, even if you are a die hard discrete gate user.

> http://toolbox.xilinx.com/docsan/3_1i/data/common/jtg/dppb/appb.htm

What software are you talking about? The current download package at
that site for designing and programming CPLDs is 187 MB in size and
requires Windows XP, which I don't have. Have you found a more
reasonably sized  package?

John Power

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\11\19@161806 by

picon face
John N. Power wrote:

> What software are you talking about? The current download package at
> that site for designing and programming CPLDs is 187 MB in size and
> requires Windows XP,...

Or Windows 2000 SP2, which (I think) has become more or less
the "standard" for any professional work...

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003 , 2004 only
- Today
- New search...