Searching \ for '[PIC] MCP2200 - almost PIC' 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: 'MCP2200 - almost PIC'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] MCP2200 - almost PIC'
2011\01\07@050042 by Peter

picon face
MCP2200 looks like a valiant contender to the FT232R series, both permit GPIO
pin programming from the host which is interesting for a number of reasons. The
price is also very interesting for MCP2200 imho. Unlike the FT232R the MCP2200
seems to provide GPIO access from Linux drivers too.

Has anyone done something *other* than serial RS232 to USB conversion using
these chips?

The way back to the easy peasy IO interfacing, lost when parallel ports
disappeared, seems to have reappeared. It took a while but, as they say, better
later than never.

-- Peter

2011\01\07@050610 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Peter <spam_OUTplpeter2006TakeThisOuTspamyahoo.com> wrote:
> MCP2200 looks like a valiant contender to the FT232R series, both permit GPIO
> pin programming from the host which is interesting for a number of reasons. The
> price is also very interesting for MCP2200 imho. Unlike the FT232R the MCP2200
> seems to provide GPIO access from Linux drivers too.
>
> Has anyone done something *other* than serial RS232 to USB conversion using
> these chips?
>

It is said to be a preprogrammed PIC18F14K50 after all and it is no contender
to FT232R at all, especially under Windows due to the driver support issues..

I tend to think you may have better luck with this one.
http://www.schmalzhaus.com/UBW/
http://www.schmalzhaus.com/UBW32/


-- Xiaofa

2011\01\07@055924 by IVP

face picon face
> Has anyone done something *other* than serial RS232 to USB
> conversion using these chips?

Peter, I'm waiting on samples. AIUI, it is for USB to serial only,
there is no chip control from the UART end. My plan is to use it
to dump emailed data from a PC down to a PIC + RAM board

The MCP2200 datasheet

USB 2.0 to UART Protocol Converter with GPIO

ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/22228A.pdf

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80499A.pdf

and

MCP2200EV-VCP USB to RS232 development and evaluation board

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51901A.pdf

Also has its own page

Jo

2011\01\07@060242 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> MCP2200 looks like a valiant contender to the FT232R series, both permit GPIO
> pin programming from the host which is interesting for a number of reasons. The
> price is also very interesting for MCP2200 imho. Unlike the FT232R the MCP2200
> seems to provide GPIO access from Linux drivers too.
>
> Has anyone done something *other* than serial RS232 to USB conversion using
> these chips?
>
> The way back to the easy peasy IO interfacing, lost when parallel ports
> disappeared, seems to have reappeared. It took a while but, as they say, better
> later than never.

The MCP2200 is a pre-programmed 18F14K50 chip. I have seen reports that they don't seem to have it ideally set up, but don't have any experience with it myself.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\07@141214 by Jesse Lackey

flavicon
face
One significant missing feature when I took a close look at it 4 months ago was the inability to configure how much current you want it to ask for from the USB host.  For USB-powered designs this can obviously be a showstopper.  It is a shame because that seems like something easily added and not having it makes a whole class of designs not possible to do.

I got the confirmation of the inability directly from someone @ microchip.

This made it not possible to replace an expensive and inconvenient to use for various reasons FTDI part with microchip in an evolving high volume design I'm deeply involved in.  Alas.  Rolling our own USB is not an option.

J



.....alan.b.pearceKILLspamspam@spam@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> The MCP2200 is a pre-programmed 18F14K50 chip. I have seen reports that they don't seem to have it ideally set up, but don't have any experience with it myself

2011\01\07@161822 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Jesse Lackey wrote:
> This made it not possible to replace an expensive and inconvenient to
> use for various reasons FTDI part with microchip in an evolving high
> volume design I'm deeply involved in.  Alas.  Rolling our own USB is
> not an option.

What about having someone outside with a existing USB stack and good
knowledge of PICs do for you what Microchip did (black box a PIC running USB
code as a USB to serial converter), but with the features you actually want?
If this is indeed a high volume design and the alternative is "expensive and
incovenient" this might be worth a look.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\07@205731 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

> MCP2200 looks like a valiant contender to the FT232R series

I was disappointed that it needs an external crystal.  There went the  size and cost savings (over ftdi) I was hoping to achieve.

BillW

2011\01\07@212543 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
I went to search the PIClist for the thread about the MCP2200 and was told
that searching does not function....

I apologize that I am asking a question
I believe was answered earlier.

What is a good choice for  a chip that
allows USB to bit twiddling ....
that has driver support for
Windows, OS X and Linux ???

Gus in Denver   99gus

2011\01\07@225434 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
YES NOPE9 wrote:
>I went to search the PIClist for the
> thread about the MCP2200 and was told
> that searching does not function....
>
> I apologize that I am asking a question
> I believe was answered earlier.
>
> What is a good choice for  a chip that
> allows USB to bit twiddling ....
> that has driver support for
> Windows, OS X and Linux ???

FT232RL? It's got several I/O lines, and IIRC it can even do SPI.

Vitaliy

2011\01\07@225722 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
>> MCP2200 looks like a valiant contender to the FT232R series
>
> I was disappointed that it needs an external crystal.  There went the
> size and cost savings (over ftdi) I was hoping to achieve.

We originally designed it into OBDLink SX, in our quantities it was cheaper -- even with the crystal. However, after playing with the prototypes, we switched back to FTDI. If Microchip is serious about competing with FTDI, they need to improve their USB drivers.

Vitaliy

2011\01\08@002829 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

>> What is a good choice for  a chip that allows USB to bit  
>> twiddling ....
>> that has driver support for Windows, OS X and Linux ???
>
> FT232RL? It's got several I/O lines, and IIRC it can even do SPI.

I think the bit-banging support for the extra IO lines is only  supported by the windows driver.
This is unfortunately typical :-(  Many so-called standard USB/Serial  chips have trouble supporting even the serial function on any OS other  than windows...

BillW

2011\01\08@004004 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:28 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<westfwspamKILLspammac.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Vitaliy wrote:
>
>>> What is a good choice for  a chip that allows USB to bit
>>> twiddling ....
>>> that has driver support for Windows, OS X and Linux ???
>>
>> FT232RL? It's got several I/O lines, and IIRC it can even do SPI.
>
> I think the bit-banging support for the extra IO lines is only
> supported by the windows driver.
> This is unfortunately typical :-(  Many so-called standard USB/Serial
> chips have trouble supporting even the serial function on any OS other
> than windows...
>
> BillW
>

Bit-bang on FT232RL works fine on Linux with libftdi (entirely
userland, uses libusb).  And FTDI provides the proprietary D2XX
drivers for the big three operating systems as well.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
-- Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
.....markragesKILLspamspam.....midwesttelecine.com

2011\01\08@021722 by RussellMc

face picon face
> One significant missing feature when I took a close look at it 4 months
> ago was the inability to configure how much current you want it to ask
> for from the USB host.  For USB-powered designs this can obviously be a
> showstopper.  It is a shame because that seems like something easily
> added and not having it makes a whole class of designs not possible to do..

A "Heath-Robinson" solution that may make the difference in some cases
would be to explicitly control the maximum current that you draw - .
which is easily and cheaply done.

   R

2011\01\09@112801 by Peter

picon face
<alan.b.pearce <at> stfc.ac.uk> writes:
> The MCP2200 is a pre-programmed
> 18F14K50 chip. I have seen reports that they don't seem to have it ideally
> set up, but don't have any experience with it myself.

Thanks for all the answers. Even if the MCP2200 is just a custom programmed
18F14K50 it is still interesting to design in, I think. For example, a tiny
breakout board designed for MCP2200 (USB to TTL RS232) could easily become
something else later by simply mounting another 18F14K50 on it.

We will see where this is going later. I also assume that if the MCP2200 is
indeed a 18F14K50 then Mchip can update the firmware (and maybe users can do
that too?), fix bugs after the fact, and maybe build in more capabilites.

Bit banging GPIO pins does indeed seem to be more difficult than on a FTDI chip
which is now the de facto standard for such work. But that may change in the
future, especially if people start writing code for PIC18F14K50, that being
drop-in compatible with any MCP2200 USB to RS232 board, however tiny.

-- Peter

2011\01\10@045045 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> > MCP2200 looks like a valiant contender to the FT232R series
>
> I was disappointed that it needs an external crystal.  There went the
> size and cost savings (over ftdi) I was hoping to achieve.

Yes, unfortunately the internal oscillator is not stable enough to do USB - even though they do have other chips with an internal oscillator that is good enough, but I think they are all PIC24 chips.

One would have thought they would have tried very hard to get that technology into this chip, as it does seem to be such an essential cost saving for this chip and its smaller brother, the 18F13K50.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\10@165238 by Peter

picon face
Peter <plpeter2006 <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> <alan.b.pearce <at> stfc.ac.uk> writes:
> > The MCP2200 is a pre-programmed
> > 18F14K50 chip. I have seen reports that they don't seem to have it ideally
> > set up, but don't have any experience with it myself.

I just got the whole 100+MB Mchip development libraries and focused on the CDC
serial RS232 interface whose hardware option 4 is the "low pin count USB
development board", a straightforward PIC18F14K50 application. When I will find
the time I will test this deeper.

I understand that the USB example code has a restrictive license but I do not
understand what that restriction may be. In a HW device, the situation is clear,
you buy the device (f.ex. from FTDI), use it, done. No open ends. (I am not
covering Vinculum chips here, just FTxxx). In a MCP2200 the situation should be
the same. In a PIC18F14K50 programmed with the firmware from the examples, what
*exactly* do the limitations on licensing/use? Lawyerspeak is inscrutable.

Is one free to modify the code in the examples and use it as is in a product? If
not, where does the buck stop? The USB stack? main()? The whole project?

-- Peter

2011\01\11@001745 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 10, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Peter wrote:

> In a PIC18F14K50 programmed with the firmware from the examples, what
> *exactly* do the limitations on licensing/use? Lawyerspeak is  
> inscrutable.
>
> Is one free to modify the code in the examples and use it as is in a  
> product? If
> not, where does the buck stop? The USB stack? main()? The whole  
> project?

I believe you can use the code in a product as long as the product  uses a microchip microprocessor. Adapting the Microchip USB stack to  an Atmel USB controller would get someone annoyed.

This of course means that the CDC implementations for PIC, Atmel, TI,  Silicon Labs, Cypress, etc all have different bugs.  Which is why I  was thinking that the world would be ripe for a common implementation.

(The Microchip CDC Serial port seems to work reasonably well, FWIW.   The EggBot uses it and AFAIK hasn't had any USB-related problems on  any of windows/linux/mac...)

BillW

2011\01\18@231815 by Nathan Nottingham

picon face

Again, I'm digging up an old thread but thought this was worth mentioning:

http://dangerousprototypes.com/2011/01/18/hack-open-source-usb-stack-on-mcp2200/

As of right now:

MCP2200 in qty 100 (SSOP) @ digikey = $1.47 w/ 1,722 available
PIC18F14K50 in qty 100 (SSOP) @ digikey = $1.74 w/ 18,001 available

$0.50 difference for qty 1.

Any chance the MCP2200s are 14K50s that didn't fully pass QC, or is the lower price due simply to marketing?

-k

2011\01\19@095620 by Matt Bennett

flavicon
face
On Tue, January 18, 2011 10:18 pm, Nathan Nottingham wrote:
>
> Again, I'm digging up an old thread but thought this was worth mentioning:
>
> http://dangerousprototypes.com/2011/01/18/hack-open-source-usb-stack-on-mcp2200/
>
> As of right now:
>
> MCP2200 in qty 100 (SSOP) @ digikey = $1.47 w/ 1,722 available
> PIC18F14K50 in qty 100 (SSOP) @ digikey = $1.74 w/ 18,001 available
>
> $0.50 difference for qty 1.
>
> Any chance the MCP2200s are 14K50s that didn't fully pass QC, or is the
> lower price due simply to marketing?

It's a marketing decision, but it also leaves room for migrating the part
to a PIC18F13K50, or even a version that removes the MCU completely and
makes it a non-reprogrammable part. Don't forget that specs that aren't in
the datasheet can change. Maybe you can reprogram what you ordered today,
but there is no guarantee that you can reprogram what you order tomorrow.
Not much of a loss if you order 1, but if you order 100,000, you could be
out big bucks, with zero recourse.

There is also the support cost built in- if you're in production and go to
Microchip with MCP2200 re-flashed to a general purpose MCU, you're not
going to get much (if any) support.

Matt Bennett
Just outside of Austin, TX
30.510843,-97.919286

The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large
multinational corporation that you are familiar with

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...