Post by thread:[pic]: USB pics 16c745/765

Has anyone used these? I've got a USB application for which these devices may be well suited. I'd like to hear about any experiences others have had with these chips. For example, do they work as advertised? Are there any idiosynchracies (like the 64 byte ram buffer is too small...)? Are they price competive? A little about the application: Essentially, I'd like to interface several devices to one host. The devices I'm interfacing are custom (the host is custom too). However, having a USB interface (or firewire or CAN or whatever) provides the convenience of leveraging off existing hardware and allowing flexible upgrades in the future. I don't need the 480Mb/sec bandwidth in USB 2.0 and in fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed of USB 1.1. Probably the two most important features I seek are: low cost and ease of implementation. Scott -- 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

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Severson, Rob wrote: > Scott, > > > A little about the application: Essentially, I'd like to > > interface several > > devices to one host. The devices I'm interfacing are custom > > (the host is custom > > too). > > The "host is custom too"? What do you mean? USB is not peer-to-peer. A host The host would not have a pic in it. It's essentially an embedded x86 device. You can think of it as a PC. In fact it has a BIOS, flash file system, etc. The custom `slave' devices are the ones that would contain the USB PIC. > needs a different chipset and a OS stack that handles lots of levels of > communication. USB is not as simple as RS485. I realize that USB is not as simple as RS485. However, RS485 only encompasses the physical layer while USB includes the protocol as well. The differential bus in both 485 and USB I would say are almost necessary. I don't want to use I2C for example. > You need a PC/Mac (or equivalent in an embedded system) as a host. I'd be willing to debate that assertion if it weren't a moot point. I have a PC like system... Sorry to be misleading. Scott -- 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

Scott, > The host would not have a pic in it. I've been answering a lot of USB questions. Too many people think that they can buy a little embedded USB micro and use it as a host. Build a little circuit and attach a keyboard. Not that simple. I apologize for being a little sensitive about this. > It's essentially an > embedded x86 device. > You can think of it as a PC. In fact it has a BIOS, flash > file system, etc. The > custom `slave' devices are the ones that would contain the USB PIC. But does it have a USB host stack? Or are you writing your own? > > You need a PC/Mac (or equivalent in an embedded system) as a host. > > I'd be willing to debate that assertion if it weren't a moot > point. I have a PC like system... With a USB host controller chip? Sorry to detract from your original question. And to get a little more off topic, I can help you with USB stuff. As a reference take a look at the USBSIMM at http://usbsimm.home.att.net There will be more products introduced soon. -Rob -- 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

> Has anyone used these? I've got a USB application for which these devices may be > well suited. I'd like to hear about any experiences others have had with these > chips. For example, do they work as advertised? Are there any idiosynchracies > (like the 64 byte ram buffer is too small...)? Are they price competive? > > A little about the application: Essentially, I'd like to interface several > devices to one host. The devices I'm interfacing are custom (the host is custom > too). However, having a USB interface (or firewire or CAN or whatever) provides > the convenience of leveraging off existing hardware and allowing flexible > upgrades in the future. I don't need the 480Mb/sec bandwidth in USB 2.0 and in > fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed of USB 1.1. Probably > the two most important features I seek are: low cost and ease of implementation. I've got a similar situation where an embedded Pentium is controlling a local network of devices with PIC front ends. We are currently using RS-485, but will need something higher speed in the future. I admit to not yet having given it a lot of thought, although I look forward to getting into that project. I have looked into USB for other projects, and it is NOT a "lightweight" interface. It is very capable for what it does, and looks like it can be a great choice for consumer add-on products for PCs. But, the hassle free plug and play operation comes at the cost of complexity under the hood. Have you looked into CAN? There are (or will be soon) PICs that have CAN interface built in. Admittedly I haven't yet delved into the details, but my knee-jerk impression is that CAN is more suited for this type of embedded bus application. ***************************************************************** Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Devens Massachusetts (978) 772-3129, spam_OUTolinTakeThisOuTcognivis.com, http://www.cognivis.com -- 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

Scott Good choice on USB for true hot-pluggable interfacing but you'll have to make a careful choice from all the available chips out there. I'm using a Cypress part right now since it's got the features i need at an attractive price for a full speed (12MHz) device. The original design was an "easier to use" Anchor chip at a higher cost. ST micro has some ST7 and ST9 MCU's for USB but i've not gone through the specs. If you're sure you'll only need Control and Interrupt endpoints a slow speed device should do fine. Isoch and Bulk will only work on full speed devices so don't get caught with your pants down somewhere down the road. Be warned that different host controllers will operate differently and the USB specs can be a pain to understand and implement. A little birdie did tell me there might be stand-alone host controller coming out soon and i'm waiting to get my hands on them. At 09:26 AM 9/20/00 -0500, you wrote: >Has anyone used these? I've got a USB application for which these devices may be >well suited. I'd like to hear about any experiences others have had with these >chips. For example, do they work as advertised? Are there any idiosynchracies >(like the 64 byte ram buffer is too small...)? Are they price competive? FIFO size or double buffering shouldn't be too much of a concern for a low speed device. You can specify the polling interval for Interrupt endpoints from 1mS to 256mS. If you think you'll need higher bandwidth skip low speed and go for full speed. Actual bandwidth on an unloaded bus would be about 1Mb/s and 10Mb/s total per bus. >A little about the application: Essentially, I'd like to interface several >devices to one host. The devices I'm interfacing are custom (the host is custom >too). However, having a USB interface (or firewire or CAN or whatever) provides >the convenience of leveraging off existing hardware and allowing flexible >upgrades in the future. I don't need the 480Mb/sec bandwidth in USB 2.0 and in >fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed of USB 1.1. Probably >the two most important features I seek are: low cost and ease of implementation. > >Scott I don't think USB 2.0 MCU's are available yet, only the transcievers and SIE soft cores. Besides the low cost and ease of implementation, consider the ease of development as well. Nothing worst then a heaping pile of trashed OTP's or buggy development boards for a 1 way trip to the mad house. Now where did i put my Valiums.... Terry -- 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

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Olin Lathrop wrote: > I've got a similar situation where an embedded Pentium is controlling a > local network of devices with PIC front ends. We are currently using > RS-485, but will need something higher speed in the future. I admit to not > yet having given it a lot of thought, although I look forward to getting > into that project. I have looked into USB for other projects, and it is NOT > a "lightweight" interface. It is very capable for what it does, and looks > like it can be a great choice for consumer add-on products for PCs. But, > the hassle free plug and play operation comes at the cost of complexity > under the hood. > > Have you looked into CAN? There are (or will be soon) PICs that have CAN > interface built in. Admittedly I haven't yet delved into the details, but > my knee-jerk impression is that CAN is more suited for this type of embedded > bus application. I haven't looked into CAN yet, but it is appealling in many regards. For one, we've already got a CAN product and the drivers written for it. (And to address Rob's question, no AFAIK we don't have a USB stack [but we have a boat load of software weenies :]). I also like CAN because it can be distributed further than USB. Although, initially for my application this is not a necessary feature. But my question about USB for right now is how well does it work with the PIC devices? Scott -- 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

In the Sept EE Product News, page 28: USB FIFO Mimics COM Ports ftdi.co.uk/products.htm#232 The FT8U8232AM is claimed to be a cost-effective single chip USB UART solution for transferrins serial data over the universal serial bus (USB). It can be used to upgraded RS-232 designs to USB with minimal development and cost. The traditional approach was to redesign the product using a USB microcontroller, however by replacing the RS232 level converter IC inside the product with the FT8U232AM and installed the included drivers, the job is done. Features include transfer rates up to 920 kb/s (rs232) and 2Mb/s (RS422/RS485). Price is $3 each/1000. For more details, call SAELIG CO, LLC, VIctor NY (716) 425-3753. Enter number 419 at http://www.eepn.com =========== Looks like it might solve your problems a little easier. FWIW, the USB PICs look interesting. They are supposed to be send ES parts to me "any day now" so we'll see. Andy Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspam@spam@COGNIVIS.COM> on 09/20/2000 11:34:47 AM Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> To: .....PICLISTKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU cc: (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES) Subject: Re: [pic]: USB pics 16c745/765 > Has anyone used these? I've got a USB application for which these devices may be > well suited. I'd like to hear about any experiences others have had with these > chips. For example, do they work as advertised? Are there any idiosynchracies > (like the 64 byte ram buffer is too small...)? Are they price competive? > > A little about the application: Essentially, I'd like to interface several > devices to one host. The devices I'm interfacing are custom (the host is custom > too). However, having a USB interface (or firewire or CAN or whatever) provides > the convenience of leveraging off existing hardware and allowing flexible > upgrades in the future. I don't need the 480Mb/sec bandwidth in USB 2.0 and in > fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed of USB 1.1. Probably > the two most important features I seek are: low cost and ease of implementation. I've got a similar situation where an embedded Pentium is controlling a local network of devices with PIC front ends. We are currently using RS-485, but will need something higher speed in the future. I admit to not yet having given it a lot of thought, although I look forward to getting into that project. I have looked into USB for other projects, and it is NOT a "lightweight" interface. It is very capable for what it does, and looks like it can be a great choice for consumer add-on products for PCs. But, the hassle free plug and play operation comes at the cost of complexity under the hood. Have you looked into CAN? There are (or will be soon) PICs that have CAN interface built in. Admittedly I haven't yet delved into the details, but my knee-jerk impression is that CAN is more suited for this type of embedded bus application. ***************************************************************** Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Devens Massachusetts (978) 772-3129, EraseMEolinspam_OUTTakeThisOuTcognivis.com, http://www.cognivis.com -- 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 -- 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

FWIW; usb only works over about 5 meters, 115kbaud rs485 will work for a kilometer. not the same datarate but does that matter to you ? usb can only have one device on a wire, you need hubs for mulitple devices. rs485 multidrop is painless. writing the host software for a usb device can be a nightmare. walk in the park for rs485. Don't get me wrong, usb is great for the desktop pc, especially for stuff such as joysticks and keyboards and such there are agreed protocols, so you don't have to worry about drivers anymore (much) just plug and play (or type, or whatever) However, for a totally custom device in an embedded system, if you don't need the extra bandwidth then I would be reluctant to go the USB route. Regards, Simon -- 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

Scott Dattalo <PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > Has anyone used these [USB PICs]? Scott: I think Microchip has to actually SHIP one before anyone can use it. > Are they price competive? The pricing info that I have (which I received AFTER I resigned from the Microchip Consultant Program, so I have no reason to believe that it isn't public knowledge) indicates that the USB PICs are priced about five times higher than the Cypress M8-based USB microcontrollers which currently own over 50% of the low-speed USB market. > I don't need the 480Mb/sec bandwidth in USB 2.0 Good, because only one semiconductor company has demonstrated working USB 2.0 microcontrollers, and USB 2.0 support won't be in any Windows operating systems until sometime in 2001, and USB 2.0 PC motherboards won't be commonly available for a year or more. > in fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed of > USB 1.1. You have to be careful when discussing USB speeds; "low speed" has a very specific meaning. There have been three released USB specifications: USB 1.0 -- defined a 1.5 Mbit/sec interface ("low speed") USB 1.1 -- added a 12 Mbit/sec interface ("full speed") USB 2.0 -- added a 480 Mbit/sec interface ("high speed") Since each spec is a superset of the earlier ones, it's perfectly accurate -- although misleading -- to say that a 1.5-Mbit/sec device is "USB 2.0 compliant" or "USB 1.1 compliant". Usually, though, "1.0" is verbal shorthand for "1.5 Mbits/sec", "1.1" for "12 Mbits/sec", and "2.0" for "480 Mbits/sec". If you REALLY want to avoid confusion, it's best to refer to the three versions as "low, full, and high speed", or -- even better -- as "1.5, 12, and 480 Mbits/second". Microchip's USB PICs are limited to the low-speed (1.5 MBit/sec) USB rate. -Andy === Andrew Warren --- @spam@aiwKILLspamcypress.com === Cypress Semiconductor Corporation === Interface Products Division, S.D. === === The opinions expressed above do === not necessarily represent those of === Cypress Semiconductor Corporation. -- 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

1.1 was a bug fix? --- James Newton KILLspamjamesnewtonKILLspamgeocities.com 1-619-652-0593 -----Original Message----- From: pic microcontroller discussion list [RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Severson, Rob Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:07 To: spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: [pic]: USB pics 16c745/765 > > There have been three released USB specifications: > > USB 1.0 -- defined a 1.5 Mbit/sec interface ("low speed") > USB 1.1 -- added a 12 Mbit/sec interface ("full speed") > USB 2.0 -- added a 480 Mbit/sec interface ("high speed") Not quite: 1.0 and 1.1 were each 1.5 and 12. -- 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 -- 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

On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 09:26:25AM -0500, Scott Dattalo wrote: > Has anyone used these? I've got a USB application for which these devices may be > well suited. I'd like to hear about any experiences others have had with these > chips. For example, do they work as advertised? Are there any idiosynchracies > (like the 64 byte ram buffer is too small...)? Are they price competive? > I'm very interested in USB capable PICs, however I'm waiting for flash version. Maybe if Microchip receives enough question about such devices the'll consider adding USB controller to their 16F877 (the same about 12-bit ADC)... -- Greetings Wojciech Zabolotny http://www.ise.pw.edu.pl/~wzab http://www.debian.org Use Linux - an OS without "trojan horses" inside -- 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

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Andrew Warren wrote: > Scott Dattalo <TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > > > Has anyone used these [USB PICs]? > > Scott: > > I think Microchip has to actually SHIP one before anyone can use > it. Now that's the kind of info I was seeking. > > Are they price competive? > > The pricing info that I have (which I received AFTER I resigned > from the Microchip Consultant Program, so I have no reason to > believe that it isn't public knowledge) indicates that the USB > PICs are priced about five times higher than the Cypress M8-based > USB microcontrollers which currently own over 50% of the > low-speed USB market. And so was that. {Quote hidden}> > I don't need the 480Mb/sec bandwidth in USB 2.0 > > Good, because only one semiconductor company has demonstrated > working USB 2.0 microcontrollers, and USB 2.0 support won't be > in any Windows operating systems until sometime in 2001, and USB > 2.0 PC motherboards won't be commonly available for a year or > more. > > > in fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed of > > USB 1.1. > > You have to be careful when discussing USB speeds; "low speed" > has a very specific meaning. > > There have been three released USB specifications: > > USB 1.0 -- defined a 1.5 Mbit/sec interface ("low speed") > USB 1.1 -- added a 12 Mbit/sec interface ("full speed") > USB 2.0 -- added a 480 Mbit/sec interface ("high speed") The 1.5 Mbit/sec was the "low speed" I was referring to. You're not by any chance a little Cypress biased? Thanks for the info, Scott -- 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

> Are they price competive? > The pricing info that I have (which I received AFTER I resigned > from the Microchip Consultant Program, so I have no reason to > believe that it isn't public knowledge) indicates that the USB > PICs are priced about five times higher than the Cypress M8-based > USB microcontrollers which currently own over 50% of the > low-speed USB market. I actually spoke to a rep that had some initial pricing. She quoted me the following. Don't know if she was reading wrong parts, but this is what she had... 16C745 - $4.06 16C765 - $4.53 These were for quantities of 1 or higher... Again, that is what she said, I don't know if she made a mistake. And of course... they were not in stock... Mike S. -- 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

Scott, I was pleased reading your mentioning the CAN bus. I am following the piclist considering to switch from x150 SLIO / 8051 front ends to more flexible MCP2510/pic combinations. Finding some support in sort of a CANlist or from basic pic compatible drivers and routines would give me the final kick. Can you give me leads? I have realised some machine control applications, where short CAN messages are what we need. The can bus proved very stable and forgiving in a very "noisy" environment. The built in sophisticated error detection and recovery is what I like most in the CAN. The wide choice of pics calls for using them for distributed intelligence. Would be grateful for any help. Gerd Vieregge RemoveMEgvh.ferroxonTakeThisOuTt-online.de -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

This? {Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Kunz [akunzEraseME.....TDIPOWER.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:17 AM > To: EraseMEPICLISTMITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: [pic]: USB pics 16c745/765 > > > In the Sept EE Product News, page 28: > > USB FIFO Mimics COM Ports > ftdi.co.uk/products.htm#232 > > The FT8U8232AM is claimed to be a cost-effective single chip > USB UART solution > for transferrins serial data over the universal serial bus > (USB). It can be > used to upgraded RS-232 designs to USB with minimal > development and cost. The > traditional approach was to redesign the product using a USB > microcontroller, > however by replacing the RS232 level converter IC inside the > product with the > FT8U232AM and installed the included drivers, the job is > done. Features include > transfer rates up to 920 kb/s (rs232) and 2Mb/s > (RS422/RS485). Price is $3 > each/1000. For more details, call SAELIG CO, LLC, VIctor NY > (716) 425-3753. > Enter number 419 at http://www.eepn.com > =========== > > Looks like it might solve your problems a little easier. > > FWIW, the USB PICs look interesting. They are supposed to be > send ES parts to > me "any day now" so we'll see. > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistEraseMEEraseMECOGNIVIS.COM> on 09/20/2000 11:34:47 AM > > Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list > <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> > > > > > > > > > To: RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU > > cc: (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES) > > > > Subject: Re: [pic]: USB pics 16c745/765 > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone used these? I've got a USB application for which > these devices > may be > > well suited. I'd like to hear about any experiences others > have had with > these > > chips. For example, do they work as advertised? Are there any > idiosynchracies > > (like the 64 byte ram buffer is too small...)? Are they > price competive? > > > > A little about the application: Essentially, I'd like to interface > several > > devices to one host. The devices I'm interfacing are custom > (the host is > custom > > too). However, having a USB interface (or firewire or CAN > or whatever) > provides > > the convenience of leveraging off existing hardware and > allowing flexible > > upgrades in the future. I don't need the 480Mb/sec > bandwidth in USB 2.0 > and in > > fact the pic devices apparently only support the low speed > of USB 1.1. > Probably > > the two most important features I seek are: low cost and ease of > implementation. > > I've got a similar situation where an embedded Pentium is > controlling a > local network of devices with PIC front ends. We are currently using > RS-485, but will need something higher speed in the future. > I admit to not > yet having given it a lot of thought, although I look forward > to getting > into that project. I have looked into USB for other > projects, and it is NOT > a "lightweight" interface. It is very capable for what it > does, and looks > like it can be a great choice for consumer add-on products > for PCs. But, > the hassle free plug and play operation comes at the cost of > complexity > under the hood. > > Have you looked into CAN? There are (or will be soon) PICs > that have CAN > interface built in. Admittedly I haven't yet delved into the > details, but > my knee-jerk impression is that CAN is more suited for this > type of embedded > bus application. > > > ***************************************************************** > Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Devens Massachusetts > (978) 772-3129, EraseMEolinspamspamBeGonecognivis.com, http://www.cognivis.com > > -- > 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 > > -- > 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 > > -- 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