RossH:
Let's start from the sales pitch of XMOS "Software defined silicon". You see it is targeted at being a possible FPGA replacement. Or glue logic replacement.
In that light it is no different than the CPLD on a Hydra external RAM card for the Prop. Or that little micro Cluso wanted to include in an external RAM interface. Or the Vinculum USB host chip.
Sound's like it could be damn useful does it not?
Even better, we Prop heads get to define the most desirable interface to it in terms of hardware and software. We can determine how many pins we are prepared to sacrifice for it balancing against performance requirments etc etc.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
A fire-breathing female monster with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail?
Heater:
The problem is that most software people just can't get their heads round hardware. Tne opposite isn't true, of course: where I once worked my boss mentioned to me that his best software engineers had a hardware background, and I remember David May at a an occam user conference saying that hardware engineers were much better than software people at understanding parallel processing techniques.
The Parallaxians haven't been jumping up and down about my sacrilegious treament of their brainchild. They must have seen the exchanges, so I suppose I must have their tacit approval. If they aren't complaining I don't see why anyone else should!
Propeller chip soldered. I had one bridge, it was easily removed.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
The problem is that most software people just can't get their heads round hardware. Tne opposite isn't true, of course: where I once worked my boss mentioned to me that his best software engineers had a hardware background
Groan! I know I should just ignore this kind of inflammatory comment, but I simply can't do it. So here goes:
My experience is almost exactly the opposite. Hardware engineers typically can't abstract enough to make decent software engineers. Of course, in this forum I expect to be outnumbered, but that doesn't change the fact.
And on this point, I'm off to bed - this thread has degenerated to the point where it's not worth staying up to read any longer.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
RossH said...
Hardware engineers typically can't abstract enough to make decent software engineers.
I know I've mis-quoted you and snipped too much context, but bear with me.
I've interviewed a few engineers over the years (I'm not clever enough to be one myself) and I've seen a few software, and a few hardware engineers. I'll venture to say that those people that pidgeon-hole themselves as one or the other don't think they are flexible / clever enough to play both roles.
I ended up employing a woman who just called herself an engineer, with less software experience than hardware. When given a PIC & HC11, a manuals and a compiler she came up to speed incredibly fast and proved to be
a very good jack of all trades, and master of most. I even ended up teaching her how to rebuild the head on her 70's Gemini, and she taught me about C.
I figure you've either got it or you haven't.
Oddly, most of the best engineers I've been lucky enough to work with have had one of these three things in common :
- Musical instruments
- Surfing
- Motorcycles
It's not about where you start (software/hardware), it's how you adapt.
... and I've completely derailed the topic. Sorry about that.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
A forum search reveals that "XMOS" has 157 entries of which "Leon + XMOS" gives 119 entries. True, they are not all Leon's words but replies to him.
A Google search reveals that "XMOS + Leon" has 7,230 entries (not all may be the same Leon). These entries are on other forums such as avrfreaks, dsprelated, intellasys, embeddedrelated, fpgarelated, and on it goes. Leon is extremely active "pushing" the XMOS chips, and comparing them to all sorts of chips.
So I repeat, Leon, leave the prop forum for prop topics, not a ruse to try and convert prop users to XMOS. That is not the spirit of this forum.
I am sure you will eventually find a way to utilise both chips to their advantage. When you do that·I will all be ears, but until you have something concrete, stop touting XMOS. BTW, I am not going to promise to eat a prop chip.
Leon said...
I see that Cluso99, one of my more vociferous critics, has suggested interfacing his RamBlade to other processors. Will he allow purchasers to connect it to an XMOS device?
Sure (I cannot allow/deny anyway), but my project is a real propeller collaboration·project. You don't see me touting this on XMOS, AVR, PIC, FPGA and other forums, even though it is a legitimate building block. And you certainly don't see me bagging other chips and promoting propeller chips in their place on·the other forums.
Do you have a commercial arrangement with XMOS - the posts seem to indicate something???
These threads are going the same way as the AI threads a while back.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Links to other interesting threads:
So what! I like the XMOS company and their products. Lots of people on this forum seem to, as well, as most responses have been highly favourable.
You must admit that the XMOS chip is a nice piece of silicon, what is wrong with interfacing it to a Propeller? This is a real Propeller collaborative project, just like yours, and this seems to be the best place for it. Of course, if Parallax tells me to take it elsewhere, I will do so. If this project takes off quite a few sales of Propeller chips will result, which, I think you will agree, is a good thing for everyone concerned. You and Ross are the only people who have shown a negative attitude to this project, and Ross seems to be changing his tune. As you appear to be in a minority of one, perhaps you should leave this discussion and let us get on with more interesting matters.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
That complaint remembers me to a friend of mine who couldn't get past "codeseg:TEXT" and all that nonsense that MASM and TASM needed to even get a bit to compile. He did not learn much x86 assembler, and I was grateful that got hold of a copy of a86/d86 that simply did not need all that nonsense because they compiled for small model and that was it.
My first attempts at assembler... did not have any of those directives... because I did not know what they were good for. It will compile anyways, albeit with some complaints but you get it after some time.
Btw: I was unable to learn Spin so far. So C is still my choice. No problems with the assembler though. I do not like the way Spin is, so I copy/paste parts of code I find here and there. Probably I would have to sit down and read the manual properly... the ~ and ~~ are just bizarre, I do not like them except as bitwise not.
I used to run Quanta, the QL Users Group, BTW. and keep in touch with the group, which is still active. A friend of mine interfaced one of my transputer modules to a QL, 24 years ago.
Wire links soldered. Now for the passive components.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Oddly, most of the best engineers I've been lucky enough to work with have had one of these three things in common :
- Musical instruments
- Surfing
- Motorcycles
Wonderful ... I have all three the things ...
... I have studied piano from the age of 7 till 14 ...
... it's from the age of 12 that I am windsurfing (mostly locally: Italy & Croatia but when I am in CaboVerde/Sal/Boavista ) ...
... at the age of 32 I have bought a street motorbike ... and ... wrooom ... I use the tire's shoulders till the end ....
... but .... but ... I am not an engineer ... never completed the studies.
But my experience, because of the lack in meeting clever engineers like you do (and some of the guys here are), bring me to say that is always better a good technician than a bad engineer
OK guys, sometimes I found a bit difficult for me to understand all what you say in this forum, but I want to add a little comment on this them.
@Cluso99.
Why not to talk about Pchip and XMOS chip in this forum ??
Can you get a Pchip code thats do a 100Mbps Tx-Rx ethernet work ??, why not to add a XMOS to support for this ??
Can you get a VGA driver with 1024x768 pixeles at 24bit RGB color with a Pchip ?? Why not to add a CPLD or a FPGA to support for this ??
I´ve used at least more than 150 propellers chips until now, from I knew it some years ago, in some boards i sell.
At least people here is talking about to add more hardware support to Pchip, I think it is not so bad.
Where I once worked it took four junior engineers to buy a light bulb one afternoon! It was actually a fluorescent tube for our cockpit simulator; one engineer drove the car, one bought it, one carried it, and the fourth one just went along for the ride.
The XProp prototype is now working, connected to a 3.3V power supply. The Prop Tool connects to it via the Prop Plug, and it's running a test program, pulsing a couple of output pins. It also works when plugged into the XC-1.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
I'll clean up the board and see if I can get the two chips talking to each other. I ought to have included some series resistors to protect the pins from damage if I make a mistake.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Not yet. I need to get some code developed for transferring data between the chips first. When I know how fast the transfers are I'll design a new PCB with peripherals on it and start thinking about some applications. I'll make those boards available to anyone who wants to do some initial development using it in conjunction with the XC-1. It could also be used with the SFE board; that only has a single core device, but should be useful for some applications.
The XC-1 doesn't have any flash memory on it, so I'll design a third board with the two chips on it. It'll have to be a six-layer board, because the four-core XMOS chips are only available in BGA.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Leon said...
The single-core chips are in 64QFP and 128QFP packages. The others simply have too many pins.
Yeah, I was hoping for a multi-core version with less pins. I only need about 30 pins, but the extra cores and RAM would be really useful. I guess I could design a simple multi-layer BGA breakout board for prototyping.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
Leon I hope you didn't take my post as any offense ,I in no way would imply that you were doing anything nefarious and could care less if people interfaced the prop to a pumpkin .. I am always fascinated by what everyone is doing with this chip and have a habit of asking a lot of
questions simply becuase I want to know and learn and you have always been helpful when I asked for help and appreciate it. I didn't mean in anyway that I thought you needed a purpose I was just wondering if there was one so I would understand. If this was just an exercise in what the heck then that is fine with me build on. Just from reading these posts I do intend to buy that unit I would like to see the prop interfaced to the MC68HC11, the 6809, the 6502 and any PIC chip would cool to, the fact that I can not do that myself makes me even more curious when you guys stick this chip to somehting. I have bought so many of the projects that people here have built and sold I think its awesome that Parallax has allowed this and I can tell you quite honestly the money that I have spent on Parallax products and still spend is a direct
reflection of the fact that a novice like me can come here and buy and learn how to do all the things you guys have been sharing. You should see the pile of board kits I have purchased over the years FPGA,CPLD, PICS, Freescale that just sit in a pile on my shelf becuase after blinking LEDS got boring I couldn't get any further with the support these products offered, With my Parallax stuff I have Boe Bot, BS kits, Sensors I have built so many things Prop projects galore I am quite sure Parallax is a very smart company and they know this so please keep on designing Oh and sharing .
Mike.D
I've got lots of kits as well, but I also like designing and building my own systems that do more or less what a kit does, and are often a lot cheaper.
You really need an application for, say, an FPGA, in order to learn to use it effectively, as it forces you to get to grips with it. That happens in industry, of course, as one is given a job to do and you have to get on with it, but it's different if you are doing this stuff as a hobby, as there isn't anyone telling you what to do. I should learn to use the XMOS architecture effectively from this project, as well as learning more about the Propeller.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Leon, you have inspired me. I am an 8051-type myself. Love to program that series in pure ASM. I might marry one to the Prop on the PropRPM board I have, and see if it results in something useful.
It's the right way round for photo-etch, but will need to be mirrored for toner-transfer. I can provide a mirrored version if anyone needs it. Connector pad holes are 0.9 mm, the others are 0.7 mm. I should have made the latter 0.6 mm, the annular ring is a bit on the small side for manual drilling, especially with a cheap drill like the one I use.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
I have so far failed to find an answer to this in the XMOS docs.
Would it be great if the Propeller talked to the XMOS using the same link protocol or is it not really necessary?
I did sneakily propose a PASM coding problem to receive the XLINK protocol. A few forum member were a bit miffed that I did not mention the reason for the challenge in the initial post but all was revealed in the end.
Anyway someone came up with some neat code to do XMOS LINK RX. Damned if I can find that thread any more.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
They are self-clocking, so could run as slow as you like. Someone has implemented the 2-wire protocol on an AVR (see the XLinkers projects), so a Propeller won't have any problems. It would be nice, as no special software would be required for the interface on the XMOS chip, the Propeller would look like another XMOS device on the end of the channel. Because of the software overhead on the Propeller, I'm not sure if XLinks would run any faster than a conventional solution.
I don't remember seeing your XLink coding challenge. I'll look for it.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Comments
Let's start from the sales pitch of XMOS "Software defined silicon". You see it is targeted at being a possible FPGA replacement. Or glue logic replacement.
In that light it is no different than the CPLD on a Hydra external RAM card for the Prop. Or that little micro Cluso wanted to include in an external RAM interface. Or the Vinculum USB host chip.
Sound's like it could be damn useful does it not?
Even better, we Prop heads get to define the most desirable interface to it in terms of hardware and software. We can determine how many pins we are prepared to sacrifice for it balancing against performance requirments etc etc.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Go on, call your board "Chimera"
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Style and grace : Nil point
Heater:
The problem is that most software people just can't get their heads round hardware. Tne opposite isn't true, of course: where I once worked my boss mentioned to me that his best software engineers had a hardware background, and I remember David May at a an occam user conference saying that hardware engineers were much better than software people at understanding parallel processing techniques.
The Parallaxians haven't been jumping up and down about my sacrilegious treament of their brainchild. They must have seen the exchanges, so I suppose I must have their tacit approval. If they aren't complaining I don't see why anyone else should!
Propeller chip soldered. I had one bridge, it was easily removed.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 1:28:45 PM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Style and grace : Nil point
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Groan! I know I should just ignore this kind of inflammatory comment, but I simply can't do it. So here goes:
My experience is almost exactly the opposite. Hardware engineers typically can't abstract enough to make decent software engineers. Of course, in this forum I expect to be outnumbered, but that doesn't change the fact.
And on this point, I'm off to bed - this thread has degenerated to the point where it's not worth staying up to read any longer.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
I know I've mis-quoted you and snipped too much context, but bear with me.
I've interviewed a few engineers over the years (I'm not clever enough to be one myself) and I've seen a few software, and a few hardware engineers. I'll venture to say that those people that pidgeon-hole themselves as one or the other don't think they are flexible / clever enough to play both roles.
I ended up employing a woman who just called herself an engineer, with less software experience than hardware. When given a PIC & HC11, a manuals and a compiler she came up to speed incredibly fast and proved to be
a very good jack of all trades, and master of most. I even ended up teaching her how to rebuild the head on her 70's Gemini, and she taught me about C.
I figure you've either got it or you haven't.
Oddly, most of the best engineers I've been lucky enough to work with have had one of these three things in common :
- Musical instruments
- Surfing
- Motorcycles
It's not about where you start (software/hardware), it's how you adapt.
... and I've completely derailed the topic. Sorry about that.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
A forum search reveals that "XMOS" has 157 entries of which "Leon + XMOS" gives 119 entries. True, they are not all Leon's words but replies to him.
A Google search reveals that "XMOS + Leon" has 7,230 entries (not all may be the same Leon). These entries are on other forums such as avrfreaks, dsprelated, intellasys, embeddedrelated, fpgarelated, and on it goes. Leon is extremely active "pushing" the XMOS chips, and comparing them to all sorts of chips.
So I repeat, Leon, leave the prop forum for prop topics, not a ruse to try and convert prop users to XMOS. That is not the spirit of this forum.
I am sure you will eventually find a way to utilise both chips to their advantage. When you do that·I will all be ears, but until you have something concrete, stop touting XMOS. BTW, I am not going to promise to eat a prop chip. Sure (I cannot allow/deny anyway), but my project is a real propeller collaboration·project. You don't see me touting this on XMOS, AVR, PIC, FPGA and other forums, even though it is a legitimate building block. And you certainly don't see me bagging other chips and promoting propeller chips in their place on·the other forums.
Do you have a commercial arrangement with XMOS - the posts seem to indicate something???
These threads are going the same way as the AI threads a while back.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Links to other interesting threads:
· Home of the MultiBladeProps: TriBlade,·RamBlade,·SixBlade, website
· Single Board Computer:·3 Propeller ICs·and a·TriBladeProp board (ZiCog Z80 Emulator)
· Prop Tools under Development or Completed (Index)
· Emulators: CPUs Z80 etc; Micros Altair etc;· Terminals·VT100 etc; (Index) ZiCog (Z80) , MoCog (6809)
· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBladeProp is: www.bluemagic.biz/cluso.htm
You must admit that the XMOS chip is a nice piece of silicon, what is wrong with interfacing it to a Propeller? This is a real Propeller collaborative project, just like yours, and this seems to be the best place for it. Of course, if Parallax tells me to take it elsewhere, I will do so. If this project takes off quite a few sales of Propeller chips will result, which, I think you will agree, is a good thing for everyone concerned. You and Ross are the only people who have shown a negative attitude to this project, and Ross seems to be changing his tune. As you appear to be in a minority of one, perhaps you should leave this discussion and let us get on with more interesting matters.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 3:38:47 PM GMT
That complaint remembers me to a friend of mine who couldn't get past "codeseg:TEXT" and all that nonsense that MASM and TASM needed to even get a bit to compile. He did not learn much x86 assembler, and I was grateful that got hold of a copy of a86/d86 that simply did not need all that nonsense because they compiled for small model and that was it.
My first attempts at assembler... did not have any of those directives... because I did not know what they were good for. It will compile anyways, albeit with some complaints but you get it after some time.
Btw: I was unable to learn Spin so far. So C is still my choice. No problems with the assembler though. I do not like the way Spin is, so I copy/paste parts of code I find here and there. Probably I would have to sit down and read the manual properly... the ~ and ~~ are just bizarre, I do not like them except as bitwise not.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Visit some of my articles at Propeller Wiki:
MATH on the propeller propeller.wikispaces.com/MATH
pPropQL: propeller.wikispaces.com/pPropQL
pPropQL020: propeller.wikispaces.com/pPropQL020
OMU for the pPropQL/020 propeller.wikispaces.com/OMU
I used to run Quanta, the QL Users Group, BTW. and keep in touch with the group, which is still active. A friend of mine interfaced one of my transputer modules to a QL, 24 years ago.
Wire links soldered. Now for the passive components.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 3:24:11 PM GMT
... I have studied piano from the age of 7 till 14 ...
... it's from the age of 12 that I am windsurfing (mostly locally: Italy & Croatia but when I am in CaboVerde/Sal/Boavista
... at the age of 32 I have bought a street motorbike ... and ... wrooom ... I use the tire's shoulders till the end ....
... but .... but ... I am not an engineer ... never completed the studies.
But my experience, because of the lack in meeting clever engineers like you do (and some of the guys here are), bring me to say that is always better a good technician than a bad engineer
cheers
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
· Propeller Object Exchange (last Publications / Updates);·· Vaati's custom search
@Cluso99.
Why not to talk about Pchip and XMOS chip in this forum ??
Can you get a Pchip code thats do a 100Mbps Tx-Rx ethernet work ??, why not to add a XMOS to support for this ??
Can you get a VGA driver with 1024x768 pixeles at 24bit RGB color with a Pchip ?? Why not to add a CPLD or a FPGA to support for this ??
I´ve used at least more than 150 propellers chips until now, from I knew it some years ago, in some boards i sell.
At least people here is talking about to add more hardware support to Pchip, I think it is not so bad.
Now in my office, I've these...do you?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Regards.
Alberto.
www.leonheller.com/Propeller/XProp/XProp.gif
I'll do the initial testing with it off the XC-1. I don't think that I have got any suitable SM crystals so I'll just use the RC oscillator for now.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 4:28:17 PM GMT
A. None. It's a hardware problem.
Hardware background vs software background, bah humbug.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
The XProp prototype is now working, connected to a 3.3V power supply. The Prop Tool connects to it via the Prop Plug, and it's running a test program, pulsing a couple of output pins. It also works when plugged into the XC-1.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 5:34:04 PM GMT
Onward and upward. Don't pay attention to the detractors behind the curtain!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
JMH
I'll clean up the board and see if I can get the two chips talking to each other. I ought to have included some series resistors to protect the pins from damage if I make a mistake.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 5:57:43 PM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
JMH
Post Edited (James Michael Huselton) : 11/19/2009 7:04:16 PM GMT
Any final ideas, of what to do with these couple of mosters ?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Regards.
Alberto.
The XC-1 doesn't have any flash memory on it, so I'll design a third board with the two chips on it. It'll have to be a six-layer board, because the four-core XMOS chips are only available in BGA.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/19/2009 8:28:56 PM GMT
It's a bugger that. Shame they could not shoehorn a version into a TQFP.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Yeah, I was hoping for a multi-core version with less pins. I only need about 30 pins, but the extra cores and RAM would be really useful. I guess I could design a simple multi-layer BGA breakout board for prototyping.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
questions simply becuase I want to know and learn and you have always been helpful when I asked for help and appreciate it. I didn't mean in anyway that I thought you needed a purpose I was just wondering if there was one so I would understand. If this was just an exercise in what the heck then that is fine with me build on. Just from reading these posts I do intend to buy that unit I would like to see the prop interfaced to the MC68HC11, the 6809, the 6502 and any PIC chip would cool to, the fact that I can not do that myself makes me even more curious when you guys stick this chip to somehting. I have bought so many of the projects that people here have built and sold I think its awesome that Parallax has allowed this and I can tell you quite honestly the money that I have spent on Parallax products and still spend is a direct
reflection of the fact that a novice like me can come here and buy and learn how to do all the things you guys have been sharing. You should see the pile of board kits I have purchased over the years FPGA,CPLD, PICS, Freescale that just sit in a pile on my shelf becuase after blinking LEDS got boring I couldn't get any further with the support these products offered, With my Parallax stuff I have Boe Bot, BS kits, Sensors I have built so many things Prop projects galore I am quite sure Parallax is a very smart company and they know this so please keep on designing Oh and sharing .
Mike.D
I've got lots of kits as well, but I also like designing and building my own systems that do more or less what a kit does, and are often a lot cheaper.
You really need an application for, say, an FPGA, in order to learn to use it effectively, as it forces you to get to grips with it. That happens in industry, of course, as one is given a job to do and you have to get on with it, but it's different if you are doing this stuff as a hobby, as there isn't anyone telling you what to do. I should learn to use the XMOS architecture effectively from this project, as well as learning more about the Propeller.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/20/2009 1:06:41 AM GMT
If anyone wants to make their own PCB, here is the artwork:
www.leonheller.com/Propeller/XProp/XProp(Top)%20Artwork.pdf
It's the right way round for photo-etch, but will need to be mirrored for toner-transfer. I can provide a mirrored version if anyone needs it. Connector pad holes are 0.9 mm, the others are 0.7 mm. I should have made the latter 0.6 mm, the annular ring is a bit on the small side for manual drilling, especially with a cheap drill like the one I use.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/20/2009 9:20:49 AM GMT
I have so far failed to find an answer to this in the XMOS docs.
Would it be great if the Propeller talked to the XMOS using the same link protocol or is it not really necessary?
I did sneakily propose a PASM coding problem to receive the XLINK protocol. A few forum member were a bit miffed that I did not mention the reason for the challenge in the initial post but all was revealed in the end.
Anyway someone came up with some neat code to do XMOS LINK RX. Damned if I can find that thread any more.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I don't remember seeing your XLink coding challenge. I'll look for it.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM