Re: C2N232 CPU choice question

From: Marko Mäkelä (
Date: 2004-03-31 07:47:11

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:42:51AM -0600, Jim Brain wrote:
> Looking over the C2N232 interface over the past few days, I am curious as
> to why the Atmel controller was chosen over a PIC or Scenix controller? 

I didn't have any previous experience in programming microcontrollers, and
a friend of mine happened to have a few AT90S2313 lying around.  I built the
prototype with it, and it seemed to work okay.

> The AT part is no doubt qualified to run the interface, but it seems the
> Scenix and PIC stuff has more mindshare.  Was it simply a sourcing issue,
> or the desire to have the hardware UART, or just personal preference?

I don't think that the fast bit-banging protocol I designed would have been
possible with the Microchip PIC.  The timing is already very tight on the
AT90S2313, which has a hardware UART.  The Scenix parts, with clock rates
of at least 50 MHz, would probably have required some expertise in circuit
board design.


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.