From: Marko Mäkelä (marko.makela_at_hut.fi)
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.
Marko
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.