From: Jim Brain (brain_at_jbrain.com)
Date: 2004-03-31 08:26:59
Marko Mäkelä wrote: >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 > > Fair enough. I'm leaning in that direction, as the ATMega128 has a lot more pins than the SX (Yes, the PIC is out). I see on the cmd2 version, an IEC port is mapped out. Any work on that progressing? Jim Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.