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.