Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Peter Jakacki <peterjak@...> wrote:

> Your statement although allegedly quoting Philips is misleading as it 
> lacks context or reference. You know and I know, as everyone else knows 
> that the Philips flash is organized not 16 bits wide, nor 32 bits wide, 
> but 128 bits wide, and in two interleaved banks!. That is 128 bits 
> @20Mhz or whatever exact speed it is which means in most cases 32-bits 
> @80Mhz.

In its original response to the MAM problem Philips said that if the
MAM is used, instructions execute with zero wait states at up to 25Mhz
(it may have been 20MHz)

The SAM says its flash allows instructions to execute with zero wait
states up to 30 MHz.

I was just trying to point out that I did not see anything special in
LPC flash other than how it is marketed -- using optimum figures
compared to guaranteed figures by ATMEL.

> BTW, I am very tired of all this Philips bashing and the long long 
> threads. I personally do not have a problem with Philips or the LPC 
> part. As members of this group we can stand back and criticize
something 
> that in reality will always be imperfect or we can stand up and see the 
> good in it and make it or the situation better (that's called being 
> constructive).

I too am tired of how even the casual critique LPC is turned into a
bashing war.  As I said before, I am sure (and I know many as a matter
of fact) who are happy with the LPC for what they are doing.

Jaya