Lpc2000

Karl,

can't help it, have to answer. 
Is it just my limited knowledge of the English language why I missed
the constructive element in your previous 3 postings or ..?

If you or your customer buy millions of devices, you have a very
personal caretaker at any semiconductor vendor who will dig out any
relevant information, assumed it does exist because your business pays
for several heads at this vendor. Also there are many software
engineers involved looking at related websites such as the
www.arm.com, where timing information for I/O through APB or AHB bus
has been available for many years.

It would be nice if you could stop wining because I am convinced you
have a lot of valuable know-how that this group could really benefit
from. We have all been burned some time in the past but usually we
pull the project off anyhow, often with, sometimes without the help of
the semiconductor vendor. So, let's pull together and be a little bit
more constructive again, please :-)  

Every ARM device has some unmentioned issues, e.g. the LPC has an
Errata Sheet for the CAN block that tells you the FullCAN option is
not functional at this time but there is a good basic CAN example
posted here in the files section.  Another weakness of the LPC is the
poor EEPROM simulation capability. On the other hand the Atmel devices
with 64 pins offer about as much I/O capability as the Philips devices
with 48-pins. Also ST and Atmel devices are substantially slower in
code execution from Flash. For limitations concerning vendor 1 one you
have to ask vendor 2 and 3 (not vendor 1) This has nothing to do with
hiding information but everything to do with selling what is best
about a device. Did you ever hear in a commercial for the Dodge Hemi
any mentioning of the mileage? This engine is powerful, so the
advertising is about being powerful, not about fuel efficiency. The
LPC is small, low power and fast executing from Flash. That is what
Philips is advertising and it seems correct to me. 

Enough now, it's late in the day where I live.

Please continue to provide challenging feedback for Philips but try to
be a little more constructive.

Bob


--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dalenkarl" <dalenkarl@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Peter Jakacki <peterjak@t...> wrote:
> > Ease up there KD,
> Oh, im pretty eased, but our customer are not!!
> 
> >But it is unusual to have manufacturer feedback on any group, let 
> >alone  having a say. So don't go cheesin the apps guys off for the 
> >rest of us.
> 
> I think Stephen Pelc in his mail pretty much put the issue
> on the spot, read and learn. If PH are in it for lost market
> shares, well be my guest!
>  
> >Hell, who knows, they probably rip into the design guys for us, 
> >they're on our side.
> 
> As long as you pay they are on your side, you see, its all
> about getting hard core shares of a huge market,otherwise 
> the simply do something else.
> 
> >But remember, we are not the ones paying them...
> 
> Thats right, but our customers does and they pay only for
> working things,to schdule, on time, to callculated costs,
> so any thing of "unmentioned issues" regarding to a device
> adds of everything and thats hard core loss of 
> invested money.
> 
> The project im involved at the moment involves at least
> 2K LPC2106 evry third month, and probably more, so summed
> over a 1-3 year period it starts to be costly and by
> all rights if our customers not happy we are not happy.
> 
> Thats quite minor in volume, but in the past i have been
> involved with the biggest of elephants in wich we did purcases
> every 6 monts in numbers of 10's of millions devices,
> each device costing in these volumes 1,5euro you can imagine
> the money involved, the contracts, insurances, and the whole
> big holabaluba around just the purcases, one unmentioned "minor" 
> issue here can and have havoced entire projects!
> 
> Best regards
> KD