Lpc2000

A question to the group if I may.  For CompactFlash+ cards,
can all features of a card be accessed using either Memory
Mode OR I/O Mode exclusively?  That includes ethernet, modem,
wireless, GPS, and other I/O cards in addition to memory cards.

I'm considering building up an eval board with a CF connector
on it and am trying to determine if a single access mode is
sufficient, or two, or all three.

Thanks.
-Bill Knight
R O SoftWare

> A question to the group if I may.  For CompactFlash+ cards,
> can all features of a card be accessed using either Memory
> Mode OR I/O Mode exclusively?  That includes ethernet, modem,

If you really mean everything you say, then the literal answer is "no".
However, you should be compatible with most cards if you implement I/O
mode only. (You will not, for instance, be able to access NIC ROM space
using I/O mode).


-- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (http://www.zws.com/)
Learn how to develop high-end embedded systems on a tight budget!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750676094/zws-20

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:23:13 -0500, Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:

> A question to the group if I may.  For CompactFlash+ cards,
> can all features of a card be accessed using either Memory
> Mode OR I/O Mode exclusively?  That includes ethernet, modem,

If you really mean everything you say, then the literal answer is "no".
However, you should be compatible with most cards if you implement I/O
mode only. (You will not, for instance, be able to access NIC ROM space
using I/O mode).

======================================================================
"features" may have been a poor choice of words.  What I want to accomplish
is to be able to play with different, presently unknown, CFlash+ cards once
the board is built.  And to do that, I'm trying to determine which mode or
modes will be required.  I would VERY much like NOT to have to bit-bang the
interface.

Thanks
-Bill

> "features" may have been a poor choice of words.  What I want to
accomplish
> is to be able to play with different, presently unknown, CFlash+ cards
once
> the board is built.  And to do that, I'm trying to determine which mode or
> modes will be required.  I would VERY much like NOT to have to
bit-bang the
> interface.

??? Since the LPCs have no ext buses, only GPIO, you have no choice but
to bit-bang the interface. So it really seems to boil down to how many
GPIOs you want to spend on the interface. If you want to be sure that
you'll be able to support any foreseeable future [compliant] card,
you've really got no choice but to implement a full CF interface.

-- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (http://www.zws.com/)
Learn how to develop high-end embedded systems on a tight budget!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750676094/zws-20

> ??? Since the LPCs have no ext buses, only GPIO, you have no choice but
> to bit-bang the interface. So it really seems to boil down to how many
> GPIOs you want to spend on the interface. If you want to be sure that
> you'll be able to support any foreseeable future [compliant] card,
> you've really got no choice but to implement a full CF interface.
> 
> -- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (http://www.zws.com/)
> Learn how to develop high-end embedded systems on a tight budget!
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750676094/zws-20

According to my information ext. bus devices are due in Q1/04 with the
same functionality as the 64-pin devices that were just announced. The
external external bus is supposed to be the only difference (heard
that in a training provided by Philips). May be it would be a good
idea to use those devices. 
Also pricing is very similar to the devices without bus. Philips is a
litte late to join the race in the ARM market but heck they seem to be
very serious!

Cheers, Bob

--- In lpc2100@yahoogroups.com, "lpc2100_fan" <lpc2100_fan@y...> wrote:
> 
> > ??? Since the LPCs have no ext buses, only GPIO, you have no
choice but
> > to bit-bang the interface. So it really seems to boil down to how many
> > GPIOs you want to spend on the interface. If you want to be sure that
> > you'll be able to support any foreseeable future [compliant] card,
> > you've really got no choice but to implement a full CF interface.
> > 
> > -- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (http://www.zws.com/)
> > Learn how to develop high-end embedded systems on a tight budget!
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750676094/zws-20
> 
> According to my information ext. bus devices are due in Q1/04 with the
> same functionality as the 64-pin devices that were just announced. The
> external external bus is supposed to be the only difference (heard
> that in a training provided by Philips). May be it would be a good
> idea to use those devices. 
> Also pricing is very similar to the devices without bus. Philips is a
> litte late to join the race in the ARM market but heck they seem to be
> very serious!


In one way they were first! VLSI made the original ARM chips for Acorn
and was subsequently taken over by Philips.

Leon

> According to my information ext. bus devices are due in Q1/04 with the
> same functionality as the 64-pin devices that were just announced.

When will we see data on these parts?  A part with an external bus would be
far more suitable to what I'm doing now, and the development wont be
complete until March.