Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2005-01-26 by dsidlauskas1
I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that there's a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. Many thanks in advance. Dave Sidlauskas
2005-01-26 by Marko Pavlin
I am developing application with lpc2138 and cs8900a. I used freertos with uIP port. http://www.freertos.org/portrowleylpc2124.html For schematic check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/files/SCHEMATICS/ Etherent controller is CS8900A. http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/detail/P46.html dsidlauskas1 wrote:
> > I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that there's > a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any > suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. > > Many thanks in advance. > > Dave Sidlauskas > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > >
2005-01-26 by charlesgrenz
Also you if you do not want the overhead and just a simple Ethernet connection you may want to look at Lantronix. It is a Ethernet to serial bridge which allows 10/100T with and SSL layer and output baudrates from 9600 to 240K. http://www.lantronix.com/device-networking/embedded-device-servers/xport.html regards, Charles --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Marko Pavlin <mp@h...> wrote: > I am developing application with lpc2138 and cs8900a. I used freertos > with uIP port. > http://www.freertos.org/portrowleylpc2124.html > > > For schematic check > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/files/SCHEMATICS/ > > Etherent controller is CS8900A. > http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/detail/P46.html > > > > dsidlauskas1 wrote: > > > > I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that there's > > a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any > > suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. > > > > Many thanks in advance. > > > > Dave Sidlauskas > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > >
2005-01-26 by go_lpc
I start new project with LPC2138 and Wiznet W3100A chip (10/100M). It is connected through 3 lines (I2C - SCL, SDA and interrupt). My experience with previous board (with LPC2106) takes nearly 350kb/s ethernet speed, that is enough for serving web pages. The main advantage is a very simple programming of TCP/IP stack (included inside the chip). Total integration cost is less than 12$. There is also many examples from producer's web page. Regards Grzegorz
2005-01-26 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" <dsidlauskas@w...> wrote: > > I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that there's > a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any > suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. I am looking at doing something very similar with the AT91SAM7S chips. Like the LPC312x parts, there is no external data bus. I think this is the biggest issue. It means you will either need to add a serial to parallel interface chip of some sort (possibly an FPGA) or you will have to bit bang the bit IO ports to talk to the Ethernet chip. The more I think about this, the more I like using an FPGA to provide a fast serial port to the ARM chip and a parallel port to a LAN91C111 chip. I am discussing this in the AT91SAM7 group. I expect most of this discussion will be applicable to the LPC21xx chips too. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AT91SAM7/
2005-01-26 by Marko Pavlin (home)
Rick Collins wrote: > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" <dsidlauskas@w...> > wrote: > > > > I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that > there's > > a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any > > suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. > > I am looking at doing something very similar with the AT91SAM7S chips. > Like the LPC312x parts, there is no external data bus. I think this > is the biggest issue. It means you will either need to add a serial > to parallel interface chip of some sort (possibly an FPGA) or you will > have to bit bang the bit IO ports to talk to the Ethernet chip. > > The more I think about this, the more I like using an FPGA to provide > a fast serial port to the ARM chip and a parallel port to a LAN91C111 > chip. I am discussing this in the AT91SAM7 group. I expect most of > this discussion will be applicable to the LPC21xx chips too. > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AT91SAM7/> Bitbanging with CS8900A require 14 lines: 8 data, 4 address and 2 for IOR/IOW. I will have PCB in a week or so and I will post complete project here.
2005-01-26 by Markus Meng
Maybe, microchip makes an integrated MAC/PHY with an SPI interface. I forgot the name of this new device. Samples are available.. Markus Rick Collins schrieb: > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" <dsidlauskas@w...> > wrote: > >>I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that > > there's > >>a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any >>suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. > > > I am looking at doing something very similar with the AT91SAM7S chips. > Like the LPC312x parts, there is no external data bus. I think this > is the biggest issue. It means you will either need to add a serial > to parallel interface chip of some sort (possibly an FPGA) or you will > have to bit bang the bit IO ports to talk to the Ethernet chip. > > The more I think about this, the more I like using an FPGA to provide > a fast serial port to the ARM chip and a parallel port to a LAN91C111 > chip. I am discussing this in the AT91SAM7 group. I expect most of > this discussion will be applicable to the LPC21xx chips too. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AT91SAM7/ > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > -- Mit freundlichen Gr\ufffdssen Markus Meng ************************************************************************ ** Meng Engineering Telefon 056 222 44 10 ** ** Markus Meng Natel 079 230 93 86 ** ** Bruggerstr. 21 Telefax 056 222 44 34 ** ** CH-5400 Baden Email markus.meng@... ** ** Web www.meng-engineering.ch ** ************************************************************************ ** You cannot create experience. You must undergo it. Albert Camus **
2005-01-27 by Lasse Madsen
One thing that come into my mind when hearing some of you suggest using an FPGA to do some kind of serial to parallel interface is "Are you mad!?" If the processor doesn't have a parallel interface don't spend time and effort making it, Upgrade to a processor that has! You will never get speeds anywhere near that or at the same price anyway... Just my two cents... Regards Lasse Madsen
-----Original Message----- From: Rick Collins [mailto:gnuarm@...] Sent: 26. januar 2005 19:09 To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com Subject: [lpc2000] Re: LPC213x And Ethernet --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" <dsidlauskas@w...> wrote: > > I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept that there's > a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate any > suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and simply. I am looking at doing something very similar with the AT91SAM7S chips. Like the LPC312x parts, there is no external data bus. I think this is the biggest issue. It means you will either need to add a serial to parallel interface chip of some sort (possibly an FPGA) or you will have to bit bang the bit IO ports to talk to the Ethernet chip. The more I think about this, the more I like using an FPGA to provide a fast serial port to the ARM chip and a parallel port to a LAN91C111 chip. I am discussing this in the AT91SAM7 group. I expect most of this discussion will be applicable to the LPC21xx chips too. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AT91SAM7/ Yahoo! Groups Links
2005-01-27 by 42Bastian Schick
Rick Collins <gnuarm@...> schrieb am Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:08:31 -0000: > The more I think about this, the more I like using an FPGA to provide > a fast serial port to the ARM chip and a parallel port to a LAN91C111 The 91C111 works with 10/100 MB but has 16 registers, i.e. 1 port more. OTOH, the cs8900 provides a memory-mapped interface which makes it more suitable for LPCs with external bus. -- 42Bastian Schick
2005-01-27 by Rod Moffitt
You forgot the reset line. Since it is active high on the CS8900A you will
need to either have another GPIO or use an inverter to alter the RESET#
signal that resets the micro controller (and keeps it high long enough to
satisfy the CS8900A). Or you can just try generating a propper sequence
with an R/C filter and cross your fingers! ;)
- Rod
--
___ ____ ___ _ ___
Rod Moffitt / _ \/ __ \/ _ \ (_)__ / _/__
http://rod.info / , _/ /_/ / // / / / _ \/ _/ _ \
rodANTISPAM@... /_/|_|\____/____(*)_/_//_/_/ \___/
=======================================================
~ Where loved ones are remembered http://memoriam.org ~On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Marko Pavlin (home) wrote: > Bitbanging with CS8900A require 14 lines: 8 data, 4 address and 2 for > IOR/IOW. I will have PCB in a week or so and I will post complete > project here.
2005-01-29 by Anton Erasmus
On 26 Jan 2005 at 18:08, Rick Collins wrote: > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" <dsidlauskas@w...> > wrote: > > I have a project where the LPC312x fits very well accept > that there's > a requirement for ehternet connectivity. I'd appreciate > any > suggestions as to how this might be accomplished cheaply and > simply. > > I am looking at doing something very similar with the AT91SAM7S chips. > Like the LPC312x parts, there is no external data bus. I think this > is the biggest issue. It means you will either need to add a serial > to parallel interface chip of some sort (possibly an FPGA) or you will > have to bit bang the bit IO ports to talk to the Ethernet chip. > > The more I think about this, the more I like using an FPGA to provide > a fast serial port to the ARM chip and a parallel port to a LAN91C111 > chip. I am discussing this in the AT91SAM7 group. I expect most of > this discussion will be applicable to the LPC21xx chips too. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AT91SAM7/ > If you really need ethernet on a chip without external bus-interface, then using the Wiznet W3100A, makes much more sense. It alread has an I2C interface and runs the TCP/IP stack in hardware for upto 4 simultaneous connections. If you want to connect it using the parallel bus, it has a mode where it needs only 2 address lines, 8 data lines, Read, Write, interrrupt and Chip Select. A total of 14 pins. If you want more than 4 simultanoues connections, then you have to have a complete TCP/IP stack as with other ethernet controllers. Regards Anton Erasmus -- A J Erasmus
2005-01-29 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > If you really need ethernet on a chip without external bus-interface, then > using the Wiznet W3100A, makes much more sense. It alread has an > I2C interface and runs the TCP/IP stack in hardware for upto 4 simultaneous > connections. If you want to connect it using the parallel bus, it has a mode > where it needs only 2 address lines, 8 data lines, Read, Write, interrrupt and > Chip Select. A total of 14 pins. If you want more than 4 simultanoues connections, > then you have to have a complete TCP/IP stack as with other ethernet controllers. That may be one solution, but I don't see how you can say it makes "much more sense". I2C is very slow compared to even 10 Mbps. The SSC port on the AT91SAM7S parts will operate at speeds above 10 Mbps and will add much less latency and boost throughput than an I2C connection. The FPGA will be on the board anyway, so it seems natural to use it to make the connection to the Ethernet chip.
2005-01-29 by Anton Erasmus
On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:50, Rick Collins wrote: > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > > If you really need ethernet on a chip without external bus-interface, > then > using the Wiznet W3100A, makes much more sense. It alread has > an > I2C interface and runs the TCP/IP stack in hardware for upto 4 > simultaneous > connections. If you want to connect it using the > parallel bus, it has a mode > where it needs only 2 address lines, 8 > data lines, Read, Write, interrrupt and > Chip Select. A total of 14 > pins. If you want more than 4 simultanoues connections, > then you > have to have a complete TCP/IP stack as with other ethernet > controllers. > > > That may be one solution, but I don't see how you can say it makes > "much more sense". I2C is very slow compared to even 10 Mbps. The > SSC port on the AT91SAM7S parts will operate at speeds above 10 Mbps > and will add much less latency and boost throughput than an I2C > connection. The FPGA will be on the board anyway, so it seems natural > to use it to make the connection to the Ethernet chip. > In your previous posts you said you are considering ADDING a FPGA to enable you to easier / faster access a ethernet controller using a MCU without external bus. If you already have an FPGA, and it has enough spare capacity, then it makes sense to use it. Even if you can use SPI interface which is in the order of 5MHz, it will also be a lot slower than the ethernet's 10MB/s. The overhead of accesing a normal ethernet chip together with all the data you have to handle as part of the TCP/IP stack means that you will not get that high a speed overall. With the Wiznet chip, even though the I2C is fairly low speed, you ONLY need to transfer data you actually are going to use in your app. The TCP/IP stack overhead is handled within the Wiznet chip. Hence the ethernet interface has got no overhead asociated with it, until there is data for the specific socket you have opened. In a previous message someone pointed to an Olimex LPC board, together with one of these Wiznet chips, where they could serve web pages using the I2C interface at 350kb/s if I recall correctly. using 14 port pins to emulate a parallel interface, should be even faster. Regards Anton Erasmus -- A J Erasmus
2005-01-30 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > In your previous posts you said you are considering ADDING a FPGA to enable > you to easier / faster access a ethernet controller using a MCU without external > bus. Boy, leave it to engineers to nit pic. But if you reread my message, that is not what I said. I said I would "use" an FPGA to do the conversion. > If you already have an FPGA, and it has enough spare capacity, then it > makes sense to use it. Even if you can use SPI interface which is in the order > of 5MHz, it will also be a lot slower than the ethernet's 10MB/s. I didn't say I would use SPI. The Atmel SAM7 chips have an SSC port which is similar to the serial ports on DSP chips and will interface directly to many codecs at very high speeds, >10 Mbps. > The overhead of > accesing a normal ethernet chip together with all the data you have to handle > as part of the TCP/IP stack means that you will not get that high a speed overall. > With the Wiznet chip, even though the I2C is fairly low speed, you ONLY need to > transfer data you actually are going to use in your app. The TCP/IP stack overhead > is handled within the Wiznet chip. Hence the ethernet interface has got no overhead > asociated with it, until there is data for the specific socket you have opened. > In a previous message someone pointed to an Olimex LPC board, together with > one of these Wiznet chips, where they could serve web pages using the I2C > interface at 350kb/s if I recall correctly. using 14 port pins to emulate a parallel > interface, should be even faster. Certainly this is interesting. But like I said, it is a far cry from 10 Mbps. The overhead is not that great and regardless of how much overhead you have, the time required to transfer the data across the CPU/LAN chip interface will still add to that. So having a 20x higher interface speed is still a significant boost.
2005-01-30 by Anton Erasmus
On 30 Jan 2005 at 6:30, Rick Collins wrote: > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > > > In your previous posts you said you are considering ADDING a FPGA to > enable > > you to easier / faster access a ethernet controller using a MCU > without external > > bus. > > Boy, leave it to engineers to nit pic. But if you reread my message, > that is not what I said. I said I would "use" an FPGA to do the > conversion. :-) Yes, I have been involved in many HUGE arguments between engineers, where someone made a statement, and because of some sort of slip misused a word without realising it. Everybody else picks up on this, and even though they fully agree with what the other guy meant to say, they do not agree with what he actually said. Non-Technical people who listen to this, find this totally beyond comprehension. Anyway, I accept your argument. > > If you already have an FPGA, and it has enough spare capacity, then > it > > makes sense to use it. Even if you can use SPI interface which is in > the order > > of 5MHz, it will also be a lot slower than the ethernet's 10MB/s. > > I didn't say I would use SPI. The Atmel SAM7 chips have an SSC port > which is similar to the serial ports on DSP chips and will interface > directly to many codecs at very high speeds, >10 Mbps. > > > The overhead of > > accesing a normal ethernet chip together with all the data you have > to handle > > as part of the TCP/IP stack means that you will not get that high a > speed overall. > > With the Wiznet chip, even though the I2C is fairly low speed, you > ONLY need to > > transfer data you actually are going to use in your app. The TCP/IP > stack overhead > > is handled within the Wiznet chip. Hence the ethernet interface has > got no overhead > > asociated with it, until there is data for the specific socket you > have opened. > > In a previous message someone pointed to an Olimex LPC board, > together with > > one of these Wiznet chips, where they could serve web pages using > the I2C > > interface at 350kb/s if I recall correctly. using 14 port pins to > emulate a parallel > > interface, should be even faster. > > Certainly this is interesting. But like I said, it is a far cry from > 10 Mbps. The overhead is not that great and regardless of how much > overhead you have, the time required to transfer the data across the > CPU/LAN chip interface will still add to that. So having a 20x higher > interface speed is still a significant boost. > The higher speed serial interface would definitaly help. What is the cost of the ethernet controller you have in mind compared to the Wiznet W3100A chip ? If the pricing are similar, it might still be worthwhile using the Wiznet chip in parallel mode via the FPGA and high speed serial combination. To get bootstrap code going to re-program or boot the board via ethernet needs very little code because of the hardware TCP/IP stack. If one then uses an RTOS or something else with a full TCP/IP stack, then one can use the W3100A chip as a normal type ethernet chip. Opening a TCP/IP socket using the W3100A takes something like 20 lines of C code. Regards Anton Erasmus -- A J Erasmus
2005-01-31 by jamesasteres
Do you really need the extra memory of the 2138? Why not spend about the same money for an LPC with an external memory bus? That would provide (I believe) the fastest possible parallel interface to the ethernet chip. Or am I missing something? It seems really weird to go through a third chip (FPGA) with a serial interface when what you are after is speed. James --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > On 30 Jan 2005 at 6:30, Rick Collins wrote: > > > > > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > > > > > In your previous posts you said you are considering ADDING a FPGA to > > enable > > > you to easier / faster access a ethernet controller using a MCU > > without external > > > bus. > > > > Boy, leave it to engineers to nit pic. But if you reread my message, > > that is not what I said. I said I would "use" an FPGA to do the > > conversion. > > :-) Yes, I have been involved in many HUGE arguments between engineers, > where someone made a statement, and because of some sort of slip misused > a word without realising it. Everybody else picks up on this, and even though they > fully agree with what the other guy meant to say, they do not agree with what > he actually said. Non-Technical people who listen to this, find this totally beyond > comprehension. > > Anyway, I accept your argument. > > > > If you already have an FPGA, and it has enough spare capacity, then > > it > > > makes sense to use it. Even if you can use SPI interface which is in > > the order > > > of 5MHz, it will also be a lot slower than the ethernet's 10MB/s. > > > > I didn't say I would use SPI. The Atmel SAM7 chips have an SSC port > > which is similar to the serial ports on DSP chips and will interface > > directly to many codecs at very high speeds, >10 Mbps. > > > > > The overhead of > > > accesing a normal ethernet chip together with all the data you have > > to handle > > > as part of the TCP/IP stack means that you will not get that high a > > speed overall. > > > With the Wiznet chip, even though the I2C is fairly low speed, you > > ONLY need to > > > transfer data you actually are going to use in your app. The TCP/IP > > stack overhead > > > is handled within the Wiznet chip. Hence the ethernet interface has > > got no overhead > > > asociated with it, until there is data for the specific socket you > > have opened. > > > In a previous message someone pointed to an Olimex LPC board, > > together with > > > one of these Wiznet chips, where they could serve web pages using > > the I2C > > > interface at 350kb/s if I recall correctly. using 14 port pins to > > emulate a parallel > > > interface, should be even faster. > > > > Certainly this is interesting. But like I said, it is a far cry from > > 10 Mbps. The overhead is not that great and regardless of how much > > overhead you have, the time required to transfer the data across the > > CPU/LAN chip interface will still add to that. So having a 20x higher > > interface speed is still a significant boost. > > > > The higher speed serial interface would definitaly help. What is the cost of the ethernet > controller you have in mind compared to the Wiznet W3100A chip ? If the pricing are > similar, it might still be worthwhile using the Wiznet chip in parallel mode via the FPGA > and high speed serial combination. To get bootstrap code going to re-program or boot > the board via ethernet needs very little code because of the hardware TCP/IP stack. If > one then uses an RTOS or something else with a full TCP/IP stack, then one can use > the W3100A chip as a normal type ethernet chip. Opening a TCP/IP socket using the
> W3100A takes something like 20 lines of C code. > > Regards > Anton Erasmus > > > -- > A J Erasmus
2005-01-31 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > :-) Yes, I have been involved in many HUGE arguments between engineers, > where someone made a statement, and because of some sort of slip misused > a word without realising it. Everybody else picks up on this, and even though they > fully agree with what the other guy meant to say, they do not agree with what > he actually said. Non-Technical people who listen to this, find this totally beyond > comprehension. > > Anyway, I accept your argument. I am glad you appreciate this. I don't bother with pointless internet arguments these days, but still it is nice to come to a friendly agreement without hassle. :) > The higher speed serial interface would definitaly help. What is the cost of the ethernet > controller you have in mind compared to the Wiznet W3100A chip ? If the pricing are > similar, it might still be worthwhile using the Wiznet chip in parallel mode via the FPGA > and high speed serial combination. To get bootstrap code going to re-program or boot > the board via ethernet needs very little code because of the hardware TCP/IP stack. If > one then uses an RTOS or something else with a full TCP/IP stack, then one can use > the W3100A chip as a normal type ethernet chip. Opening a TCP/IP socket using the > W3100A takes something like 20 lines of C code. I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a network. Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. Even if you don't need the data rate, this can be an advantage is some cases and it should still meet the selling price target of $99, qty 1. I will need to project a parts list in the next couple of days, now that I have been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin compatible with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial prototypes.
2005-01-31 by 42Bastian Schick
> I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe > you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not > an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is > the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a > network. One advantage of the 91C111: You can disable the internal Phy. So it should be possible to connect a WiFi Phy. Or am I wrong here ? > Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a > general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. And 10MB might die .... even the HCS12 with Ethernet support 100MB (MCS9S12NE64). -- 42Bastian Schick
2005-01-31 by Anton Erasmus
On 31 Jan 2005 at 5:07, Rick Collins wrote: [Lots of stuff snipped] > > I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe > you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not > an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is > the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a > network. Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a > general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. Even if > you don't need the data rate, this can be an advantage is some cases > and it should still meet the selling price target of $99, qty 1. > > I will need to project a parts list in the next couple of days, now > that I have been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin > compatible with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial > prototypes. No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a seperate PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a module which includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L Phy. One only need to add the magnetics. If you actually use the module, then you can offer the board without the module at a reduced price, and people can later add it. Nice when one is on a tight budget. Regards Anton Erasmus -- A J Erasmus
2005-02-01 by Mark Butcher
Hi All I am presently working on an Ethernet extension for the LPC2106 with the Freescale (Motorola) MC9S12NE64. I bought 5 pieces for about $12 a piece in 80 pin housing (volume obviously much less) for experimenting. 50MHz 64k FLASH, 8k RAM, 10/100Mb EMAC/PHY SCI, 2xserial, A/D, I2C etc. I'm still new to the chip but have just got it pinging with my OpSys and ARP/IP based on OpenTCP using the GNU compiler. The idea is to use the SCI to interface and let the NE64 do some of (or all) the stack work. Compared to a solution with MicroChip ENJ28J60 (which I may also try): - can do stack and other jobs if required - Needs programming - slightly bigger footprint - Can do 100Mb - Less RAM - can only do 1k5 frames - Has MII interface if required - Don't know the price of the MicroChip solution at the moment but probably similar.. Is any one doing similar? Regards Mark Butcher www.mjbc.ch
2005-02-01 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > On 31 Jan 2005 at 5:07, Rick Collins wrote: > > [Lots of stuff snipped] > > > > I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, but I believe > > you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The LAN91C111 is not > > an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so all you need to add is > > the transformer and the connector and that end is ready to plug into a > > network. Yes, it needs a lot more on the other side, but making a > > general app board, I want to be able to support 100 base TX. Even if > > you don't need the data rate, this can be an advantage is some cases > > and it should still meet the selling price target of $99, qty 1. > > > > I will need to project a parts list in the next couple of days, now > > that I have been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin > > compatible with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial > > prototypes. > > No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a seperate > PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a module which > includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L Phy. One only need > to add the magnetics. If you actually use the module, then you can offer > the board without the module at a reduced price, and people can later > add it. Nice when one is on a tight budget. Unless you really need some speed. You said it interfaces by I2C which is very slow by comparison, ~400 kbps vs. >10 Mbps. I don't plan to sell the board in versions, that gets to be a PITA. But I will likely sell a bare board version if you want to do-it-yourself.
2005-02-02 by Stephen Pelc
> From: "Anton Erasmus" <antone@...> > No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a > seperate PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a > module which includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L > Phy. One only need to add the magnetics. If you actually use the > module, then you can offer the board without the module at a > reduced price, and people can later add it. Nice when one is on a > tight budget. Have a look at the Asix 88796 which does 10/100 and has integrated PHY. You can get the cheap NICholas board from EDTP Electronics for prototyping. We have one glued on the side of a 2106 running our TCP/IP stack and web server. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephen@... MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 23 80 631441, fax: +44 23 80 339691 web: http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads
2005-02-02 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Pelc" <stephen@m...> wrote: > > From: "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> > > > No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a > > seperate PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a > > module which includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L > > Phy. One only need to add the magnetics. If you actually use the > > module, then you can offer the board without the module at a > > reduced price, and people can later add it. Nice when one is on a > > tight budget. > > Have a look at the Asix 88796 which does 10/100 and has > integrated PHY. You can get the cheap NICholas board from EDTP > Electronics for prototyping. We have one glued on the side of a > 2106 running our TCP/IP stack and web server. The last time I checked with ASIX, they did not have industrial temp versions of their chips. Do you know if this has changed?
2005-02-02 by Anton Erasmus
On 1 Feb 2005 at 22:52, Rick Collins wrote: > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > > On 31 Jan 2005 at 5:07, Rick Collins wrote: > > [Lots of stuff > snipped] > > > > I understand that the W3100A would be simpler to use, > but I believe > > you said it did not support 100 base TX, right? The > LAN91C111 is not > > an inexpensive chip, but it includes the PHY so > all you need to add is > > the transformer and the connector and that > end is ready to plug into a > > network. Yes, it needs a lot more on > the other side, but making a > > general app board, I want to be able > to support 100 base TX. Even if > > you don't need the data rate, > this can be an advantage is some cases > > and it should still meet > the selling price target of $99, qty 1. > > > > I will need to > project a parts list in the next couple of days, now > > that I have > been promised samples of the AT91SAM7S64. This is pin > > compatible > with the SAM7S128 and SAM7S256 and will do for initial > > prototypes. > > > No the W3100A does support 100 base T. Although you need a > seperate > PHY and of course the magnetics + connector. They have a > module which > includes the W3100A device + the Realtek RTL8201L Phy. > One only need > to add the magnetics. If you actually use the module, > then you can offer > the board without the module at a reduced price, > and people can later > add it. Nice when one is on a tight budget. > > Unless you really need some speed. You said it interfaces by I2C > which is very slow by comparison, ~400 kbps vs. >10 Mbps. That is if you use the I2C bus - I would only use this on a legacy product that does not have enough pins for the parallel mode. The normal method is to map it to a 8-bit 16K SRAM block. When one wants to send a packet, one copies the data to the specific socket Tx buffer, and set a bit to transmit the data. The hardware will handle any TCP/IP overhead. Normal frequency for bus timing is 25MHz, but a clock up to 50MHz can be used. the device can easily do the full 100Mbps using the normal parallel mode. > I don't plan to sell the board in versions, that gets to be a PITA. > But I will likely sell a bare board version if you want to > do-it-yourself. I seldom buy these sort of products, hence I am obviously not the target market, hence not in a position to say whether this is a good or bad idea. Regards Anton Erasmus -- A J Erasmus
2005-02-03 by Rick Collins
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Erasmus" <antone@s...> wrote: > On 1 Feb 2005 at 22:52, Rick Collins wrote: > > Unless you really need some speed. You said it interfaces by I2C > > which is very slow by comparison, ~400 kbps vs. >10 Mbps. > > That is if you use the I2C bus - I would only use this on a legacy product > that does not have enough pins for the parallel mode. The normal method > is to map it to a 8-bit 16K SRAM block. When one wants to send a packet, > one copies the data to the specific socket Tx buffer, and set a bit to transmit > the data. The hardware will handle any TCP/IP overhead. > Normal frequency for bus timing is 25MHz, but a clock up to 50MHz can be > used. the device can easily do the full 100Mbps using the normal > parallel mode. The wiznet web site disagrees with you. I thought I would check it out and it does seem like a nice product, but it is not fast. Here is their speed claims. High Performance Processor Performance (100Mbps, PIII 500MHz,1 channel, FDX) Atmel 89C51 300 Kbps Atmel AVR 3 Mbps Intel 80386 6 Mbps Hitachi SH7709A 8 Mbps Hyperstone E1-16KT+DMAC control 15Mbps I don't know what a Hyperstone... is, but that is the fastest throughput they claim, 15 Mbps, using DMA. Still that is not a bad speed. > > I don't plan to sell the board in versions, that gets to be a PITA. > > But I will likely sell a bare board version if you want to > > do-it-yourself. > > I seldom buy these sort of products, hence I am obviously not the > target market, hence not in a position to say whether this is a good > or bad idea. If cost is of ultimate importance, I expect Olimex will have satifactory boards.