X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Authenticated-IP: 205.168.25.162
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: I won't do BGA's
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOuGh89uoQWbWyDMHAH4G=mgEFhoe2+aPdvJ2H82d01cwCNErA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:09:21 -0700
Message-Id: <9E8604A1-E961-43F6-91C9-A5E4C1719248@noqsi.com>
References: <CA+82U9J4GvssKrnRNOTTMuDc4zHy+PxeWb8OXeWP6NVHfoA0Nw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1486241a-88b7-4c8d-8354-ded392eadf96 AT email DOT android DOT com> <CAA0yOM6e_raSs_3tBv_+1OTNj+cZdN91cJU3hKkeW90E23z4nA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CA+82U9+CzLMdBvyyJxsYWR==BXWjWGrU+zWNXL+-g9tsh7uLbw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAA0yOM5ej1dMOOtcbYYRdc=7yW6hZj=cmpuypYt9c_X_k5NM7A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CA+82U9+2pQBscOYsWBbLPtEpb1MyTEKe5dr8wzdJYJnFqCjWgw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAA0yOM5+uj6cHuxVsz18SPqd=ULC_-EbaUb0ffj14wkdj_dHiQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4EC9CE99 DOT 5040303 AT industromatic DOT com> <4ED27309 DOT 6030100 AT ecosensory DOT com> <20111127231842 DOT 3FD9B81F6262 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <4ED30BB2 DOT 8030301 AT ecosensory DOT com> <20111128075947 DOT F0D6681F6266 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <4ED36081 DOT 5080507 AT ecosensory DOT com> <CAPYb0EEtYnpYkTNygCJCkYG7bk3jZu3WHx09C023RWXqDCHyrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20111202101147 DOT 04de74dd DOT attila AT kinali DOT ch> <CAOuGh89uoQWbWyDMHAH4G=mgEFhoe2+aPdvJ2H82d01cwCNErA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id pB3F90IF016540
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Dec 2, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Bob Paddock wrote:

> We've already decided our future projects will not have any Atmel
> parts of any type in them.

I've used the Atmel AT91 ARMs in a number of recent projects, and I've been reasonably satisfied.

Pluses:

1. Reasonably orthogonal design of peripherals means that, for example, you can actually just use a timer as a timer instead of having to figure out how to disentangle it from 3-phase PWM machinery.

2. Once understood, the peripherals usually turn out to be simple to use.

3. The chips work well with OpenOCD and GNU tools. I'm too busy to waste time with Windows.

4. Development boards are inexpensive, easy to acquire, and reasonably well thought out.

5. I find it quick and easy to move my stripped-down Forth (https://github.com/noqsi/LSE-ARM) to a new chip or board within this family.

Minuses:

1. Documentation fails to convey the essential simplicity of the peripherals.

2. Peripherals have implementation restrictions that are not generally tough to deal with, but they are unmentioned in documentation.

3. Example code is pure lasagna, thoroughly obfuscating the hardware/software relationships.

4. Documentation is a mashup. One would think that in the 21st century, processor manuals could include relevant details (like register addresses) where they are needed (as they did in the 1960's), but Atmel can't seem to manage real automated document generation.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com