Empathy List Archives

HM

Hal Murray

Wed, Nov 16, 2016 7:14 PM

I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor

If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles. If you
have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip.
Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend
with one you can copy.

--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.

albertson.chris@gmail.com said: > I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles. If you have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip. Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend with one you can copy. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.

BS

Bob Stewart

Wed, Nov 16, 2016 8:32 PM

Just a short comment on getting a PIC up and running. Microchip have come out with a number of tools, especially their "Configurator" software that will get you started pretty quickly. And there is a long list of example programs on microchip's website for simple programs that do things like read the ADC, write to a UART, etc.
Bob -----------------------------------------------------------------
AE6RV.com

GFS GPSDO list:
groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GFS-GPSDOs/info

  From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>

To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement time-nuts@febo.com
Cc: hmurray@megapathdsl.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] precision timing pulse

albertson.chris@gmail.com said:

I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor

If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles. If you
have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip.
Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend
with one you can copy.

--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Just a short comment on getting a PIC up and running. Microchip have come out with a number of tools, especially their "Configurator" software that will get you started pretty quickly. And there is a long list of example programs on microchip's website for simple programs that do things like read the ADC, write to a UART, etc. Bob ----------------------------------------------------------------- AE6RV.com GFS GPSDO list: groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GFS-GPSDOs/info From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts@febo.com> Cc: hmurray@megapathdsl.net Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] precision timing pulse albertson.chris@gmail.com said: > I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles. If you have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip. Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend with one you can copy. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.

D

David

Thu, Nov 17, 2016 7:20 PM

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:14:59 -0800, you wrote:

albertson.chris@gmail.com said:

I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor

If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles. If you
have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip.
Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend
with one you can copy.

Even when not counting cycles, there are other considerations.

PIC (and AVR and some others) are available in small DIP packages
making prototyping or one shot projects easy.
PIC is the least expensive followed by RS08 from NXP/Freescale, eZ8
from Zilog, and finally AVR from Atmel.
PIC and AVR have the most support. I would probably prefer the AVR
ISA but PIC is 1/3rd the cost and seems to have better peripherals and
documentation. Since Microchip bought Atmel, I worry that AVR will be
effectively discontinued.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:14:59 -0800, you wrote: >albertson.chris@gmail.com said: >> I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor > >If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles. If you >have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip. >Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend >with one you can copy. Even when not counting cycles, there are other considerations. 1. PIC (and AVR and some others) are available in small DIP packages making prototyping or one shot projects easy. 2. PIC is the least expensive followed by RS08 from NXP/Freescale, eZ8 from Zilog, and finally AVR from Atmel. 3. PIC and AVR have the most support. I would probably prefer the AVR ISA but PIC is 1/3rd the cost and seems to have better peripherals and documentation. Since Microchip bought Atmel, I worry that AVR will be effectively discontinued.

time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Re: [time-nuts] precision timing pulse