On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:21:50 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2012-05-14, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/11/2012 5:13 AM, Mike wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Am I right in thinking that TI is still the only source for MSP430
>>> CPUs ?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike
>> Yes, this is correct.
>> Also:
>> PIC processors are only from Microchip.
>> AVR processors are only from Atmel.
> I haven't seen a microcontroller with a real, drop-in, second source for
> a couple decades now...
Microchip seems to do pretty well with keeping pins in the same place as you go from one chip to another. You might be able to use one of their fancy chips in place of a generic.
But as for buying something from company A and then dropping in something from company B -- nope. The US military used to insist on second-sourced parts, but I think they gave up.
-- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?
On 2012-05-15, j.m.granvi...@gmail.com <j.m.granvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:21:50 AM UTC+12, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> I haven't seen a microcontroller with a real, drop-in, second source
>> for a couple decades now...
> The AT89LP51xD2 / CRD89C51xx / STC15Fxx are quite close.
> ( or SST89E516 & N78E366A )
> One hex file can be crafted, to run in any of these, which
> functionally enables second sourcing.
Yep. The last two parts for which I remember real second-sources were
the 8086 and 8051. Both are 30-year old designs, and the 8086 isn't
really a microcontroller.
I haven't heard of anybody requiring a second-source for a
microcontroller/microprocessor since I worked on a defence project
back in the mid 80's. Based on what I've heard from friends sill
doing defence work, even they abandoned hoping for second-sources ages
ago.
-- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! If I pull this SWITCH
at I'll be RITA HAYWORTH!!
gmail.com Or a SCIENTOLOGIST!
For the same reasons it always was. Single source makes for a single point of failure in the supply chain, which in military terms assigns extreme strategic value to an undefended, "soft" target. E.g. an opponent seriously harm your entire air force by simply bombing the single source of some CPU that keeps your planes in the air. Military will go to astounding lengths to avoid that kind of situation.
I was not really looking for a second source, I just wanted to know
whether there was a Plan B if TI dropped their MSP430 range. It's
(almost) always easier to change chips within a range rather than
change instruction sets. I know coding in C avoids some of the pain
but not all IME. Anyway, for other reasons the 430 isn't going to be
chosen, but thanks for all the replies,
In article <a1fherF3s...@mid.dfncis.de>, HBBroe...@t-online.de says...
> On 15.05.2012 17:04, hamilton wrote:
> > Why is second source still important ??
> For the same reasons it always was. Single source makes for a single > point of failure in the supply chain, which in military terms assigns > extreme strategic value to an undefended, "soft" target. E.g. an > opponent seriously harm your entire air force by simply bombing the > single source of some CPU that keeps your planes in the air. Military > will go to astounding lengths to avoid that kind of situation.
I wonder what would happen if the factories and servers of the plane/tank/etc maker were bombed.
Neaely forever a particular aircraft/tank/etc was single sourced
planes from Boeing, Mcdonnell etc... There will always be a single
source somewhere, even for engines or certain materials.
> In article <a1fherF3s...@mid.dfncis.de>, HBBroe...@t-online.de says...
>> On 15.05.2012 17:04, hamilton wrote:
>> > Why is second source still important ??
>> For the same reasons it always was. Single source makes for a single >> point of failure in the supply chain, which in military terms assigns >> extreme strategic value to an undefended, "soft" target. E.g. an >> opponent seriously harm your entire air force by simply bombing the >> single source of some CPU that keeps your planes in the air. Military >> will go to astounding lengths to avoid that kind of situation.
> I wonder what would happen if the factories and servers of the > plane/tank/etc maker were bombed.
> Neaely forever a particular aircraft/tank/etc was single sourced
> planes from Boeing, Mcdonnell etc... There will always be a single
> source somewhere, even for engines or certain materials.
In WWII it was quite common for a particular plane/tank/etc. to be
manufctured by multiple companies even though it was designed by one
particular company. In _theory_ that's still possible today. The DoD
owns the design and can, if needed, contract with anybody they want to
do the manufacturing. At least that's what the procurement people in
the DoD tell each other.
In practice, I doubt it would work in a meaningful way for anything as
complex as a modern aircraft. The overhead involved in getting
company B to the point where it could manufacture company A's airplane
would be rediculous (even by DoD standards).
-- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! A can of ASPARAGUS,
at 73 pigeons, some LIVE ammo,
gmail.com and a FROZEN DAQUIRI!!
Grant Edwards wrote:
> In WWII it was quite common for a particular plane/tank/etc. to be
> manufctured by multiple companies even though it was designed by one
> particular company. In _theory_ that's still possible today. The DoD
> owns the design and can, if needed, contract with anybody they want to
> do the manufacturing. At least that's what the procurement people in
> the DoD tell each other.
> In practice, I doubt it would work in a meaningful way for anything as
> complex as a modern aircraft. The overhead involved in getting
> company B to the point where it could manufacture company A's airplane
> would be rediculous (even by DoD standards).
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 2012-05-16, Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <a1fherF3s...@mid.dfncis.de>, HBBroe...@t-online.de says...
>>> On 15.05.2012 17:04, hamilton wrote:
>>> > Why is second source still important ??
>>> For the same reasons it always was. Single source makes for a single >>> point of failure in the supply chain, which in military terms assigns >>> extreme strategic value to an undefended, "soft" target. E.g. an >>> opponent seriously harm your entire air force by simply bombing the >>> single source of some CPU that keeps your planes in the air. Military >>> will go to astounding lengths to avoid that kind of situation.
>> I wonder what would happen if the factories and servers of the >> plane/tank/etc maker were bombed.
>> Neaely forever a particular aircraft/tank/etc was single sourced
>> planes from Boeing, Mcdonnell etc... There will always be a single
>> source somewhere, even for engines or certain materials.
>In WWII it was quite common for a particular plane/tank/etc. to be
>manufctured by multiple companies even though it was designed by one
>particular company. In _theory_ that's still possible today. The DoD
>owns the design and can, if needed, contract with anybody they want to
>do the manufacturing. At least that's what the procurement people in
>the DoD tell each other.
>In practice, I doubt it would work in a meaningful way for anything as
>complex as a modern aircraft. The overhead involved in getting
>company B to the point where it could manufacture company A's airplane
>would be rediculous (even by DoD standards).
Not qualified with regards to aircraft but this approach has worked
quite well when it comes to submarines -- both EB and Newport News built
688-class and 774-class (Virginia) boats -- and some surface combatants.
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:50:21 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards
><inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2012-05-16, Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <a1fherF3s...@mid.dfncis.de>, HBBroe...@t-online.de says...
>>>> On 15.05.2012 17:04, hamilton wrote:
>>>> > Why is second source still important ??
>>>> For the same reasons it always was. Single source makes for a single >>>> point of failure in the supply chain, which in military terms assigns >>>> extreme strategic value to an undefended, "soft" target. E.g. an >>>> opponent seriously harm your entire air force by simply bombing the >>>> single source of some CPU that keeps your planes in the air. Military >>>> will go to astounding lengths to avoid that kind of situation.
>>> I wonder what would happen if the factories and servers of the >>> plane/tank/etc maker were bombed.
>>> Neaely forever a particular aircraft/tank/etc was single sourced
>>> planes from Boeing, Mcdonnell etc... There will always be a single
>>> source somewhere, even for engines or certain materials.
>>In WWII it was quite common for a particular plane/tank/etc. to be
>>manufctured by multiple companies even though it was designed by one
>>particular company. In _theory_ that's still possible today. The DoD
>>owns the design and can, if needed, contract with anybody they want to
>>do the manufacturing. At least that's what the procurement people in
>>the DoD tell each other.
>>In practice, I doubt it would work in a meaningful way for anything as
>>complex as a modern aircraft. The overhead involved in getting
>>company B to the point where it could manufacture company A's airplane
>>would be rediculous (even by DoD standards).
> Not qualified with regards to aircraft but this approach has worked
> quite well when it comes to submarines -- both EB and Newport News
> built 688-class and 774-class (Virginia) boats -- and some surface
> combatants.
I don't think ships have never been "manufactured" the way planes and
tanks were. Each ship is more like a stand-alone "one-off" project
based on a common design. Back in the days when I worked on guided
missile launchers for cruisers and destroyers, there was a separate
set of drawings for each one. No two launchers/ships were identical
-- there were design changes/improvements made for every one of them.
Maybe things have changed in the past 25 years and ships are now more
"manufactured" instead of each one being "custom-built" starting with
a common set of plans.
-- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Well, O.K.
at I'll compromise with my
gmail.com principles because of
EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR!
> On 2012-05-16, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:50:21 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards
> ><inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>On 2012-05-16, Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In article <a1fherF3s...@mid.dfncis.de>, HBBroe...@t-online.de says...
> >>>> On 15.05.2012 17:04, hamilton wrote:
> >>>> > Why is second source still important ??
> >>>> For the same reasons it always was. Single source makes for a single > >>>> point of failure in the supply chain, which in military terms assigns > >>>> extreme strategic value to an undefended, "soft" target. E.g. an > >>>> opponent seriously harm your entire air force by simply bombing the > >>>> single source of some CPU that keeps your planes in the air. Military > >>>> will go to astounding lengths to avoid that kind of situation.
> >>> I wonder what would happen if the factories and servers of the > >>> plane/tank/etc maker were bombed.
> >>> Neaely forever a particular aircraft/tank/etc was single sourced
> >>> planes from Boeing, Mcdonnell etc... There will always be a single
> >>> source somewhere, even for engines or certain materials.
> >>In WWII it was quite common for a particular plane/tank/etc. to be
> >>manufctured by multiple companies even though it was designed by one
> >>particular company. In _theory_ that's still possible today. The DoD
> >>owns the design and can, if needed, contract with anybody they want to
> >>do the manufacturing. At least that's what the procurement people in
> >>the DoD tell each other.
> >>In practice, I doubt it would work in a meaningful way for anything as
> >>complex as a modern aircraft. The overhead involved in getting
> >>company B to the point where it could manufacture company A's airplane
> >>would be rediculous (even by DoD standards).
> > Not qualified with regards to aircraft but this approach has worked
> > quite well when it comes to submarines -- both EB and Newport News
> > built 688-class and 774-class (Virginia) boats -- and some surface
> > combatants.
> I don't think ships have never been "manufactured" the way planes and
> tanks were. Each ship is more like a stand-alone "one-off" project
> based on a common design. Back in the days when I worked on guided
> missile launchers for cruisers and destroyers, there was a separate
> set of drawings for each one. No two launchers/ships were identical
> -- there were design changes/improvements made for every one of them.
> Maybe things have changed in the past 25 years and ships are now more
> "manufactured" instead of each one being "custom-built" starting with
> a common set of plans.
I remember a retired UK Air Vice-Marshall, telling me of when some jet aircraft were retired from civilian airline and bought by RAF for
Transport Command duties. That it took them months to match up and make
the full documentation set for each aircraft that was supposedly identical. For aircraft maintenance you need the full documentation
for each sircraft.
They found each aircraft to be different in many ways even that they
were up to 6 feet different in length !!!
On May 18, 12:47 am, Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
> I remember a retired UK Air Vice-Marshall, telling me of when some jet
> aircraft were retired from civilian airline and bought by RAF for
> Transport Command duties. That it took them months to match up and make
> the full documentation set for each aircraft that was supposedly
> identical. For aircraft maintenance you need the full documentation
> for each sircraft.
> They found each aircraft to be different in many ways even that they
> were up to 6 feet different in length !!!
Not so surprising, I suppose - given that they do not expose & etch
them on wafers or FR4 :D .
>I remember a retired UK Air Vice-Marshall, telling me of when some jet >aircraft were retired from civilian airline and bought by RAF for
>Transport Command duties. That it took them months to match up and make
>the full documentation set for each aircraft that was supposedly >identical. For aircraft maintenance you need the full documentation
>for each sircraft.
>They found each aircraft to be different in many ways even that they
>were up to 6 feet different in length !!!
That pilfering of military equipment hits everything !
Nick
-- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
> In article <MPG.2a1f82476b8d4af1989...@172.16.0.1>,
> Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
> >I remember a retired UK Air Vice-Marshall, telling me of when some jet > >aircraft were retired from civilian airline and bought by RAF for
> >Transport Command duties. That it took them months to match up and make
> >the full documentation set for each aircraft that was supposedly > >identical. For aircraft maintenance you need the full documentation
> >for each sircraft.
> >They found each aircraft to be different in many ways even that they
> >were up to 6 feet different in length !!!
> That pilfering of military equipment hits everything !
In article <MPG.2a201b1eaf76368a989...@172.16.0.1>,
Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jp4tt9$fi...@leverton.org>, n...@leverton.org says...
>> In article <MPG.2a1f82476b8d4af1989...@172.16.0.1>,
>> Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>> >They found each aircraft to be different in many ways even that they
>> >were up to 6 feet different in length !!!
>> That pilfering of military equipment hits everything !
>> Nick
>Well I would not know about that personally...
>Hello stranger long time no hear..
Hello, likewise :) I just popped in here, I'm actually looking for Linux
PowerPC material but at a less intense level than the linux-ppc kernel
development list ! c.o.l.e and c.o.l.ppc are almost dead in comparison.
A well known search engine suggests PPC does come up here once every
few years ... I miss the practical and informed Atmel formums I used
for embedded help at $OLDJOB.
How's the H8 market holding up ? :)
Nick
-- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
On May 20, 3:13 pm, Nick Leverton <n...@leverton.org> wrote:
> ... I just popped in here, I'm actually looking for Linux
> PowerPC material but at a less intense level than the linux-ppc kernel
> development list ! c.o.l.e and c.o.l.ppc are almost dead in comparison.
> A well known search engine suggests PPC does come up here once every
> few years ...
Not many use it here indeed - and even fewer would ask a PPC specific
question here, I believe.
But it is not that unlikely to get something, I use PPC (not linux
though), David does I believe and there must be someone else I just
can't think of now. So it is not that pointless.
I see a lot of linux specific questions (mostly beginners type)
in the Freescale forum - but I read only rarely the new posts
of the PPC relevant part which I get emailed. It may be
a good resource for you, certainly worth a try.
> On May 20, 3:13 pm, Nick Leverton<n...@leverton.org> wrote:
>> ... I just popped in here, I'm actually looking for Linux
>> PowerPC material but at a less intense level than the linux-ppc kernel
>> development list ! c.o.l.e and c.o.l.ppc are almost dead in comparison.
>> A well known search engine suggests PPC does come up here once every
>> few years ...
> Not many use it here indeed - and even fewer would ask a PPC specific
> question here, I believe.
> But it is not that unlikely to get something, I use PPC (not linux
> though), David does I believe and there must be someone else I just
> can't think of now. So it is not that pointless.
> I see a lot of linux specific questions (mostly beginners type)
> in the Freescale forum - but I read only rarely the new posts
> of the PPC relevant part which I get emailed. It may be
> a good resource for you, certainly worth a try.
> Dimiter
I don't know if I'm the "David" you are referring to - there are quite a few people by that name - but I use PPC-based microcontrollers from Freescale. I don't use them with Linux, however. (Freescale does make PPC microcontrollers suitable for Linux, especially for networking applications, but I haven't used those.)
You are right that PPC questions don't come up much here - PPC-based microcontrollers are quite high-end, and fairly specialised devices. Most of the development using them is done by large companies, and they are often quite secretive (automotive or military types). c.a.e. appeals more to amateurs, hobby developers, and small companies, few of which have the time and resources to use such big devices. There is a certain proportion of c.a.e. followers who are involved in such high-end development systems, and who hang out here as somewhere to teach, to learn, and to spread ideas about what interests them - but there's a fair chance that even if they use these devices, they won't talk about them much here.
However, I do believe that Freescale is aiming to spread these sorts of devices to a wider range of users. The "PX" series is not for the automotive market (though some of the chips are identical to existing automotive ones, other than the qualification and testing processes).
And ironically, given this thread's original topic, the PPC-based microcontrollers are one of the few devices types that really does have second-sources. ST Micro make a number of PPC microcontrollers under an agreement with Freescale, and though it is hard to figure out due to different numbering, I believe some of these should match up exactly with Freescale devices.
> In article <MPG.2a201b1eaf76368a989...@172.16.0.1>,
> Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <jp4tt9$fi...@leverton.org>, n...@leverton.org says...
> >> In article <MPG.2a1f82476b8d4af1989...@172.16.0.1>,
> >> Paul <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >They found each aircraft to be different in many ways even that they
> >> >were up to 6 feet different in length !!!
> >> That pilfering of military equipment hits everything !
> >> Nick
> >Well I would not know about that personally...
> >Hello stranger long time no hear..
> Hello, likewise :) I just popped in here, I'm actually looking for Linux
> PowerPC material but at a less intense level than the linux-ppc kernel
> development list ! c.o.l.e and c.o.l.ppc are almost dead in comparison.
> A well known search engine suggests PPC does come up here once every
> few years ... I miss the practical and informed Atmel formums I used
> for embedded help at $OLDJOB.
Plenty of folks here with PPC experience as you should have seen by now.
> How's the H8 market holding up ? :)
Mainly legacy now for me, occassionally I use some small ARM devices, cost tools and many other aspects.
Major part of my work these days is the manufacturing processes of ASICs
just finished a major testing system for military avionics ASIC testing.
Full temperature range testing and mixed signal ASICs, thousands per month.
Last few years has mainly moved towards ASIC market.
