Sign in
Search c54x
Subscribe to c54x
c54x by Keywords
5409 | 5416 | AD5 | ADC | BIOS | Boot | Booting | Bootloader | C540 | C5402 | C5409 | C5416 | CCS | Codec | DMA | Dmad | DSK | DSKPlus | Dsplib | EVM | FFT | FIR | Flash | GPIO | HPI | Initialization | Interrupt | JTAG | LOG_printf | MCBSP | RFFT | RTDX | Sampling | STLM | UART | VC540
Ads
Discussion Groups
Discussion Groups | TMS320C54x | Re: [Fwd: Re: Testing BIO pin without branching]
Technical discussions about the TI C54x DSPs (including the c5401, c5402, c5402a, c5404, c5407, c5409, c5409a, c5410, c5410a, c5416, c5420, c5421, c5441, c549, c5470 and c5471).
[Fwd: Re: Testing BIO pin without branching] - Jeff Brower - Dec 22 18:55:00 2002
|
Andrew- > i didnt know of the XC pin, ill definetly have a look at that. It's an instruction, but you should be able to avoid the branch instruction hit by careful coding. > for the serial communication idea, i simply dont know of any other way to achieve what i have > to, both McBSP's on the 5402are already being used and i need another serial communications > link at 400 kbs. If it doesnt work im going to have to change DSPs, maybe a 5510 (it has 3 McBSP's) 400 kbps is not going to be easy for "software McBSP" using XF and BIO. If you have other real-time processing happening, the overhead is going to be a problem. What about C5409? This is less expensive than C5509, but has 3x McBSPs. Plus, it's pin-compatible with C5402. Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic |
|
|
(You need to be a member of c54x -- send a blank email to c54x-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: [Fwd: Re: Testing BIO pin without branching] - Jeff Brower - Dec 26 3:24:00 2002
|
Andrew- > i was going to use th 5510 over the 5409 because supposedly the 55's use less power > and im doing a wireless application (its actually a dual channel wireless headset for the > blind association of W.A), do u think in real applications the DSP power saving is > significant? If you have the freedom to choose either device to start the hardware part of your application, by all means C5510 is a good choice. Yes it has less power consumption. I was under the impression that you already had a hardware prototype and wanted to upgrade the chip without changing the design. Keep in mind that C5510 is a 240-pin BGA device, while C5509 and other C55xx devices are 179-pin BGA. So if you want to change out devices on your board in the future, that could become an issue. -Jeff |
(You need to be a member of c54x -- send a blank email to c54x-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: [Fwd: Re: Testing BIO pin without branching] - Jeff Brower - Dec 29 17:43:00 2002
|
Andrew- > We already have a couple 5402 DSK's, but the supervisor wants to test power consumption > etc on the final device with the 5510 so we ordered them, it takes 8 weeks for delivery (not > good for project schedule) so we are starting what we can with the 5402. Will that work? It will be difficult to separate power consumption for the chip vs. everything else on the C5510 DSK board. > Im just worried about the 5510 DKS a bit, do you know if it has any really big problems with > it (in the same way as the CPLD on the 5402 DSK does)? The c55x group is not as big as the > c54x group and i cant find any good info on problems that might exist. The DSK C5510 board is new and people are just starting to get familiar with it. So it will take some time to get the same quality of answers as on the C54x group. You might search for mails posted about the C5416 DSK board, because it also has a USB interface and installation and CCS software config issues might be relevant. Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic Jeff Brower <> wrote: Andrew- > i was going to use th 5510 over the 5409 because supposedly the 55's use less power > and im doing a wireless application (its actually a dual channel wireless headset for the > blind association of W.A), do u think in real applications the DSP power saving is > significant? If you have the freedom to choose either device to start the hardware part of your application, by all means C5510 is a good choice. Yes it has less power consumption. I was under the impression that you already had a hardware prototype and wanted to upgrade the chip without changing the design. Keep in mind that C5510 is a 240-pin BGA device, while C5509 and other C55xx devices are 179-pin BGA. So if you want to change out devices on your board in the future, that could become an issue. |
(You need to be a member of c54x -- send a blank email to c54x-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: [Fwd: Re: Testing BIO pin without branching] - Jeff Brower - Dec 30 18:56:00 2002
|
Andrew- > The unknown factor of the 55x is worrying me a bit. Do you know of any > books or even any websites that give good info on the c55x and its application > (a big ask i know). Not yet! My suggestions would be the Yahoo groups and comp.dsp news group. > Also what software config issues do you mean, i was under the impression that > CCS would configure itself to whatever platform is being used? Wow you are such a trusting customer! Yes TI's software is *perfect* :-) Always. Can we sell you something? J/k. My suggestion to ask/search for C5416 DSK install issues was intended for you to get some idea, ahead of time, of anything to watch out for with C5510 DSK, for example OS specific issues, possible equipment or USB problems, compatibility with your previous installed version of CCS, etc. Clearly a new version of CCS is involved. I.e. general install / setup issues. CCS has had a reputation for being cantankerous on parallel port install; changing over to USB is supposed to help deal with that, plus offer improved performance. P.S. You did not answer my power consumption question (below). Just how do you intend to measure/compare C5402 to C5510 using DSK boards, or is it something that will happen only in your supervisor's dreams? Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic Cheers Andrew Jeff Brower <> wrote: Andrew- > We already have a couple 5402 DSK's, but the supervisor wants to test power consumption > etc on the final device with the 5510 so we ordered them, it takes 8 weeks for delivery (not > good for project schedule) so we are starting what we can with the 5402. Will that work? It will be difficult to separate power consumption for the chip vs. everything else on the C5510 DSK board. > Im just worried about the 5510 DKS a bit, do you know if it has any really big problems with > it (in the same way as the CPLD on the 5402 DSK does)? The c55x group is not as big as the > c54x group and i cant find any good info on problems that might exist. The DSK C5510 board is new and people are just starting to get familiar with it. So it will take some time to get the same quality of answers as on the C54x group. You might search for mails posted about the C5416 DSK board, because it also has a USB interface and installation and CCS software config issues might be relevant. Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic Jeff Brower wrote: Andrew- > i was going to use th 5510 over the 5409 because supposedly the 55's use less power > and im doing a wireless application (its actually a dual channel wireless headset for the > blind association of W.A), do u think in real applications the DSP power saving is > significant? If you have the freedom to choose either device to start the hardware part of your application, by all means C5510 is a good choice. Yes it has less power consumption. I was under the impression that you already had a hardware prototype and wanted to upgrade the chip without changing the design. Keep in mind that C5510 is a 240-pin BGA device, while C5509 and other C55xx devices are 179-pin BGA. So if you want to change out devices on your board in the future, that could become an issue. |
(You need to be a member of c54x -- send a blank email to c54x-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: [Fwd: Re: Testing BIO pin without branching] - Jeff Brower - Jan 1 17:55:00 2003
|
Andrew- > What i meant was the supervisor wanted to test power consumption of the > system as a whole (incorporating the 5510) to get an idea on battery life. The "systems" in this case are DSK boards, so tell your supervisor for me he/she is wasting time. Measured DSK power consumption will have no relevance to your actual application board which will be a fraction of the size and contain far fewer components. The DSK boards use different components also. > (considering that the 55 is known to use power than the 54 i think we will > just consider the 55). The application is simple and uses infrared so DSP > power consumption is a major player. > Just another question. When developing applications with the 54's, 55's > etc when the time comes to manafacture the end system, do you have to > include the entire CPLD that is used on the DSK in order for the code to > work? How is it done, ive got no idea? No of course not! You may not need a PLD or other external logic device at all. It depends on what your board will do and which components you choose and how they interface to each other. Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic Jeff Brower <> wrote: Andrew- > The unknown factor of the 55x is worrying me a bit. Do you know of any > books or even any websites that give good info on the c55x and its application > (a big ask i know). Not yet! My suggestions would be the Yahoo groups and comp.dsp news group. > Also what software config issues do you mean, i was under the impression that > CCS would configure itself to whatever platform is being used? Wow you are such a trusting customer! Yes TI's software is *perfect* :-) Always. Can we sell you something? J/k. My suggestion to ask/search for C5416 DSK install issues was intended for you to get some idea, ahead of time, of anything to watch out for with C5510 DSK, for example OS specific issues, possible equipment or USB problems, compatibility with your previous installed version of CCS, etc. Clearly a new version of CCS is involved. I.e. general install / setup issues. CCS has had a reputation for being cantankerous on parallel port install; changing over to USB is supposed to help deal with that, plus offer improved performance. P.S. You did not answer my power consumption question (below). Just how do you intend to measure/compare C5402 to C5510 using DSK boards, or is it something that will happen only in your supervisor's dreams? Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic Cheers Andrew Jeff Brower wrote: Andrew- > We already have a couple 5402 DSK's, but the supervisor wants to test power consumption > etc on the final device with the 5510 so we ordered them, it takes 8 weeks for delivery (not > good for project schedule) so we are starting what we can with the 5402. Will that work? It will be difficult to separate power consumption for the chip vs. everything else on the C5510 DSK board. > Im just worried about the 5510 DKS a bit, do you know if it has any really big problems with > it (in the same way as the CPLD on the 5402 DSK does)? The c55x group is not as big as the > c54x group and i cant find any good info on problems that might exist. The DSK C5510 board is new and people are just starting to get familiar with it. So it will take some time to get the same quality of answers as on the C54x group. You might search for mails posted about the C5416 DSK board, because it also has a USB interface and installation and CCS software config issues might be relevant. Jeff Brower DSP sw/hw engineer Signalogic Jeff Brower wrote: Andrew- > i was going to use th 5510 over the 5409 because supposedly the 55's use less power > and im doing a wireless application (its actually a dual channel wireless headset for the > blind association of W.A), do u think in real applications the DSP power saving is > significant? If you have the freedom to choose either device to start the hardware part of your application, by all means C5510 is a good choice. Yes it has less power consumption. I was under the impression that you already had a hardware prototype and wanted to upgrade the chip without changing the design. Keep in mind that C5510 is a 240-pin BGA device, while C5509 and other C55xx devices are 179-pin BGA. So if you want to change out devices on your board in the future, that could become an issue. |
(You need to be a member of c54x -- send a blank email to c54x-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )