"Ron Huizen" <rhuizen@bittware.com> wrote in message
news:10rhdp3ij2bec6d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net...
> >> > Looks like a real screamer!  Wonder what it will cost?  I'm still
> >> > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in
> >> > SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed.  I might be able to live
>
> It already exists, though they stuck the prefix "Tiger" in front of SHARC
> :-)
> 300 MHx for TS101 or 600 MHz for TS201, and you get your sdram controller,
> links, and multiprocessing.  No sports though, and maybe that's why you
> don't like it?

The problems I have with the TS parts are:
1) High price (>$150 vs <$30 for 21161)
2) The fact that I can't take advantage of the any of the cool features to do
multiple lower-precision operations since I always operate on 40-bit FP data.
So I pay for features I can't use.
3) It isn't targeted toward the pro audio market (where I work) so there are
issues with peripherals, etc.
4) Major architectural differences from the other SHARCs which would probably
require a large programming effort to convert our vast library of assembly code
to the new platform.  (Never really got far enough to see just how much work
this would take, but it doesn't look trivial.)

The newly announced TS301 looks a lot better in terms of price, but the other
issues still remain AFAIK.

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net...
>> > Looks like a real screamer!  Wonder what it will cost?  I'm still
>> > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in
>> > SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed.  I might be able to live

It already exists, though they stuck the prefix "Tiger" in front of SHARC 
:-)
300 MHx for TS101 or 600 MHz for TS201, and you get your sdram controller, 
links, and multiprocessing.  No sports though, and maybe that's why you 
don't like it?

----
Ron Huizen
BittWare

On 2004-12-09 21:06:00 +0100, Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com> said:

> Hi Stephan,
> 
> I'm not sure if I know the context of your question.
> Our current dspstak boards have USB driver support (via ftdichip.com) 
> for most OS's including MAC. I don't know of any way to run the ADI 
> tools except from Windows.
> 
> BeastRider tools also support Linux. There is a 21262 version.
> 
> Of course, you could buy lots of boards and develop the MAC support 
> yourself ;-). We have ZERO experience with the MAC.

Yeah sorry for being a bit unclear - the last time I developed on an EZ 
Kit in the 1990s there was no USB (it was all done with a "real" Wintel 
box via RS232 IIRC) so I realize this question is indeed a bit silly 
today.

Running the ADI tools from inside VPC is not the problem I suppose. 
From what I remember, the problem was interfacing the hardware back 
then because emulating the low level stuff via RS232 never really 
worked, ie the tools didn't find the board.

But that wasn't USB and not OS X then, so I guess this should no longer 
be an issue today. You did answer the actual question, too: if there 
are no MacOS X tools for the DSPs then we must use VPC and the ADI 
tools... worth a try at least.
-- 
Stephan M. Bernsee
http://www.dspdimension.com

Stephan M. Bernsee <spam@dspdimension.com> wrote in news:31ro4kF3diedlU1
@individual.net:

> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> I asked this in the MacOS X development thread but apparently it got 
> lost: any plans to support MacOS X in the long run? There are some of 
> us who'd love to do their development work on that platform...

Hi Stephan,

I'm not sure if I know the context of your question. 

Our current dspstak boards have USB driver support (via ftdichip.com) for 
most OS's including MAC. I don't know of any way to run the ADI tools 
except from Windows.

BeastRider tools also support Linux. There is a 21262 version.

Of course, you could buy lots of boards and develop the MAC support 
yourself ;-). We have ZERO experience with the MAC.

-- 
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31rks7F3ddvkmU1@individual.net: 

> "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B9F35504C2Baclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
>> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net:
>>
>>
>> The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new
>> parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364.
>>
>> We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that
>> include an FPGA and SDRAM.
> 
> Thanks, Al!  Somehow I missed the SDRAM controller feature when I
> looked at those parts.  If you don't mind me asking, what is the
> difference between the '67 and '68?  The selection table doesn't show
> any differences except for package.
> 
> 
> 

The ADSP-21367 is primarily aimed at large OEMs who license audio 
algorithms (Dolby, DTS, etc) that reside in the ROM.

The ADSP-21368 is a more general purpose part. It is the only one that 
supports multiprocessing. In also has ROM but for the rest of the world 
market, it won't be used.

The new DSPs also have a few new peripherals:

1. Sample Rate Converters (also on the 21364, available soon)
2. S/PDIF transceiver (also on the 21364, available soon)
2. UARTs
3. Two Wire Interface (the legal way to avoid saying I2C)

The big change with third generation SHARCs is the abundance and 
flexibilty of the peripherals. This started with the 21262. They are also 
2x4 times faster than the 21161. 

-- 
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com

Hi Al,

I asked this in the MacOS X development thread but apparently it got 
lost: any plans to support MacOS X in the long run? There are some of 
us who'd love to do their development work on that platform...
-- 
Stephan M. Bernsee
http://www.dspdimension.com

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9F35504C2Baclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net:
>
>
> The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new
> parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364.
>
> We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that
> include an FPGA and SDRAM.

Thanks, Al!  Somehow I missed the SDRAM controller feature when I looked at
those parts.  If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference between the
'67 and '68?  The selection table doesn't show any differences except for
package.

Jon Harris wrote:
...
> particular, the lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us
...

Say Jon, I've always wondered: who is us?

Regards,
Andor

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net: 

> "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B9B196B3FEBaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
>> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net:
>>
>> > "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
>> >>
>> >> ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor
>> >> support. It won't be sampling until at next summer.
>> >
>> > Looks like a real screamer!  Wonder what it will cost?  I'm still
>> > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing,
>> > built-in SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed.  I might be
>> > able to live without the links and use the SPORTs instead if
>> > everything else was there.
>>
>> Might be a long wait, I'm afraid.
>> >
>>
>> Not so long,
>>
>> We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We
>> were first with the ADSP-21262)
>>
>> If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check
>> out our roadmap:
>>
>> http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap
>>
>> There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements.
> 
> Thanks, Al.  Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that fits my
> wish list either on your site or ADI product map.  In particular, the
> lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us and the lack of
> link ports is a smaller problem as well.
> 
> 
> 

The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new 
parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364.

We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that 
include an FPGA and SDRAM.


-- 
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9B196B3FEBaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net:
>
> > "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
> >>
> >> ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor
> >> support. It won't be sampling until at next summer.
> >
> > Looks like a real screamer!  Wonder what it will cost?  I'm still
> > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in
> > SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed.  I might be able to live
> > without the links and use the SPORTs instead if everything else was
> > there.
>
> Might be a long wait, I'm afraid.
> >
>
> Not so long,
>
> We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We were
> first with the ADSP-21262)
>
> If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check out
> our roadmap:
>
> http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap
>
> There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements.

Thanks, Al.  Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that fits my wish list
either on your site or ADI product map.  In particular, the lack of SDRAM
controller is a major problem for us and the lack of link ports is a smaller
problem as well.