Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:qYWdnb_1Gt2tnsTZRVn-jQ@giganews.com:
> Al Clark wrote:
>
>> You can get a free Visual DSP KIT license that operates on either our
>> boards or the ADI EZ-Kits. These products include a built in debugger
>> (ICE). The KIT license is restricted after 90 days to 1/4 of the
>> available memory for program size. It starts out as a full license.
>
> Does this mean that only 1/4 of the available program memory is usable
> with the remainder wasted or that only 1/4 of the attached memory is
> available for program with the rest available for data? I don't know
> the memory architecture of the family.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
You can use all the memory. The linker restricts the program code to 1/4 of
the available memory. For example, a long delay line doesn't count.
The other restriction is that you can't use either an external emulator
(which you don't need) or the simulator (which you probably don't need
either since you have a buit in debugger). You also must be connected to
the debugger.
We build all of our dspstak boards in two versions, a debugger version (for
development) and a production version (no debugger, lower cost). This
allows our customers to develop their products inexpensively with a
debugger version and then move to production version later.
--
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by Bob Cain●May 3, 20062006-05-03
Al Clark wrote:
> You can get a free Visual DSP KIT license that operates on either our
> boards or the ADI EZ-Kits. These products include a built in debugger
> (ICE). The KIT license is restricted after 90 days to 1/4 of the
> available memory for program size. It starts out as a full license.
Does this mean that only 1/4 of the available program memory is usable with
the remainder wasted or that only 1/4 of the attached memory is available
for program with the rest available for data? I don't know the memory
architecture of the family.
Thanks,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Reply by Andor●May 2, 20062006-05-02
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article 44552880$0$13572$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Sam B at
> hotmail@totalsam.com wrote on 04/30/2006 17:14:
>
> > Hi all !
> >
> > Thank you for reading my post.
>
> well, since no one else responds ....
>
> > I would like to do a custom DSP board for audio processing. I also would
> > like to put the release under GPL license, so I'd like to find a DSP for
> > which gcc has been ported.
>
> you'ld like to make and sell your own board??? and package it with some C
> compiler?
Some people just can't get enough :-).
>
> >
> > I first wanted to use a SHARC 212xx or 213xx, but g21 only supports 210xx.
>
> i thought that SHArC opcodes were upward or backward compatible. does g21
> create code that cannot run on a 212xx?
g21k only supporst 21060, 21061and 21062. Not even 21065L is supported.
It is not trivial, if possible at all, to coerce g21k to produce code
for the not-supported processors (see
http://groups.google.ch/group/comp.dsp/msg/512379a3347ba48f and Jim's
follow-up for a short discussion). The problem is not code
compatibility but linking and memory maps.
>
> i think Al Clark oughta chip in here. he might already have the custom
> wheel that you want to re-engineer.
Both Danville or Beastrider should provide interesting reads for the
OP.
Regards,
Andor
Reply by Al Clark●May 2, 20062006-05-02
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in
news:C07C778E.14237%rbj@audioimagination.com:
> in article 44552880$0$13572$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Sam B at
> hotmail@totalsam.com wrote on 04/30/2006 17:14:
>
>> Hi all !
>>
>> Thank you for reading my post.
>
> well, since no one else responds ....
>
>> I would like to do a custom DSP board for audio processing. I also
>> would like to put the release under GPL license, so I'd like to find
>> a DSP for which gcc has been ported.
>
> you'ld like to make and sell your own board??? and package it with
> some C compiler?
>
>>
>> I first wanted to use a SHARC 212xx or 213xx, but g21 only supports
>> 210xx.
>
> i thought that SHArC opcodes were upward or backward compatible. does
> g21 create code that cannot run on a 212xx?
>
> i think Al Clark oughta chip in here. he might already have the
> custom wheel that you want to re-engineer.
>
ADI used to have the reputation that their parts were great and their
tools sucked. The tools they were referring to were the old 2102x stuff
you mentioned.
You can get a free Visual DSP KIT license that operates on either our
boards or the ADI EZ-Kits. These products include a built in debugger
(ICE). The KIT license is restricted after 90 days to 1/4 of the
available memory for program size. It starts out as a full license.
For many projects, this is not an issue.
The SHARC is the most popular DSP family for high performance audio. This
is absolutely clear by just walking around an AES Conference for a few
minutes. For the last few years, TI has been promoting converters and
opamps at this conference and Freescale has not even been in attendance.
The newest SHARC, the ADSP-21369 is a great DSP for audio. It supports
SDRAM, 8 high serial ports (SPORTs), SPI, I2C, UARTs, S/PDIF, ASRC etc.
We expect that virtually every new board we release this year will use a
ADSP-21369.
--
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by fizteh89●May 2, 20062006-05-02
TI TMS320C6713 for a professional audio (need a floating point DSP for
this)
Forget about gcc and GPL.
Get one of those DSP starter kits with Code Composer Studio etc.
You might also want to get an audio daughter card for use with DSK.
Sam B wrote:
> Hi all !
>
> Thank you for reading my post.
>
> I would like to do a custom DSP board for audio processing. I also would
> like to put the release under GPL license, so I'd like to find a DSP for
> which gcc has been ported.
>
> I first wanted to use a SHARC 212xx ou 213xx, but g21 only supports 210xx.
>
> Then I saw TI C6272, but it seems that the c6x-gcc has not been targeted
> for c67x.
>
> Well, I could use now a Freescale DSP563xx or a ADI Blackfin, but those
> are fixed point, and I've read that 32bit floating point is better for
> audio.
>
> What about the ARM9x6E or MIPS 24ke ? Well, those are just cores, and it
> seems to be very difficult to find some silicon implementations....
> Which manufacturers do some ?
>
> Thank you in advance for any help
>
> Sam
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●May 2, 20062006-05-02
in article 44552880$0$13572$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Sam B at
hotmail@totalsam.com wrote on 04/30/2006 17:14:
> Hi all !
>
> Thank you for reading my post.
well, since no one else responds ....
> I would like to do a custom DSP board for audio processing. I also would
> like to put the release under GPL license, so I'd like to find a DSP for
> which gcc has been ported.
you'ld like to make and sell your own board??? and package it with some C
compiler?
>
> I first wanted to use a SHARC 212xx or 213xx, but g21 only supports 210xx.
i thought that SHArC opcodes were upward or backward compatible. does g21
create code that cannot run on a 212xx?
i think Al Clark oughta chip in here. he might already have the custom
wheel that you want to re-engineer.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by Sam B●April 30, 20062006-04-30
Hi all !
Thank you for reading my post.
I would like to do a custom DSP board for audio processing. I also would
like to put the release under GPL license, so I'd like to find a DSP for
which gcc has been ported.
I first wanted to use a SHARC 212xx ou 213xx, but g21 only supports 210xx.
Then I saw TI C6272, but it seems that the c6x-gcc has not been targeted
for c67x.
Well, I could use now a Freescale DSP563xx or a ADI Blackfin, but those
are fixed point, and I've read that 32bit floating point is better for
audio.
What about the ARM9x6E or MIPS 24ke ? Well, those are just cores, and it
seems to be very difficult to find some silicon implementations....
Which manufacturers do some ?
Thank you in advance for any help
Sam