|
Hi all, We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) option on which option to pursue Thanks in advance. |
USB Design
Started by ●February 17, 2005
Reply by ●February 17, 20052005-02-17
|
Hi All, Some time ago we decided to use Cypress USB controller. It was good idee. Jerzy Jerzy Brzeski Zaklad Techniki Mikroprocesorowej ul.Anyzowa 15 61-680 Poznan Poland tel. +48 61 8-25-84-18 ----- Original Message ----- From: "dmarsh10" <> To: <> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:45 PM Subject: [c55x] USB Design Hi all, We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) option on which option to pursue Thanks in advance. |
Reply by ●February 18, 20052005-02-18
|
Hi, We are using the USB module of the 5509. As almost all periphery of the 5509 the USB module has its own bugs too. I suggest you to first read the errata. Although we are using it we have some problems with it. Sometimes it just stops working and we have to unplug/plug the USB cable to give it a kick. Regards, Marko Jerzy Brzeski wrote: >Hi All, > >Some time ago we decided to use Cypress USB controller. >It was good idee. > >Jerzy > >Jerzy Brzeski >Zaklad Techniki Mikroprocesorowej >ul.Anyzowa 15 >61-680 Poznan >Poland >tel. +48 61 8-25-84-18 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "dmarsh10" <> >To: <> >Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:45 PM >Subject: [c55x] USB Design >Hi all, >We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. >Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous >transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to >options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding >the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and >DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, >manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) >option on which option to pursue > >Thanks in advance. > > |
Reply by ●February 18, 20052005-02-18
|
DMARSH- > We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. > Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous > transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to > options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding > the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and > DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, > manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) > option on which option to pursue Suggest to look at the c55x group thread with subject "5509A in either HPI or EMIF mode", which was active last week. One of my posts on this is copied below. -Jeff -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [c55x] 5509A in either HPI or EMIF mode Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:36:52 -0600 From: Jeff Brower <> Organization: Signalogic, Inc To: Ludovic Tramart <> CC: Ludovic- You may find the answer is: use the C5502. After much study and tradeoff analysis, that's what we did. With C5502, you keep 32-bit EMIF and 8-bit HPI simultaneous. The cache on the C5502 and 300 MHz clock rate make up at least partially for lack of additional onchip SRAM. The only real loss was the USB, but with C5509A you need a USB transceiver anyway, and you can find tiny USB peripheral chips that include both SIE and transceiver and either give you a UART-type interface or hook up as async EMIF. The end result is no loss in board space, and a net decrease in board cost. Plus you get a UART out of the deal and you still have I2C. I guess if A/D converter, MMBus and other C5509A unique peripheral features are making a big difference, then my analysis is off base. -Jeff ludovic44fr wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We are currently upgrading our product, going from 5410A to 5509A. > > I do need to use the EMIF to load my code from flash, and i also need > to use the HPI to communicate with the Host. > > The only problem, is that these 2 ports (EMIF and HPI) are > multiplexed, on the 5509A, in one port called "Parallel port", and > that only one can be selected at reset. > > TI states in its Peripheral User Guide that it can be reconfigured by > soft by writing in the EBSR (External Bus Selection Register). OK but... > > Unfortunately, in the last revision of the 5509A datasheet, they also > state : "Dynamic switching of the parallel port, once configured, is > not recommended." Which means don't do it !!! > > Having contacted the EPIC, i got this reply from them : > > " You are right, on the C5509A, unlike on the C5409A, you need to make a > choice at reset between either using the EHPI or the EMIF. > > There are 2 ways around using a host interface: > o either reset the DSP (reset pin) each time you need to make HPI > access. > This is very drastic but is the only recommended way in order to the > HPI to > responds as per the data sheet operating conditions. > o implement a protocol to use the EMIF as host interface. > This means the DSP would have to react to an external event either by: > o an interrupt, and have an ISR read the host information > o by pulling a value on an external GPIO > " > > So in definitve, it's seems to me that if you are booting your code > from flash, you just loose the HPI capability of the DSP !? > > As anyone any experience on this DSP and faced the same probem ? > Or am I reduce to implement my own HPI interface ...? > > Thanks for your replies. > Ludovic |
Reply by ●February 18, 20052005-02-18
|
Jerzy- > Some time ago we decided to use Cypress USB controller. > It was good idee. With C5509? -Jeff > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dmarsh10" <> > To: <> > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:45 PM > Subject: [c55x] USB Design > > Hi all, > We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. > Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous > transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to > options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding > the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and > DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, > manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) > option on which option to pursue > > Thanks in advance. |
Reply by ●February 18, 20052005-02-18
|
Hi Jeff, Not exactly. We used Cypress IC as USB for our internal application like testing equipment interface, fast prototyping of interface. For communication with C5509 e.g. in boot mode we use USB embedded on C5509. Jerzy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Brower" <> To: "Jerzy Brzeski" <> Cc: "dmarsh10" <>; <> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [c55x] USB Design Jerzy- > Some time ago we decided to use Cypress USB controller. > It was good idee. With C5509? -Jeff > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dmarsh10" <> > To: <> > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:45 PM > Subject: [c55x] USB Design > > Hi all, > We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. > Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous > transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to > options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding > the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and > DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, > manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) > option on which option to pursue > > Thanks in advance. |
Reply by ●February 18, 20052005-02-18
|
Jerzy- > Not exactly. > We used Cypress IC as USB for our internal application > like testing equipment interface, fast prototyping of interface. > For communication with C5509 e.g. in boot mode we use USB > embedded on C5509. Ok understand. I assume this is C5509A. Is the boot mode reliable for you? -Jeff > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Brower" <> > To: "Jerzy Brzeski" <> > Cc: "dmarsh10" <>; <> > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:11 PM > Subject: Re: [c55x] USB Design > > Jerzy- > > > Some time ago we decided to use Cypress USB controller. > > It was good idee. > > With C5509? > > -Jeff > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "dmarsh10" <> > > To: <> > > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:45 PM > > Subject: [c55x] USB Design > > > > Hi all, > > We are starting a new project centering around USB interface. > > Basically, the project consists of a USB sound card using isochronous > > transfers and a bunch of I/O control. I find myself looking at to > > options. 1) Using Ti's 5507/09 DSP or 2) using a 55xx DSP and adding > > the cypress CY7C68001 controller. Not considering cost, layout and > > DSP options, just from a point of ease of USB programmability, > > manufacturer support and examples, does anyone have an (experienced) > > option on which option to pursue > > > > Thanks in advance. > |
