Forums

Analog Device SHARC DSP

Started by June 17, 2007
I have a few question about AD SHARC DSPs.

1. I read ADSP-21375 datasheet but I still don't know whether I can use
DATA port as General Purpose IO? This question concerns also
ADSP-21367/8/9.

2. I heard that all new SHARC DSP (early revision) have some mistake. Is
that true? I want to use ADSP-21375 which is quite new and I don't know
whether that safe is. I don't want a situation that I make PCB, bay
processors and it turns out then that for example some booting method
doesn't work.

-- 
PGW
pgw <"SwietyMikolaj["@]poczta.onet.pl> wrote in news:17sic76ajc9xo
$.1d7r8r2autmzb.dlg@40tude.net:

> > I have a few question about AD SHARC DSPs. > > 1. I read ADSP-21375 datasheet but I still don't know whether I can use > DATA port as General Purpose IO? This question concerns also > ADSP-21367/8/9.
Yes
> > 2. I heard that all new SHARC DSP (early revision) have some mistake. Is > that true? I want to use ADSP-21375 which is quite new and I don't know > whether that safe is. I don't want a situation that I make PCB, bay > processors and it turns out then that for example some booting method > doesn't work. >
What problem are you concerned with? We have many ADSP-21369 customers that are not having problems. My understanding is that the 2137x is working very well. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Al Clark wrote:

>> 2. I heard that all new SHARC DSP (early revision) have some mistake. Is >> that true? I want to use ADSP-21375 which is quite new and I don't know >> whether that safe is. I don't want a situation that I make PCB, bay >> processors and it turns out then that for example some booting method >> doesn't work. >> > > What problem are you concerned with? We have many ADSP-21369 customers that > are not having problems.
And how many that are having problems? ;)
> My understanding is that the 2137x is working very > well.
I have no problem now because I never use ADSP-2137x but I want to. :) I asked this question, because someone told me that he had some problem with a SHARC DSP. I don't remember exactly what he said, something about not working a booting method. He said also, that this kind of problems are typical for new SHARC (early revision). -- PGW
pgw <"SwietyMikolaj["@]poczta.onet.pl> wrote in
news:1c6iap7o17957.keo4a8jpupvy.dlg@40tude.net: 

> Al Clark wrote: > >>> 2. I heard that all new SHARC DSP (early revision) have some >>> mistake. Is that true? I want to use ADSP-21375 which is quite new >>> and I don't know whether that safe is. I don't want a situation that >>> I make PCB, bay processors and it turns out then that for example >>> some booting method doesn't work. >>> >> >> What problem are you concerned with? We have many ADSP-21369 >> customers that are not having problems. > > And how many that are having problems? ;)
None, that I know about.
> >> My understanding is that the 2137x is working very >> well. > > I have no problem now because I never use ADSP-2137x but I want to. :) > I asked this question, because someone told me that he had some > problem with a SHARC DSP. I don't remember exactly what he said, > something about not working a booting method. He said also, that this > kind of problems are typical for new SHARC (early revision). >
We use serial flash for booting. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Al Clark wrote:

>>> My understanding is that the 2137x is working very >>> well. >> >> I have no problem now because I never use ADSP-2137x but I want to. :) >> I asked this question, because someone told me that he had some >> problem with a SHARC DSP. I don't remember exactly what he said, >> something about not working a booting method. He said also, that this >> kind of problems are typical for new SHARC (early revision). >> > > We use serial flash for booting.
You are talking about ADSP-2137x? Thanks for your help. -- PGW
pgw <"SwietyMikolaj["@]poczta.onet.pl> wrote in 
news:1oolq2r73kjfc.pshiwvoifvi.dlg@40tude.net:

> Al Clark wrote: > >>>> My understanding is that the 2137x is working very >>>> well. >>> >>> I have no problem now because I never use ADSP-2137x but I want to. :) >>> I asked this question, because someone told me that he had some >>> problem with a SHARC DSP. I don't remember exactly what he said, >>> something about not working a booting method. He said also, that this >>> kind of problems are typical for new SHARC (early revision). >>> >> >> We use serial flash for booting. > > You are talking about ADSP-2137x? > > > Thanks for your help. >
Well actually 21369. We have a few boards that we are going to install 21375 parts on soon. The 21375 and 21371 are just being released. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
2. Go to the ADSP-21375 web page and click on "IC anomalies".

Luiz Carlos

oen_br <oen_no_spam@yahoo.com.br> wrote in news:1182191591.107925.22670
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> 2. Go to the ADSP-21375 web page and click on "IC anomalies". > > Luiz Carlos > >
There is a boot anomaly for parallel booting that is descibed on the ADI web site. I have never used a parallel flash boot for a 3rd generation SHARC. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to since all of these devices support booting from serial flash. The serial flash is a small 8 pin part versus 32 pins for a parallel flash. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
oen_br wrote:

> 2. Go to the ADSP-21375 web page and click on "IC anomalies". > > Luiz Carlos
Thanks a lot, I didn't see that before. -- PGW