I am using DSP56807 for 3 years now, using either the SDK (Ver 2.5) or my own functions to access the peripherals, and also using uCOS-ii RTOS. I am considering changing the DSP to 568357, which has twice as much internal flash. I noticed there is no SDK to the 5683xx Family and instead you need to use a new tool called Processor Expert and Beans. I looked into this Processor Expert and I started to miss the good old SDK. It seems to me that Processor Expert is good for Novice programmer, make it look more like Visual Basic. I do not like the idea that CodeWarrior and PE generate the code and the files for me. I want to be able to control, understand and create each and every file and every line in my embedded system. I would like to ask programmers in this forum their opinion about Processor Expert Am I an old fashion control freak and Processor Expert does make things easier (even very complex embedded system) or does PE makes it harder to create A complex system, and is good only for A small system? Do you think the PE is good or you also miss the SDK? How would you recommend switching from 80x family to 83xx family? let me know what you think Thanks Tomer |
|
Processor Expert, your opinion, is it any good?
Started by ●May 17, 2004
Reply by ●July 3, 20042004-07-03
If you are interested to make 1 or 2 leds blink, PE is the right software for you. Even in this case, you will have some problems. Just visit the PE's site and you will notice that there is a patch every 10days. I spent more than 4 months to make a serious project with this software but I had( and have) very serious problems. I still use SDK for applications that need to work without problems. All the applications I built with SDK, I built with PE as well and all PE projects are useless. Unfortunately Motorola doesn't support anymore SDK and you cannot use it for new designs. PE is very good as idea, but most probably will be good to use next year. In the meantime I already ordered a development kit from TI and I am going to use TI's DSPs in my new projects. I really spent a lot of time (and money) to this "good for blinking leds" software. A disapointed former user of DSP 56F807 Pantelis --- In , "t_karin1" <tomerk@c...> wrote: > I am using DSP56807 for 3 years now, using either the SDK (Ver 2.5) > or my own functions to access the peripherals, and also using uCOS- ii > RTOS. > > I am considering changing the DSP to 568357, which has twice as much > internal flash. > I noticed there is no SDK to the 5683xx Family and instead you need > to use a new tool called Processor Expert and Beans. > > I looked into this Processor Expert and I started to miss the good > old SDK. It seems to me that Processor Expert is good for Novice > programmer, make it look more like Visual Basic. I do not like the > idea that CodeWarrior and PE generate the code and the files for me. > I want to be able to control, understand and create each and every > file and every line in my embedded system. > I would like to ask programmers in this forum their opinion about > Processor Expert > Am I an old fashion control freak and Processor Expert does make > things easier (even very complex embedded system) or does PE makes it > harder to create A complex system, and is good only for A small > system? > Do you think the PE is good or you also miss the SDK? > How would you recommend switching from 80x family to 83xx family? > let me know what you think > Thanks > Tomer |
|
Reply by ●July 3, 20042004-07-03
I tend to agree that the Metrowerks-created tools are difficult to use. flybot52 <f...@yahoo.com> wrote: If you are interested to make 1 or 2 leds blink, PE is the right |
|
Reply by ●July 3, 20042004-07-03
What really annoys me is that Motorola seem to be pushing you down this
PE route whether you want it or not. Personally, I hate this whole automatic code generation thing. It's very difficult to see what's going on and it's too easy to try and write code without really understanding the processor. Maybe it's good for learners or people who are doing simple applications, but when you want to squeeze all the performance you can out of a system or maybe do something out of the ordinary, I'm sure it's not a good system. I'd like to see standard header files being supplied with 6.x so that people can write code easily in the traditional fashion. If Motorola are worried about people getting peripherals up and running easily, example code would be a perfectly good way of doing it. I'm very suspicious about how bloaty the target software might end up being as well. --- In , "t_karin1" <tomerk@c...> wrote: > I am using DSP56807 for 3 years now, using either the SDK (Ver 2.5) > or my own functions to access the peripherals, and also using uCOS- ii > RTOS. > > I am considering changing the DSP to 568357, which has twice as much > internal flash. > I noticed there is no SDK to the 5683xx Family and instead you need > to use a new tool called Processor Expert and Beans. > > I looked into this Processor Expert and I started to miss the good > old SDK. It seems to me that Processor Expert is good for Novice > programmer, make it look more like Visual Basic. I do not like the > idea that CodeWarrior and PE generate the code and the files for me. > I want to be able to control, understand and create each and every > file and every line in my embedded system. > I would like to ask programmers in this forum their opinion about > Processor Expert > Am I an old fashion control freak and Processor Expert does make > things easier (even very complex embedded system) or does PE makes it > harder to create A complex system, and is good only for A small > system? > Do you think the PE is good or you also miss the SDK? > How would you recommend switching from 80x family to 83xx family? > let me know what you think > Thanks > Tomer _____________________________________ Note: If you do a simple "reply" with your email client, only the author of this message will receive your answer. You need to do a "reply all" if you want your answer to be distributed to the entire group. _____________________________________ About this discussion group: To Join: To Post: To Leave: Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 Yahoo! Groups Links |
|
Reply by ●July 4, 20042004-07-04
I never even liked the SDK. I thought it
added too much overhead, and made the code bulkier and more difficult to
understand. I started out trying to use the SDK, but gave up and created my
own header files. I wrote the lowest level subroutines (the ones that
twiddle bits) in assembly language. It's not that hard.
Doug Holub
Irving, TX
|
Reply by ●July 4, 20042004-07-04
I heartily agree with all of Robert Woods points.
At one time, the Motorola manuals were the easiest to read, there were
plenty of examples and app notes, and writing for their microcontrollers and
DSPs was almost a breeze. Now, everything is hidden under piles of
Metrowerks tools that are difficult to use. I would welcome going back to
the simpler approach that was a big part of Motorola's success years
ago.
Robert Wood <r...@apostrophe.co.uk> wrote: What really annoys me is that Motorola seem to be pushing you down this PE |
Reply by ●July 5, 20042004-07-05
Kenneth Ciszewski wrote: > I tend to agree that the Metrowerks-created tools are difficult to use. Of course we don't feel that they are difficult to use but sometimes it is hard for someone familiar to step back and see the problems others are having. I'd be interested in a survey, please just respond to me not everyone. Would having free online courses for using our tools be of benefit? How about more tutorials. What documentation is missing, what needs improved. What can we do to make this a faster more simpler system... which is what it is meant to be? Ron -- Metrowerks, one of the worlds top 100 companies and influencers in the software development industry. - SD Times May 2004 http://www.sdtimes.com/2004sdt100.htm Metrowerks, maker of CodeWarrior Ron Liechty - - http://www.metrowerks.com |
Reply by ●July 5, 20042004-07-05
Message
The Metrowerks tools take time to learn. But in my experience the code
size on the DSP56F800, which only has 8K available, is reduced using PE. (I
Don't understand why).
PE looks and feels more like Visual C++ environment. Unfortunately
there are issues wrt to user-help and clear instructions on what files are
created for each bean. This would help the user be able to optimize his project.
There also needs to be more comments in the code generated by
PE.
Overall if Unis get their act together and address these issues they
will have a very good development environment.
Jason
|
|
Reply by ●July 6, 20042004-07-06
--- In , "t_karin1" <tomerk@c...> wrote: > I am using DSP56807 for 3 years now, using either the SDK (Ver 2.5) > or my own functions to access the peripherals, and also using uCOS- ii > RTOS. > > I am considering changing the DSP to 568357, which has twice as much > internal flash. > I noticed there is no SDK to the 5683xx Family and instead you need > to use a new tool called Processor Expert and Beans. > > I looked into this Processor Expert and I started to miss the good > old SDK. It seems to me that Processor Expert is good for Novice > programmer, make it look more like Visual Basic. I do not like the > idea that CodeWarrior and PE generate the code and the files for me. > I want to be able to control, understand and create each and every > file and every line in my embedded system. > I would like to ask programmers in this forum their opinion about > Processor Expert > Am I an old fashion control freak and Processor Expert does make > things easier (even very complex embedded system) or does PE makes it > harder to create A complex system, and is good only for A small > system? > Do you think the PE is good or you also miss the SDK? > How would you recommend switching from 80x family to 83xx family? > let me know what you think > Thanks > Tomer Processor Expert is really SDK++. All of the existing libraries and most of applications from SDK were moved over into the PE infrastructure. PE adds support for windows-based configuration of peripherals and drivers. PE also provides a low level interface to the hardware, similar to the IOCTL calls found in SDK. Processor Expert Standard Library (PESL) provides low level routines to manipulate the architecture. Most PESL calls are just macros that produce one or two assembly instructions. With PESL you can write your own drivers, including initialization code. However you can also use PE to just initialize your peripherals using "init" beans and write the rest yourself. One of the great improvements over SDK is that PE provides an initialization inspector that will allow you to know exactly how each peripheral is setup after boot. You can check the after boot content of each peripheral register and even get a disassembled description of each register. With SDK you had to dig this info out using the debugger. You can chose to develop your application using as much or as little of PE as you chose: * Write your application from scratch using CodeWarrior Stationery, writing your own drivers, i.e. don't use PE at all. * Use CPU bean in Processor Expert to take care of startup configuration and write everything else using PESL or your own custom code. * Use CPU bean in PE and init beans for startup of CPU and initial configuration of each peripheral. Write rest of drivers yourself. * Use CPU bean and bean drivers from Processor Expert, freeze (disable) Processor expert code generation, and then customize selected drivers. * Use CPU bean and bean drivers from Processor Expert, then customize selected drivers by writing new beans based on the old ones. *** So you can see that there is a wide range of uses for Processor Expert in your application. *** It has been noted in other responses that Unis posts many updates to PE on their website. If you actually look into the readme files for each of these updates you will see that most of them reflect patches focused on a few obscure issues rather than some deeper problem. These patches allow you to get updated code sooner than waiting for the next release of CodeWarrior. Inside of CodeWarrior's online help you will find a quickstart guide and tutorial for Processor Expert. The Accelerated Development System Resource Pack CD that comes with every EVM has additional lessons on Processor Expert. Freescale and Unis can also support you with additional training in the use of CodeWarrior and Processor Expert. Classes exist on beginning, intermediate, and expert PE use. |
Reply by ●July 6, 20042004-07-06
--- In , "Jason Keddie" <jason.keddie@e...> wrote: > The Metrowerks tools take time to learn. But in my experience the code size on the DSP56F800, which only has 8K available, is reduced using PE. (I Don't understand why). PE looks and feels more like Visual C++ environment. Unfortunately there are issues wrt to user- help and clear instructions on what files are created for each bean. This would help the user be able to optimize his project. There also needs to be more comments in the code generated by PE. > > Overall if Unis get their act together and address these issues they will have a very good development environment. > > Jason There are a few simple rules that can easily improve the memory footprint of a PE based project. In order of return on effort, they are: 1) Minimize data memory use by reducing heap space. - Are you using malloc at all? The standard linker command file has lots of space reserved for heap. Look under the build options tab of the CPU bean. 2) Minimize data memory by reducing stack space. - Use the stack check routines built into the tools library. Measure the high water mark for stack usage, add some windage, and then minimize stack allocation. (See CPU bean, build options tab). 3) The linker will deadstrip unused code, but unused methods and events may leave initialization code in the Processor Expert startup code. Remove all unused events (ISRs) and methods. (If you trim too much you will get a compile error alerting you to an unprototyped call.) |