Author Topic: Atmel versus NXP  (Read 11673 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2789
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: Atmel versus NXP
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2015, 08:38:44 pm »
Are you kidding? NXP has been making ARM microcontrollers for over a decade now. Their peripherals are very mature.

@Jeroen3: I didn't run in any trouble with the LPC11U67 (the one with USB which does have a minor bug in the USB part).
NXP's peripherals are usually reasonable simplistic. Except for the few specialty ones, like sgpio or sct. I did encounter an issue in the SPI of the LPC17 that would always inserts a dead cycle when done writing. But I was attempting to abuse spi for WS2811 led's.
I also played around with one of the first generations LPC43's, those can be considered buggy. But still revolutionary with high clocks and two cores, sgpio, quad spi booting from rom (if it works). They should have fixed most bugs by now.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4120
  • Country: gb
Re: Atmel versus NXP
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2015, 08:52:45 pm »

I also played around with one of the first generations LPC43's, those can be considered buggy. But still revolutionary with high clocks and two cores, sgpio, quad spi booting from rom (if it works). They should have fixed most bugs by now.

It appears they have, although I wouldn't want to risk using a quad spi flash other than those recommended. That is one of the benefits of using a device that has been out for a year or so. It's human nature to go for the latest thing in town, but it's also a risky strategy, as I found to my cost with Microchip's PIC32MZ.
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 620
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Atmel versus NXP
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2015, 07:29:07 pm »
Are you kidding? NXP has been making ARM microcontrollers for over a decade now. Their peripherals are very mature.

A decade isn't very long.

For the purposes of argument, people will adjust the definitions of words to whatever is convenient, even if they end up spouting meaningless comments.

The first micro was created 44 years ago, so 10 years is about 23% of the that. I would say that is a significant proportion.
Bob
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13889
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Atmel versus NXP
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2015, 10:09:41 pm »
What I mean is, look at how far the ICs have come in that time frame. NXP's peripherals still have issues.
That remark is pretty generic so please provide an example of a issue NXP should have fixed.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Bassman59

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 645
  • Country: us
  • Yes, I do this for a living
Re: Atmel versus NXP
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2015, 06:19:33 am »
What I mean is, look at how far the ICs have come in that time frame. NXP's peripherals still have issues.
That remark is pretty generic so please provide an example of a issue NXP should have fixed.

For one, the EMIF issue on the LPC1800-series devices.
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 702
  • Country: us
Re: Atmel versus NXP
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2015, 06:35:52 am »
The compile/program/debug cycle is slow though on NXP. I use the LPC Link2 with LPCxpresso, I am not sure if this is just LPCxpresso or the debugger tool itself, or both,

It's LPxpresso. I use NXP parts and the LPC-Link2 with Rowley CrossWorks and CrossWorks compiles and programs the chip much faster than LPxpresso.
Never trust a government that doesn't trust you.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf