Super PlugaPod?

[Norse]

I saw this in a posting....

"Well, maybe by then we'll have a couple new things out that may help. We're working on a Super PlugaPod(TM) for PJE that will have more internal memory and two serials, and is smaller than a MinPod."

I am slowly designing a PCB layout with the PlugaPod footprint nicely in the centre. I kind of stopped dead in my track when reading about the Super version... Any more information available, including footprint and availability?

Cheers,

Per-Inge

[Pacetech]

Well, very interesting indeed. More internal memory would mean using the 807 chip (the one on the ServoPod).

I'd recommed considering going to 2mm (.080") pitch pins instead of .100" - to handle the extra pins you will be using.

I'm too far into my design to jump ship now, but I've got 548 bytes left in my PROGRAM FLASH and I still have lots of words to add.

-Patrick

[PJE]

The Super PlugaPod is - NMI correct me if I'm wrong - based on the 56F8355 chip.

The base spec for this chip is:

* 256KB Program Flash
* 4KB Program RAM
* 16KB Boot Flash
* 16KB Data RAM
* 8KB Data Flash

It also runs at 60MHz rather than 40MHz and is almost single cycle - instructions per clock - so is depending on application can be almost twice as fast as the 56F80x family.

It's also pin compatible with the 56F8365 which has:

* 512KB Program Flash
* 4KB Program RAM
* 32KB Boot Flash
* 32KB Data RAM
* 32KB Data Flash
* Two CAN modules.

I bet you're now waiting as impatiantly as I am for NMI to release the Super PlugaPod... :)

PJE

[RMDumse]

I thought we were using the 56F8355 too, but Tom actually sampled and laid out for the 56F8365. So we have the part, we're waiting for the board from the board shop.

[Norse]

I like the look of this.
Hopefully a sneak preview of the board's pinout will soon be made available. Perhaps a dedicated LCD header on the board too?
I assume the ADC is only limited to max 3.6V ?

My anticipated timeline is fairly open but I hope to see some details over the next couple of months.

Cheers,

Per

[terje]

Hello,

This certainly looks very promising! In light of other discussions over limitations of the Pod's serial ports and software UARTS, I also hope for the following goodies:

* 4 serial ports (depending on on-chip resources... more is even better)
* Each port selectable baud rate up to minimum 115.2 kbaud
* Each port selectable RS232 or TTL/3,3V (compliant with both 3,3V and 5V input if possible, even if they only output 3,3V)

Even if it may not be possible this time, I hope you keep these wishes in mind further down the road.

Then, of course, in desktop PC's the COMM ports are replaced by USB, but there are still loads of modules and home-built circuits with old-fashioned serial communications that are interesting in embedded systems. And if a USB port is finally added, it should be a host, so that you may connect a modern USB camera module, etc. The latest dual channel FTDI-chip solution looks great (and compact), but still only operates in USB client mode?

Cheers, Terje

[PJE]

Hi,

The 56F83x5 has two serial ports, but if a large number of high speed serial ports are needed I'd recommend adding multiple SPI based UARTs such as the MAXIM devices. They have a UART with built in RS232 tranciever where the TTL signals are routed out of the chip and then back in. They also have an SPI RS485 UART.

As the 56F83x5 has two SPI ports, one could be configured to handle these chips leaving the other for other interfacing tasks.

PJE

[RMDumse]

From the product suggestions PJE started:

Here is the pinout as it currently stands:

Left dual row (top view, regulators at top).

SO VIN
SI GND
ATN RESET
GND +5
PWMA0 PWMA1
PWMA2 PWMA3
PWMA4 PWMA5
TC0 TC1
TA0 TA1
TA2 TA3
SCLK0 MOSI0
MISO0 SS0
TB0 TB1
TB2 TB3
PWMB0 PWMB1
PWMB2 PWMB3
PWMB4 PWMB5

Then the right dual row:

+3.3V CANH
GND GND
VREF CANL
VDDA VSSA
ANB1 ANB0
ANB3 ANB2
ANB5 ANB4
ANB7 ANB6
TD1 TD0
TD3 TD2
PD3 PD2
PD5 PD4
VREF VSSA
ANA1 ANA0
ANA3 ANA2
ANA5 ANA4
ANA7 ANA6

Now this is what we have already laid out. I think this is what we will have made first.

Important thing to note is this pinout and placement should be compatible with existing PlugaPod(TM) users. So while the new Super PlugaPod(TM) will hang over the socket, similar signals still appear on similar pins. On the A/D's we have the ADB ports where the ADA ports were before. It just turned out that for cleaner layout with the chip (to keep noise to a minimum) the runs were shorter with B where A used to be, but functionally, it should still be possible to use a Super where a regular one was.

This is also why we haven't gone to smaller connectors, like the 2.0mm space. There's another reason, in that the PlugaPod(TM) idea was to make the 2 layer layout you make easy. If we go to 2.0mm connectors, then you will have much more trouble routing signals away from the double rows of pins. If you are using a board shop with 12 & 12, then you need the room. If you are using a board shop with tighter manufacturing, you can potentially get two traces between pins. With the 2.0mm this stops being possible. We don't mind making products with smaller spaced connectors, but they wouldn't fit to some of the ideas behind the PlugaPod(TM) concept.

Now I must make corrections to what I said earlier. I verified with Tom, and we do not have the chip yet. We expect it to come in next week. So he is holding the finished layout from protoproduction until the chip comes in. We've had Motorola change pinouts on us a couple times already, and we've had to scrap several runs of boards because of it. So for caution sake, we want to actually see the chip in hand. So ... I stand corrected.

On additional I/O as PJE suggests, we are certainly open to considering a larger version. What we have now ready to go to prototype is 1.5" x 1.8" with two double 34-pin connectors on each side. We could also consider two double 40-pin connectors, which would be 1.5" x 2.1" (still smaller than MinPod(TM)) or two double 44-pin connectors, which would be 1.5" x 2.3" which would be .3" narrower, and .2" longer than MinPod(TM). One final possibility would be to have 34,40 or 44 pin connectors, and an additional 2x14/16 for an LCD pointed up, where some of the LCD pins share connections with the extra port lines. There aren't any full ports left, where we could have, say, a full 8-bit parallel port (unfortunately), but we can piece together the GPIO pins left over on additional pins.

Inputs are welcome.

[PJE]

I've been playing with my CAD package - and the previous comment on 2mm pitch connectors, and have come up with the following layout:

http://www.pjelliot.com/56F8355mod.gif

All the caps are on the bottom, and there are probably a few issues I haven't forseen (it still doesn't have a reset circuit or line drivers).

I added the second serial port to the PD connections to allow a full 8-bit wide 'data port' and will probably add extra comms ports to the motherboard.

The PCB is 1.8" x 2.05".

If I ever get time to get the final target system off the drawing board I'll be going to NMI to make it (if I can't modify the motherboard to accept the standard product).

PJE

[RMDumse]

Originally posted by terje
* 4 serial ports (depending on on-chip resources... more is even better)
* Each port selectable baud rate up to minimum 115.2 kbaud
* Each port selectable RS232 or TTL/3,3V (compliant with both 3,3V and 5V input if possible, even if they only output 3,3V)


There will be two RS-232 ports. There will be four lines that can be selected as serial inputs or outputs. Currently we have only considered 9600, but I will inquire if 115200 is possible.

And if a USB port is finally added, it should be a host, so that you may connect a modern USB camera module, etc. The latest dual channel FTDI-chip solution looks great (and compact), but still only operates in USB client mode?


Yes, the problem is getting a host port. There's more to a host port than just hardware though. Think of all the software it takes do to plugandplay for things put in a host port. Our current efforts on host ports center around a new ARM chip with host ports. That board is made, and we're soldering parts on it now, bringing it up slowly (second rev prototype). So there may be hope for Host USB in the future from us, but not in the DSP line.

[Norse]

Hi Randy,
I have read the comments and suggestions. Nothing much to add other than i feel it is important to have a "dedicated" LCD port.

I have started a concept of a new camera control I want/need for a potential production I am doing late this year. But, I kind of ran out of PA's.... Anyhow, with your new board I can let my imagination flow and expand...

Keep up the good work and don't rush the design.... :-) I can wait..

Cheers,

Per-Inge

[PJE]

Originally posted by Norse
Nothing much to add other than i feel it is important to have a "dedicated" LCD port.

I feel the opposite - Isn't electronics design fun :D

I feel it is important to allow as flexible an expansion scheme as possible. That's why I'd recommended dropping the second serial port and using them as GPIOD6/7 pins to provide an 8-bit wide data port which can be accessed via a single register.

The problem with LCD ports is that unless you stay with the Hitachi character display standard (which limits the functionality) there is no set standard. With the above 8-bit data port and few other GPIO an 8-bit LCD port could be added which shared the pins on the main connectors.

Also, as soon as you add an LCD you'll be needing a matrix keyboard input, which all but uses up the GPIO pins...

I feel a few off-board latches and buffers on the above mentioned 8-bit 'I/O bus' would meet your requirements very easily - if the board were made with pass through connectors you could add a daughter card on top which provided LCD/Keypad as well as adding back the missing serial port(s).

My 2c

PJE

[Chordline]

I HAVE USED SERIAL LCDS FOR A LONG TIME, AND IT ONLY USES ONE PIN. WHY COULD THE LCD NOT USE A SINGLE SERIAL I/O ? I HAD TO DESOLDER THE SERIAL BACK PACK ON MY LCD TO USE IT WITH THE MINPOD. I LIKE THE ADDED SERIAL CHANNELL. IT WILL WORK GREAT WITH GPS AND THE SUCH. PERSONAL ROBOTICS HAVE COME ALONG WAY IN A SHORT TIME. COMPANIES LIKE NMI HAVE REALLY MADE IT ACCESSABLE TO EVERYONE. THE INPUT YOU GUYS PUT IN ON THESE FORMS HAVE BEEN A GREAT HELP TO ME. I APPLAUDE ALL OF YOU. THANKS...
ED:D

[PJE]

Good point on the serial LCDs.

NMI's new software UART code within IsoMax will allow several serial LCDs to be controlled very easily...

They cost a little more than the bare displays but they're easier to handle - and have the side benefit if a line driver is used of being able to be more easily remote mounted and/or plug-in.

PJE

Now all I need to do is work out how to implement software UARTs efficiently in StatiC.

[Norse]

I find this rather unique from a support point of view. :-)
A product pre-release discussions and public friendly sword-fights over details...
I like it.

Soo, I guess my desired multi-pin LCD port is quickly being chopped down to 1 pin... Actually, I don't mind being cut down in size.... :-) A serial solution is just fine.

There was another thing I thought about suggesting; a 0-5V D/A 4-port for precise and clean analog control voltages. It would be nice to have such an option "built-in" rather than filtering PWM or adding circuits....

Just a late entry into the arena and perhaps a consideration for future units....

Cheers,

Per.

[PJE]

Originally posted by Norse
[B]A product pre-release discussions and public friendly sword-fights over details.../B]

It stops me from actually have to do any work... :D

My views for the device are based around getting access the the maximum amount of functions of the chip - a sort of intelligent SMD to through hole adaptor which handles all the nasty stuff like clock and decoupling. What external connectors, LEDs etc should be left to the board into which it is plugged.

As NMI already make a PlugaPod I can understand their decision to make it a superset of their existing pin-out. I would however like to see a version which left off things like the LEDs and anything which fixed the function of an I/O pin...

My 2c

PJE

[Norse]

Hi again...
My sword is held up as a friendly greeting... :-)
Reading the messages has stopped me from working too... Completely, as a matter of fact. The super version is just too tasty.... Not only that, I agree with you about the full pin-out. Well, exept for the LED bit. The stuff I make end up with me in some remote and difficult locations around the world. It is no fun trying to figure out what failed on a windy snow-covered mountain top. I prefer to have some visual "Heart Beat" indicators and therefore feel the LEDs are critical. I use them a lot in conjunction with pulse edge-detectors and status sensors.

Anyhow, I do not mind that the size increases due to a larger number of pins.

Cheers,

Per

[PJE]

Originally posted by Norse
I prefer to have some visual "Heart Beat" indicators and therefore feel the LEDs are critical. I use them a lot in conjunction with pulse edge-detectors and status sensors.

I've used the LEDs on my IsoPod for diagnostics extensively, but when the unit is mounted within an enclosure its nice for the LEDs to be visible from the outside...

PJE

[Norse]

True enough about visibility...
However, not all LEDs have to be on the outside. I sprinkle tiny SMD LEDs on the modular PCBs. I have yet to need to open the main closure. But should I have to, then it is nice to see if the brain is alive and perhaps see which modular card is not...

Well, the LEDs are great first time ISOMAX learning tools too. I remember watching them..... Still do...

Cheers,

Per.

[terje]

Hello again

I feel it is important to allow as flexible an expansion scheme as possible. That's why I'd recommended dropping the second serial port

Exactly my argument, but the opposite conclusion. I like the AVR habit of thinking of any GPIO pin as a serial I/O pin if it is needed, with high level support like the BASCOM SERIN and SEROUT commands, that handle the entire serial I/O process until the end of the string or a CRLF is encountered (too bad it's not real time multitasking as well...).

There will be two RS-232 ports. There will be four lines that can be selected as serial inputs or outputs. Currently we have only considered 9600, but I will inquire if 115200 is possible.

Does this mean two normal serial ports (with handshaking, RS232 levels, etc) + 4 GPIO lines that may be configured as two TTL/3,3V serial ports without handshaking lines, but with IsoMax software I/O buffers? JOY!!?!

SPI was already in my plans to communicate with ADs etc. Did not intend to use the CAN-bus, since I try to minimize the number of CPUs.

Guess I'm the Winnie the Pooh type of guy who can never select one good thing, but want both (or all) at the same time. I need IsoMax to do the real time part of scheduling a lot of serial I/O to control GPS, compass and various sensor modules, collect all their results, compute meaningful results, control servos, and send data and status info back to some logging device. Looks like the Super PlugaPod may give me a healthy push forwards...

Thank you all for a very interesting debate. In the end I trust New Micros will have good reasons for what they decide they can or cannot do!

Terje

[RMDumse]

Originally posted by terje ...thinking of any GPIO pin as a serial I/O pin if it is needed, with high level support like the BASCOM SERIN and SEROUT commands, that handle the entire serial I/O process until the end of the string or a CRLF is encountered (too bad it's not real time multitasking as well...).

And there is exactly "the rub". Being multitaking oriented, we could give serial in or serial out on any pin, but the way it is done in th BASCOM language, that's all the board could do, just rcv, or just transmit on one pin. So. We just don't see that as good enough to bother with. We also recognize more than one or two serials are desired.

So our serial is programmed as a full interrupt driven operation. In other words, if you do serial in on one of our software UARTS, the rest of the multitasking and program operation goes right on. You can even have one software pin sending while another continues to rcv, and so on.

But having software create a UART this way takes a good part of the processors time. Really, we could do two real serials at 115200 and two software serials at about 19200 tops. Or four at 9600, which is what we do now. To do a proper UART in software, (RCV channel) you have to interrupt at a high multiple of the baud rate. So it seems 115200 is just out of the question.

So hardware for the fast ones, and we can give you four software channels for the slow ones.

Does this mean two normal serial ports (with handshaking, RS232 levels, etc) + 4 GPIO lines that may be configured as two TTL/3,3V serial ports without handshaking lines, but with IsoMax software I/O buffers? JOY!!?!

CLose, but no handshaking lines. Two serials with RS-232 levels which will run 115200 and 4 GPIO lines that can be TTL serials as inputs or outputs as you like.

Thank you all for a very interesting debate. In the end I trust New Micros will have good reasons for what they decide they can or cannot do!


Well, something to keep in mind, about 1/3 of New Micros, Inc.'s business is custom and semi-custom design. If this turns out not to have it the way you want, then you can ask for a special that is the way you want. Literally hundreds of customers have taken this approach over the years. We've got a whole numbering systems (SPCL's) to handle customer specific boards.

While this business service isn't "free" the charges may be less than you'd think for custom work, and we will do any quantity, 1 up. If we think is a good idea and you aren't waning exclusive production, it can be a semi-custom (something we make for you, but can carry in our regular line as well) then we might share the costs.

I hope it comes through in discussions like this NMI is customer feedback driven. We can't always please everyone, but we do put lots of thought into the design using as much customer input as we can.

[Chordline]

I think that reading the posts on the new " SuperPod " it is apparent that there are always going to be different needs. But finding the middle ground to suite the majority is always the best. And as RMDUMSE has said, they will customize for anyone. That makes this company a great asset to all. I myself am into robotics, and am working on a UAV at this time. I have started out with another board, and have exceeded its capabilities, and now am using the MINPOD to learn Forth, and eventually it will be flying my UAV. I am looking forward to the second serial line, so i can use my GPS. So far i have gotten my sonar and compass, and servos as well as my IRPD to work independatley, and will be trying to put em all together in a run about configuration to start learning the program make-up. The forum here has been a great source of information to me. I thank all the hard working people at NMI and great people like you guys for making this a rewarding and interesting language to learn. I would however like to see some more pics of projects ?! if you guys want to share em.. Ill get mine uploaded as soon as i get them digitized.... Until then,

Have a great day....... :) :) :cool:

ED

[PJE]

Hi,

What's the latest on the SuperPlugAPod?

I'm just about to start laying out a motherboad, and was wondering if I should design i the new board.

Regards,

PJE

[nmitech]

Samples arrived yesterday, and board layout submitted to the board shop on the same day. First prototype checkout is expecting in couple weeks or maybe less.

[PJE]

Hi,

Do you have a full pin-out drawing for the module?

I need to access all the I/O available from my motherboard.

Has IsoMax been ported to the new CPU?

Regards,

PJE

[nmitech]

Here it is,

http://www.newmicros.com/store/product_schematics_pdf/SuperPlugaPodSLK.pdf

[PJE]

Thanks for the PDF... any chance of a couple of dimensions (distance between headers).

The Super PlugAPod looks like a nice product - could do with more digital I/O though... :) Just joking. Any idea on pricing?

Regards,

PJE

[Pacetech]

What is the ETA on beta testing? I'd like to sign up.