PSoC Express: Does it work for semi-analog designs?

[Joerg]

Hello Folks,

Just received an invitation to a seminar about Cypress PSoC. It seems
they'll introduce PSoC Express, for the most part. I checked out the
tutorial on Cypress' site and at first glance it looks quite similar to
the VisualState package IAR offers for the MPS430 and others. I kicked
the tires on that one a bit but found it isn't really geared towards
guys that have to process signals. It's more for state machines.

Any experience with PSoC Express? Can a guy who knows a bit or two about
C-algorithms get stuff such as intricate PID loops going on it?

On another note, what do you think about today's Cypress PSoC in
general? The Mitsubishi uC core in there looks enticing. The analog
features, well, they don't exactly float my boat yet. So, until now I
usually ended up designing it all analog except for an 8051 here or there.

 

[John Larkin]

Hello Folks,

Just received an invitation to a seminar about Cypress PSoC. It seems
they'll introduce PSoC Express, for the most part. I checked out the
tutorial on Cypress' site and at first glance it looks quite similar to
the VisualState package IAR offers for the MPS430 and others. I kicked
the tires on that one a bit but found it isn't really geared towards
guys that have to process signals. It's more for state machines.

Any experience with PSoC Express? Can a guy who knows a bit or two about
C-algorithms get stuff such as intricate PID loops going on it?

On another note, what do you think about today's Cypress PSoC in
general? The Mitsubishi uC core in there looks enticing. The analog
features, well, they don't exactly float my boat yet. So, until now I
usually ended up designing it all analog except for an 8051 here or there.

You could go to a conference, or a seminar, or some sort of
presentation in Silicon Valley almost every day of the year, and not
work at all. Few are worth the time, and you can read a datasheet and
a few appnotes in the time it takes to park. Personally, I can't sit
through these things; the bit rate is just too low.

"Without writing a single line of code, without learning a complex
In-Circuit-Emulator, a system designer creates an application by
combining objects such as LEDs, switches, sensors, and fans. PSoC
Express' firmware generation engine transparently handles all of the
details of the microcontroller application code, reducing design
cycles to a few hours instead of weeks or months. Because the
generated code is built from standardized, fully-tested software
components, the overall design quality and maintainability increase
dramatically."

I get it: the programmers who wrote those modules know more about
electronics and more about my application than I do.

John

 

[Joerg]

You could go to a conference, or a seminar, or some sort of
presentation in Silicon Valley almost every day of the year, and not
work at all. Few are worth the time, and you can read a datasheet and
a few appnotes in the time it takes to park. Personally, I can't sit
through these things; the bit rate is just too low.

Usually true. But I found that a few of them where they send app
engineers along are really good (TI, for example). They are typically
able to answer 80% of my questions, with the remainder never being
answered. Probably because some guy in a tie said that it's too
confidential.

Parking? Not a problem here. But after paying $20 plus tip for 2hrs in
S.F. I am certainly cured from doing that again ;-)

"Without writing a single line of code, without learning a complex
In-Circuit-Emulator, a system designer creates an application by
combining objects such as LEDs, switches, sensors, and fans. PSoC
Express' firmware generation engine transparently handles all of the
details of the microcontroller application code, reducing design
cycles to a few hours instead of weeks or months. Because the
generated code is built from standardized, fully-tested software
components, the overall design quality and maintainability increase
dramatically."

I get it: the programmers who wrote those modules know more about
electronics and more about my application than I do.

The higher the abstraction level the more we have to trust the guys who
engineered it. With some Windows software we all know where that is
leading. But here I am hoping for something that can help if one has to
whip out a prototype or even a design in a jiffy and where code
efficiency isn't paramount. I don't know about their claim regarding
design quality but it would be nice not to have to write all the digital
control stuff and being able to concentrate on a few lines of C for an
embedded control routine. When I took a close look at some of the
sub-routines that came with the IAR compiler they were quite good. Same
for some of the "architectures in a can" that were shipped with filter
design software.

After all, we are used to include "pre-cooked" code in our C programs
all the time.

 

[Henry Kiefer]

[PSoC Express]
If your're serious about the PSoC functionality I suggest using PSoC
Designer instead. The learning curve is very time-consuming but you can much
better control the architecture. Cypress spent big man-power into Express
lately and you can even write now your own Express add-in modules. I think
they want to reach the PIC folks to expand market reach - "PICs" typically
not so technical experienced. There is still a big gap between the beginners
design-limited Express and full-functionality Designer!

BTW: The PSoC M8C core is not a Mitsubishi M8 core! I heard rumors they once
bought a startup for getting USB knowledge and the core was already built-in
and so they decided to use an already-owned core for the later PSoC project.
The M8C is of similar functionality like the 8051.
Next year Cypress will add at least an Cortex-ARM line into. So the very
simple M8C core is not a problem anymore. They will even package the new
chips (lower pin-count variants) into non-BGA (for developer-friendly).

The analog functionality is not so bad. Indeed it is for a mixed digital
system very interesting. Internal routing of the resources is sometimes a
problem as it is not possible to place all modules on all places.
There are a few design flares you can live with.
If price and single-source is not the problem and you like to integrate
(sometimes powerful if you can think different) analog functionality, then
PSoC is the way to go for low volume productions.
There is no other alternative on the market.

Negative: The badly-optimizing C compiler. You can easely reach the border
of the maximum of 32Kbytes Flash.
Positive: Very good developer support by Cypress.


Merry christmas and a happy new year!
- Henry

 

[rickman]

[PSoC Express]
If your're serious about the PSoC functionality I suggest using PSoC
Designer instead. The learning curve is very time-consuming but you can much
better control the architecture. Cypress spent big man-power into Express
lately and you can even write now your own Express add-in modules. I think
they want to reach the PIC folks to expand market reach - "PICs" typically
not so technical experienced. There is still a big gap between the beginners
design-limited Express and full-functionality Designer!

BTW: The PSoC M8C core is not a Mitsubishi M8 core! I heard rumors they once
bought a startup for getting USB knowledge and the core was already built-in
and so they decided to use an already-owned core for the later PSoC project.
The M8C is of similar functionality like the 8051.
Next year Cypress will add at least an Cortex-ARM line into. So the very
simple M8C core is not a problem anymore. They will even package the new
chips (lower pin-count variants) into non-BGA (for developer-friendly).

The analog functionality is not so bad. Indeed it is for a mixed digital
system very interesting. Internal routing of the resources is sometimes a
problem as it is not possible to place all modules on all places.
There are a few design flares you can live with.
If price and single-source is not the problem and you like to integrate
(sometimes powerful if you can think different) analog functionality, then
PSoC is the way to go for low volume productions.
There is no other alternative on the market.

Negative: The badly-optimizing C compiler. You can easely reach the border
of the maximum of 32Kbytes Flash.
Positive: Very good developer support by Cypress.


Merry christmas and a happy new year!
- Henry

Henry,

Your synopsis is very good. I have been looking that the PSOC devices
ever since they came on the market and it seems they have always been a
bit difficult to figure out, especially if you are just trying to
determine if they will do what you need in your app. I think the
disconnect has been in the details of the programmable hardware. They
seem to provide just enough info to interest you, but if you really
want to understand the limitations of the system, you have to dig very
deep into the documentation. The new PSOC express seems to be the head
guy's response to how tricky the tools can be to use (which in my
opinion is a reflection of how tricky the hardware is). But rather
than dig into how users want to work with tools, they decided that a
one button type approach was the way to go.

So now they have a tool that they can claim eliminates writing code. I
have only seen that once before in my career and that was a full page
ad in Byte magazine some 20+ years ago. I never saw anything further
from that company. :^)

I have been pursuing info on the new PSOC3 chips and I am pretty sure I
have the straight scoop on it now. They will be coming out with two
new PSOC3 lines, one with an 8051 type CPU and one with an ARM
Cortex-M3 CPU. Both lines will have the new, NEA (no excuses analog)
programmable blocks. I hope they can also improve on the digital
blocks. I have a small, 10 input multiplexer that I would like to
implement in the PSOC instead of having to add a CPLD. But the current
PSOC can't really do this.

Don't hold your breath for the PSOC3 parts. They are still banging on
the keyboard writing the upfront documentation, so samples may be
available a year from now.

 

[Henry Kiefer]

Your synopsis is very good. I have been looking that the PSOC devices
ever since they came on the market and it seems they have always been a
bit difficult to figure out, especially if you are just trying to
determine if they will do what you need in your app. I think the
disconnect has been in the details of the programmable hardware. They
seem to provide just enough info to interest you, but if you really
want to understand the limitations of the system, you have to dig very
deep into the documentation. The new PSOC express seems to be the head
guy's response to how tricky the tools can be to use (which in my
opinion is a reflection of how tricky the hardware is). But rather
than dig into how users want to work with tools, they decided that a
one button type approach was the way to go.

Thanks. I also delayed my intro to PSoC several years. And that was a good
decision, as there were several problems they had on chips and software.

So now they have a tool that they can claim eliminates writing code. I
have only seen that once before in my career and that was a full page
ad in Byte magazine some 20+ years ago. I never saw anything further
from that company. :^)

It works very good if you like to implement for example a simple heater
control or such. It is for people to implement a small working system in a
day without having knowledge of C or assembler.
STM makes a similar SDK for one of their chips. Besides that look for
example OOPIC.

There is no way around to read more than 100 app notes of Cypress. Sometimes
using the right implementation structure is very important with PSoC. For
example for sinus generation, modem apps, using sleep timer, etc.

I have been pursuing info on the new PSOC3 chips and I am pretty sure I
have the straight scoop on it now. They will be coming out with two
new PSOC3 lines, one with an 8051 type CPU and one with an ARM
Cortex-M3 CPU. Both lines will have the new, NEA (no excuses analog)
programmable blocks. I hope they can also improve on the digital
blocks. I have a small, 10 input multiplexer that I would like to
implement in the PSOC instead of having to add a CPLD. But the current
PSOC can't really do this.

I heart of the 8051 version but I think it is not very useful to implant a
no more powerful core. You can use the Keil compiler then, which is a very
effective but expensive system. Maybe that is a real marketing decision just
to reach interested people the first time (via Google...).

I don't understand the problem to make a 10 input multiplexer but never
tried it.

Don't hold your breath for the PSOC3 parts. They are still banging on
the keyboard writing the upfront documentation, so samples may be
available a year from now.

Personally I often run the CPU most of the time doing almost nothing.
There is not enough onchip RAM to design a system with a real power-hungry
application. There it is better to add an external ARM doing digital
algorithms.

One thing I'm really interested in is the question, how they integrate a
core with a very fine structure AND at the same time will improve the analog
system. That is paradox because the linearity of chips is bounded to have
thicker structures. At 90nm you can forget analog linearity.

- Henry

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Few are worth the time, and you can read a datasheet and
a few appnotes in the time it takes to park.

Agreed, although I have been to a few really good ones... Xilinx had one where
an application engineer stood there and told you pretty much everything that
was broken in their tools, what wasn't, and otherwise how to *really* use them
(which was rather different than what the manuals might suggest), and I
remember one from OnSemi about switching power supplies that -- given my
pretty much non-existant power supply design skills at the time -- was quite
helpful to get a good idea for "this is what really happens in the commercial
world," which can be difficult to gleam from reading textbooks and sometimes
even application notes.

Personally, I can't sit
through these things; the bit rate is just too low.

That's why you take your laptop and work on your latest project
simultaneously!

 

[Joerg]

Thanks. I also delayed my intro to PSoC several years. And that was a good
decision, as there were several problems they had on chips and software.

I haven't bitten yet either. Every time I looked the analog sections
appeared to be too paltry. Pricing was quite ok but single-source is an
issue. Now I am going to hit an application where PSoC could be useful
but only if programming is as easy as getting a LabView routine going.
No problem if the code is wasteful because the uC routines are rather
mundane.

It works very good if you like to implement for example a simple heater
control or such. It is for people to implement a small working system in a
day without having knowledge of C or assembler.
STM makes a similar SDK for one of their chips. Besides that look for
example OOPIC.

There is no way around to read more than 100 app notes of Cypress. Sometimes
using the right implementation structure is very important with PSoC. For
example for sinus generation, modem apps, using sleep timer, etc.




I heart of the 8051 version but I think it is not very useful to implant a
no more powerful core. You can use the Keil compiler then, which is a very
effective but expensive system. Maybe that is a real marketing decision just
to reach interested people the first time (via Google...).

IMHO an 8051 only makes sense if that leads to 2nd sources. That is
"the" reason why a lot of controller boards still use the 8051
architecture. So did I. One of those design is now in its 12th year of
production and the client doesn't really have to worry about anything
going obsolete. The way it goes they might still produce it when I put
my teeth into a jar at night.

I don't understand the problem to make a 10 input multiplexer but never
tried it.




Personally I often run the CPU most of the time doing almost nothing.
There is not enough onchip RAM to design a system with a real power-hungry
application. There it is better to add an external ARM doing digital
algorithms.

One thing I'm really interested in is the question, how they integrate a
core with a very fine structure AND at the same time will improve the analog
system. That is paradox because the linearity of chips is bounded to have
thicker structures. At 90nm you can forget analog linearity.

Poor linearity, leaks, offsets are often not such a big deal. The low
number of analog modules is a problem. You can get a quad opamp in a
tiny TSSOP package for around 10 cents and a Volks-BJT can be had for
about one cent. That's the direction my designs tend to follow, usually.

 

[rickman]

IMHO an 8051 only makes sense if that leads to 2nd sources. That is
"the" reason why a lot of controller boards still use the 8051
architecture. So did I. One of those design is now in its 12th year of
production and the client doesn't really have to worry about anything
going obsolete. The way it goes they might still produce it when I put
my teeth into a jar at night.

The PSOC3 is a whole new chip design, so they had the chance to rethink
their CPU selection. The M3C is a no-name core from a no-name source
and has very poor software tool support. I expect that is a major
limitation, not the availability of second sources. Other than the
8051, what MCUs have second sources these days?

Poor linearity, leaks, offsets are often not such a big deal. The low
number of analog modules is a problem. You can get a quad opamp in a
tiny TSSOP package for around 10 cents and a Volks-BJT can be had for
about one cent. That's the direction my designs tend to follow, usually.

Sure, if your design has lots of room it is no big deal. But many of
the apps these things go into are squeezed on space as well as budget.
Besides, there are any number of designs that demand you to eliminate a
10 cent part if you can.

The newer PSOC3 devices will likely be reaching for some new territory.
The CM3 flavor device will still be affordable, but will give a lot
more processing power. I think the main hurdle for them will be to
make the full device something that you can easily use and understand
without having to give up all control to a one button design tool.

 

[Henry Kiefer]

I haven't bitten yet either. Every time I looked the analog sections
appeared to be too paltry. Pricing was quite ok but single-source is an
issue. Now I am going to hit an application where PSoC could be useful
but only if programming is as easy as getting a LabView routine going.
No problem if the code is wasteful because the uC routines are rather
mundane.

LabView cannot run in a tiny 8 pins device. That is the point.

IMHO an 8051 only makes sense if that leads to 2nd sources. That is
"the" reason why a lot of controller boards still use the 8051
architecture. So did I. One of those design is now in its 12th year of
production and the client doesn't really have to worry about anything
going obsolete. The way it goes they might still produce it when I put
my teeth into a jar at night.

If they drop the M8C this seems useful (even if it just to get rid of the
M8C C-compiler). But as this would break the already acquired customers they
surely drive the M8C way a long time... (M8C programs typical have a mix of
(machine-dependent) assembler and C)
The ARM core is not so cheap but very powerful. They announced more Flash
and RAM...

Poor linearity, leaks, offsets are often not such a big deal. The low
number of analog modules is a problem. You can get a quad opamp in a
tiny TSSOP package for around 10 cents and a Volks-BJT can be had for
about one cent. That's the direction my designs tend to follow, usually.

Joerg, if you drive the chinese way (cheap cheap cheap) then this may be a
problem. If you can imagine the benefit having a single or dual-side PCB
instead of 4-layers and a spy glass to count pins... then spend a dollar
more and have an almost single chip system. And why not use a dual PSoC
system?

If you can more specify your analog system I can try if it fits into PSoC.

regards -
Henry

 

[Joerg]

The PSOC3 is a whole new chip design, so they had the chance to rethink
their CPU selection. The M3C is a no-name core from a no-name source
and has very poor software tool support. I expect that is a major
limitation, not the availability of second sources. Other than the
8051, what MCUs have second sources these days?

None AFAIK. That's why the 8051 architecture remains so popular. Plus
you can find a local code expert almost anywhere.

Sure, if your design has lots of room it is no big deal. But many of
the apps these things go into are squeezed on space as well as budget.
Besides, there are any number of designs that demand you to eliminate a
10 cent part if you can.

Size is, surprisingly, a decreasing concern. One of my designs this year
had to be smaller than a couple of postage stamps. Yet I did it all
analog with around 60 parts. Going to 0402 was the answer and there
would have been even smaller parts available. A uC solution would have
cost more. So yeah, if you can save the 10c part that's fine but if that
requires a uC that costs 25c more it's just not feasible.

The newer PSOC3 devices will likely be reaching for some new territory.
The CM3 flavor device will still be affordable, but will give a lot
more processing power. I think the main hurdle for them will be to
make the full device something that you can easily use and understand
without having to give up all control to a one button design tool.

Still a "one button tool" is nice as long as there is an open path
towards more intricate design. Think of it like you do about Excel. This
is a rather simple tool that let's you key in almost any formula just as
it comes to mind. Some programmer has already implemented the code that
executes it and we trust that process for the most part. If it's not
enough we can still fire up the C-compiler but in 95% plus of cases we
don't need to. All my biz book-keeping is done in database. Took less
than half a day to set up. In C that would have taken weeks.

 

[Joerg]

LabView cannot run in a tiny 8 pins device. That is the point.

I only mentioned it as an example. LabView lets you configure a
complicated process control on a PC in one morning session. If PSoC
Express could perform a similar job for PSoC that would be pretty cool.
But I am not the expert here which is why I posted. I don't know if PSoC
Express can really do that.

If they drop the M8C this seems useful (even if it just to get rid of the
M8C C-compiler). But as this would break the already acquired customers they
surely drive the M8C way a long time... (M8C programs typical have a mix of
(machine-dependent) assembler and C)
The ARM core is not so cheap but very powerful. They announced more Flash
and RAM...




Joerg, if you drive the chinese way (cheap cheap cheap) then this may be a
problem. If you can imagine the benefit having a single or dual-side PCB
instead of 4-layers and a spy glass to count pins... then spend a dollar
more and have an almost single chip system. And why not use a dual PSoC
system?

A Dollar is a huge amount of money in production costs for most of my
designs. I am used to turning around every penny. And yes, some of that
is then produced in China. One of the tricks is to make do with dual
layer and on, gasp, phenolic board.

Glass? Well, I did have to buy a pair of 3X glasses for work in the lab.
Some of the parts are the size of a grain of salt.

If you can more specify your analog system I can try if it fits into PSoC.

Thanks but I'd get shot if I did that ;-)

The current one has about 10 analog stages, a PID loop, 3-4 coarse
digital timers (built around a hex Schmitt, like usual) and a fast PWM
in the 500kHz range. Oh, plus some 100MHz RF stuff.

 

[Henry Kiefer]

I only mentioned it as an example. LabView lets you configure a
complicated process control on a PC in one morning session. If PSoC
Express could perform a similar job for PSoC that would be pretty cool.
But I am not the expert here which is why I posted. I don't know if PSoC
Express can really do that.

I know in general what LabView is. More, I once was involved on a
LabView-like product for Apple Mac.
I don't think you can simulate all the functionality of LabView in PSoC
Express.

A Dollar is a huge amount of money in production costs for most of my
designs. I am used to turning around every penny. And yes, some of that
is then produced in China. One of the tricks is to make do with dual
layer and on, gasp, phenolic board.

20 years back I saw a dual-sided PCB in a Sharp Pocket Computer with a
additional structural plastic 5-wire cable across the PCB.
phenolic board: FR-2? no no no!!!

Glass? Well, I did have to buy a pair of 3X glasses for work in the lab.
Some of the parts are the size of a grain of salt.

I cannot count the chips I counted pins on. FPGA 208-pins, count count
count...
Almost all pins doing most of the time just nothing. Stupid world.

Thanks but I'd get shot if I did that ;-)

The current one has about 10 analog stages, a PID loop, 3-4 coarse
digital timers (built around a hex Schmitt, like usual) and a fast PWM
in the 500kHz range. Oh, plus some 100MHz RF stuff.

You're a one-person company?
Hm. What can I do with a system specified as in1, in2, in3, out1, ou2, out3,
matrix function x//y ??

That should fit into a smaller PSoC excluding the 100MHz RF stuff.

BTW: PSoC: Analog elements have about 5 to 10MHz GBW and linearity to at
least 15-bits. Digital blocks can clock between 12 and 48MHz in multiples of
8-bits. All modules can be on-the-fly reconfigured. Onchip oscillator is
2.5% accurate and can be PLLed to a cheap 32kHz clock quartz. Onchip reset
controller, analog reference, temp sensor, SMPS control in the bigger ones,
resource-less sleep-timer and i2c, EEPROM.
And the best: Your analog design would be copy-protected!!!

- Henry

 

[Joerg]

I know in general what LabView is. More, I once was involved on a
LabView-like product for Apple Mac.
I don't think you can simulate all the functionality of LabView in PSoC
Express.

It would be nice if it could at least provide some of it.

20 years back I saw a dual-sided PCB in a Sharp Pocket Computer with a
additional structural plastic 5-wire cable across the PCB.
phenolic board: FR-2? no no no!!!

You'd be surprised how much is done in phenolic these days. Just open
your TV remote as an example. Or, if you have kids, some of their
electronified toys.

I cannot count the chips I counted pins on. FPGA 208-pins, count count
count...
Almost all pins doing most of the time just nothing. Stupid world.




You're a one-person company?

Yes, but my clients aren't ;-)

Hm. What can I do with a system specified as in1, in2, in3, out1, ou2, out3,
matrix function x//y ??

That's pretty much how it looks like. Three inputs, two outputs plus one
RF out, and a few digital lines for status indicators.

That should fit into a smaller PSoC excluding the 100MHz RF stuff.

Possibly. Maybe I should go to that Cypress seminar then.

BTW: PSoC: Analog elements have about 5 to 10MHz GBW and linearity to at
least 15-bits. Digital blocks can clock between 12 and 48MHz in multiples of
8-bits. All modules can be on-the-fly reconfigured. Onchip oscillator is
2.5% accurate and can be PLLed to a cheap 32kHz clock quartz. Onchip reset
controller, analog reference, temp sensor, SMPS control in the bigger ones,
resource-less sleep-timer and i2c, EEPROM.

I don't know the newer ones much but a year ago I did look and it was
like an expensive restaurant. Lots of delicious stuff on the menu but
the portions were kind of smallish. IOW, not enough analog blocks.

And the best: Your analog design would be copy-protected!!!

That is a clear advantage of PSoC.

 

[Henry Kiefer]

It would be nice if it could at least provide some of it.

I don't think so but never tried newer LabView versions or the lately PSoC
Express versions.

You'd be surprised how much is done in phenolic these days. Just open
your TV remote as an example. Or, if you have kids, some of their
electronified toys.

A couple of weeks back I had a "random blinking" St. Martin candle light to
repair for my daughter. I opened it and the wire immediately fall out. It
was "soldered" with PLAIN lead. And this lead must be directly out of the
mine. Sure, it was cheap to buy but I must add my work on it to the price.
The other side "Papa repaired it!" ;-)

I hate phenolic for quality and smelling, I hate electrolytic capacitors
others than OS-CON. I have a big list to hate ;-)

Yes, but my clients aren't ;-)



That's pretty much how it looks like. Three inputs, two outputs plus one
RF out, and a few digital lines for status indicators.

So I can move on with your design to copy it. Thanks!

Possibly. Maybe I should go to that Cypress seminar then.

Hm. You can but it is more effective to read the datasheets, device
selector, almost all app notes (even if in the beginning not all is
understood), install PSoC Designer and updates, build a little hardware to
play on, look for prices, read postings in psocdeveloper.com and Cypress
PSoC forum.

Googling around is not very effective if you seek PSoC infos. Seems that
most people like keeping all secret.

If your're analog-only concentric, look for Anadigics. Don't know if they
still exist. Zetex analog-cell is dead (at least directly from Zetex. Hans
seems to make them to date).

I don't know the newer ones much but a year ago I did look and it was
like an expensive restaurant. Lots of delicious stuff on the menu but
the portions were kind of smallish. IOW, not enough analog blocks.

You had the same problem as myself. The deeper understanding is for example,
that an analog bandpass filter module have input voltage scaling and output
comparator onboard in ONE module! You MUST read the app notes to learn the
tricks! The same is true for the analog multiplier.

But in general your statement seems true: The resources are very constraint.
The chip must be cheap in production.

That is a clear advantage of PSoC.

Yes. As far as I know the protection-scheme was never cracked.

- Henry

 

[Joerg]

Henry Kiefer wrote:


[...]

A couple of weeks back I had a "random blinking" St. Martin candle light to
repair for my daughter. I opened it and the wire immediately fall out. It
was "soldered" with PLAIN lead. And this lead must be directly out of the
mine. Sure, it was cheap to buy but I must add my work on it to the price.
The other side "Papa repaired it!" ;-)

I hate phenolic for quality and smelling, I hate electrolytic capacitors
others than OS-CON. I have a big list to hate ;-)

As a kid and in my college days I built all my stuff on phenolic except
for some RF gear. Most of that is still in use here in the lab and I
didn't have one single electrolytic fail in 25+ years. Tantalums, now
that's another story.

So I can move on with your design to copy it. Thanks!

First you'd have to know the other 3-4 pounds of stuff connected to it
and what we want to do with that

Hm. You can but it is more effective to read the datasheets, device
selector, almost all app notes (even if in the beginning not all is
understood), install PSoC Designer and updates, build a little hardware to
play on, look for prices, read postings in psocdeveloper.com and Cypress
PSoC forum.

Googling around is not very effective if you seek PSoC infos. Seems that
most people like keeping all secret.

If your're analog-only concentric, look for Anadigics. Don't know if they
still exist. Zetex analog-cell is dead (at least directly from Zetex. Hans
seems to make them to date).

So far anything other than Cypress PSoC was out of cost range. Often way
out. Interestingly TI is beefing up their MSP430F2xxx family with analog
functions. So far only two opamps but who knows what will come next. A
multiplying DAC would be really nice for gain control apps.

multiples of



You had the same problem as myself. The deeper understanding is for example,
that an analog bandpass filter module have input voltage scaling and output
comparator onboard in ONE module! You MUST read the app notes to learn the
tricks! The same is true for the analog multiplier.

I did read a lot of their app notes back then but the presented
applications were typically quite a bit thinner than what I usually
need. It may be entertaining to read about a seat heating controller but
I can do that with a 50c micro ;-)

But in general your statement seems true: The resources are very constraint.
The chip must be cheap in production.

I still don't understand the darth of analog functions. The production
cost of the old LM324 is probably under a penny for the die but you get
four really nice opamps for that and they can even sense below the
negative rail. Can't be rocket science to add a few CMOS varieties of these.

Yes. As far as I know the protection-scheme was never cracked.

Who knows, hacks of this sort are usually kept secret. Very secret. But
they should be quite safe in that respect.

 

[Klaus Kragelund]

Henry Kiefer skrev:

I don't think so but never tried newer LabView versions or the lately PSoC
Express versions.


A couple of weeks back I had a "random blinking" St. Martin candle light to
repair for my daughter. I opened it and the wire immediately fall out. It
was "soldered" with PLAIN lead. And this lead must be directly out of the
mine. Sure, it was cheap to buy but I must add my work on it to the price.
The other side "Papa repaired it!" ;-)

I hate phenolic for quality and smelling, I hate electrolytic capacitors
others than OS-CON. I have a big list to hate ;-)


So I can move on with your design to copy it. Thanks!


Hm. You can but it is more effective to read the datasheets, device
selector, almost all app notes (even if in the beginning not all is
understood), install PSoC Designer and updates, build a little hardware to
play on, look for prices, read postings in psocdeveloper.com and Cypress
PSoC forum.

Googling around is not very effective if you seek PSoC infos. Seems that
most people like keeping all secret.

If your're analog-only concentric, look for Anadigics. Don't know if they
still exist. Zetex analog-cell is dead (at least directly from Zetex. Hans
seems to make them to date).


You had the same problem as myself. The deeper understanding is for example,
that an analog bandpass filter module have input voltage scaling and output
comparator onboard in ONE module! You MUST read the app notes to learn the
tricks! The same is true for the analog multiplier.

But in general your statement seems true: The resources are very constraint.
The chip must be cheap in production.

Yes. As far as I know the protection-scheme was never cracked.

I have been working with the PSOC for the last 6 monts now. My
recommendation to learn the ins and outs of this device is to lock
yourself into the lab for a week or two to get a prototype up and
running. The key is to dwelve into the PSOC, the seminars are no use
since they are to superficial. When you get into trouble use the
PSOCDeveloper.com forum. Its great. Moreover DON'T use the
"Sublimation" and "Condensation" modes of the compiler. The compiler is
buggy and these optimization functions simply dont work (I learned the
hard way tracking down a bug for two days to find it was just the
checkmark in the compiler options that was the culprit)

The analog functions are ok - I hope they wil be even better with the
PSOC3

Regarding price, our production takes about 2cents to place an SMD
component. So the last design I saved about 50parts using the PSOC, and
that means I got the PSOC almost free of charge. Moreover, the
reliability is increased due to less parts and the lock-up modes are
removed since you can build in intelligence into the analog functions

Regards

Klaus

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Who knows, hacks of this sort are usually kept secret. Very secret. But they
should be quite safe in that respect.

The idea, of course, is that you only need to make it secure enough that it's
cheaper to just re-design the unit based on the functionality rather than
trying to break the protection and outright copying it.

This leds me to wonder... what's the chance a consultant such as yourself has
ever been contacted by someone to help reverse engineer a device that, it
turns out, they themselves designed in the first place?

Slapping a well-known name on the widget can more than make up for even poorer
designs (say, more expensive to manufacture), I imagine...

 

[Joerg]

Klaus Kragelund wrote:


[...]

I have been working with the PSOC for the last 6 monts now. My
recommendation to learn the ins and outs of this device is to lock
yourself into the lab for a week or two to get a prototype up and
running. The key is to dwelve into the PSOC, the seminars are no use
since they are to superficial. When you get into trouble use the
PSOCDeveloper.com forum. Its great. Moreover DON'T use the
"Sublimation" and "Condensation" modes of the compiler. The compiler is
buggy and these optimization functions simply dont work (I learned the
hard way tracking down a bug for two days to find it was just the
checkmark in the compiler options that was the culprit)

Thanks for that info. This can prevent hours of frustration.

The analog functions are ok - I hope they wil be even better with the
PSOC3

Regarding price, our production takes about 2cents to place an SMD
component. ...

2c just for placement? Are you guys still manufacturing in Scandinavia?
Maybe they should ease up on the taxes over there

 

[Joerg]

The idea, of course, is that you only need to make it secure enough that it's
cheaper to just re-design the unit based on the functionality rather than
trying to break the protection and outright copying it.

Yep. I doubt that reverse-engineering ever really pays off.

This leds me to wonder... what's the chance a consultant such as yourself has
ever been contacted by someone to help reverse engineer a device that, it
turns out, they themselves designed in the first place?

I have never been asked to do reverse-engineering. What I am often asked
is to find out why a certain device doesn't work as well as a similar
one from a competitor. But all we do then is run them both, note the
differences and then take a good hard look at the circuitry that my
client has used so far, then re-design it. After that it typically beats
the competitor's performance so taking their unit apart wouldn't have
gained us much anyhow

Slapping a well-known name on the widget can more than make up for even poorer
designs (say, more expensive to manufacture), I imagine...

Doesn't work in the long run. Consumers will quickly find out and spread
the word. In these days of the Internet that can be a matter of just a
few days.