??? 11/26/08 22:39 Read: times |
#160331 - '51' vs '52' and history Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Valentin Angelovski said:
I just don't understand why atmel didn't call it an AT89C52RD2 because that would've been more accurate - throws me everytime I search for 8052-type parts! : / Yes, this is a practical problem with '51/'52. The roots of this discrepancy are as deep as in Intel... They introduced a "feature" line, 8xC51FA/FB, which was in fact '52 compatible; and then the "extra RAM" line, 8xC51RA/RB/RC. The AT89C51RD2 is direct descendant of the latter, through Philips' 'Rx+ and then 'Rx2. It appears, that the manufacturers perceive "8051" as the generic term, and "8052" only as one of the many derivatives. Note, for example, SiLabs' nomenclature. JW PS. The AT89C51RD2 IS downwards pin compatible; however, code might NOT run straight off - see ISP working at reset (check if it does or does not run when external memory is selected - I don't know), fuses (might prevent external code execution), internal XRAM (which by default is ON hence prevents from reaching external XRAM), x2 setting (hence external bus timing)... |
Topic | Author | Date |
AT89C51RD2 Pin Compatibility with 80C51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
AT89C51RD2 Pin Compatibility with 80C51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
'51' vs '52' and history | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
AT89C51RD2 Pin Compatibility with 80C51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
program BLJB | 01/01/70 00:00 |