| ??? 10/16/09 19:42 Read: times |
#169810 - Shades of gray Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
Is it? The fair assumption is that one posting a query has (a) thoroughly read and understood the datasheet or made a specific inquiry about a definition, most of which would easily be resolved by a search, and (b) made some preliminary decisions about requirements, available development tools, programming methodology, etc. Wouldn't that be a poor assumption, if the original reason for creating the thread was that the poster had read the datasheet but could not understand an important section? And you didn't really resolve the issue. Would a discussion about configurable features of a CAN controller be firmware or hardware? No single line of code is written yet, because the OP hasn't selected processor yet. But there is a potential candidate. And obviously no schematics either. So the poster can't fullfill your requirements for either a fw or hw thread. It will be fw that sets the values of the registers, but depending on the function of the hardware inside the processor, the amount of external hardware may differ a lot. Another example: If you see on the scope that a signal is sometimes 0V (or maybe 5V) and sometimes a fixed value in between - is it fw or hw? It very much sounds like two outputs colliding, but the reason may be that the user has a processor with push-pull support and have managed to configure a pin as an output when it should have been an input. Richard said:
If "EE people" are deciding whether to switch away from 805x core chips, they should be visiting the sites that they think will provide them with the information they need. Which 805x-core MCU would you consider capable of "Mbit++" serial communication, aside from the ones specifically intended for Ethernet? Erik Malund seems to have concluded that 805x serial communication tops out at 480-something kbps. I think you lost the focus there. Where did I write UART? What may be the highest possible SPI speed supported by any 8051? But the even bigger focus loss: I explicitly mentioned people who may have decided (or have the decision made by someone else) to use a different processor. General electronics as in "does not require a 8051". A GPS module works the same even if you switch processor, which means that 99% of all discussions about a GPS is generic even if people do post them in the "8052 Forum". For a forum to be meaningful, it will need a critical mass. If too many people bleed off because they work with different processors, making "Chat Board" the only alternative, then it will not matter if people asks good or bad questions. Richard said:
That's one thing that's disturbed me about YOUR posts. You seem to think this is a general discussion forum for whatever you happen to want to discuss. For me, if I want to know about ARM or any other non-805x-core MCU, I go to a different site to discuss it. I certainly don't attempt to promote "BIG" processor cores here, nor do I advocate for "small" cores elsewhere. Not at all. I may have started 5 threads in total. But I am not married to specific processor. If someone struggles with an 8051 chip and a GSM module and tries to get PPP working, I would ask them if they have considered using a GSM module with support for running a user application internally - and with the TCP/IP stack integrated into the module. I'm just not married to an architecture or manufacturer. In a real world, you select your tools depending on your needs. Richard said:
I have advocated for integration of 805x soft-cores with specialized hardware, since programmable logic is a reasonable vehicle vehicle in which to do that, though only when no reasonably priced alternative presents itself. The reason, I feel, that this is a good path is that the 805x instruction set is so well adapted to microcontroller sorts of tasks. What that an argument in how to separate firmware from hardware, or in discussing what is considered off-topic? As I've often said, microprocessors and microcontrollers were conceived as a replacement for lots of digital logic. The fact that they can behave as computers in the sense that comp-sci students are taught is purely incidental. It's important, but it's nice, though not necessary. That, of course, is not everyone's position, and I recognize that. Yes, there is a big grey zone between microcontrollers and computers. Does that mean that a microcontroller can't be a computer or a computer can't solve an embedded problem? Is that grey zone just an indication that for a large number of tasks, you will have to consider both sides of the problem, to figure out which best solves the problem? Yes, there are comp-sci students who tries large-PC stuff on a microcontroller. But they are laughing just as much at EE people spending months getting their microcontroller to do something a Linux-based PC lite could have done cheaper and better. What does it help thinking that "the other side" are fools? Will that bring more visitors to this site? Will that make the total amount of knowledge online and available for 8051-related questions larger? In the end, it doesn't matter how good someone is with 8051 processors if they move to a different forum because the current products doesn't contain a 8051 and there are no sub-forum suitable for more generic hw discussions. The end result is still one person less who may chip in with good suggestions when someone asks a question. But let's focus a bit more on the actual topic of this thread. A professional will probably not start a thread here asking about a specific problem unless it might possibly be an errata or similar. So the people who do create threads here with a proble are exactly the people who do not know if a problem is in the hardware or the firmware. That will obviously result in a very large percentage of threads getting the wrong tag. |
