New processor on the Atatmel-ice PCBA ? New version?

Go To Last Post
6 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Hi,

I have a question concerning the ice-pcba.

I have recently seen to variants of the atatmel-ice pcba.

RS components have a verion with the Cortex M4 (ATSAMG51) processor on the ice pcba board:

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/processor-microcontroller-development-kits/1306124/

The usual processor is an AT32UC3A4256 , according to the ice-manual.

I have asked RS components but they could not give any answer.

Likevise there is no information on the Atmel homepage.

So whats this all about? Is it a new vesion? or is it a creative chinese copy? Or...?

yours NIST

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

If you are just going by the data in the RS website, I would not have much faith in that, the RS website very frequently has incorrect data. I used to try reporting errors, but nothing happened as far as I can tell, and there were so many errors it was becoming a full time job.

 

Do you have another source for this information?

 

 

Bob. Engineer and trainee Rocket Scientist.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

NO I don't have other sources.

Maybee its its the apprentice that oversells the product. Cortex M4 sounds good.

http://dk.rs-online.com/web/p/pr...

They also have the standard version:

http://dk.rs-online.com/web/p/pr...

which is more expensive.

I could understand if there were small errors, but here its hyped as the buying reason.

The sales engineer at RS couldn't understand it either.

It also seems obvious that ATMEL should have information on new versions.

If you are right RS sell PCBAs with the same processor, but the mentioning of the Cortex M4 is a mistake.

yours Nist

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

NIST wrote:

NO I don't have other sources.

Maybee its its the apprentice that oversells the product. Cortex M4 sounds good.

Disti Web sites are terrible for typos - can you read the Photos ?

 

It does not really matter what MCU core they use - my understanding is AT32UC3A4256 has High Speed USB, which is a plus.

The ATSAMG51 is cheaper, but lacks HiSpeed USB, so that's quite a step backwards. Would make no sense to do that.

 

 

Microchip even show what looks like a programmed device in their store :

AT32UC3A4256HHB-C1UR   Microchip Technology Inc    EDBG    3632     1000 $7.5300 100 $8.2400 26  $9.0900 1  $10.0000

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

mplab x ide 6.0 x32

adcvolt[0]=adc[0]*ADCREF/4095U;
adcvolt[1]=adc[1]*ADCREF/4095U;

 

samg51n18 float printf bad:

printf("0x%04x %d mV 0x%04x %d mV\n",adc[0], adcvolt[0], adc[1], adcvolt[1]);

0x0f6a  1742 mV 0x0001  0 mV

 

same code in samg55 good output:

printf("0x%04x %0.2f V 0x%04x %0.2f mV\n",adc[0], (float)adcvolt[0], adc[1], (float)adcvolt[1]);

0x0f6a  ˇ. .Ω8 V 0x0001  0.00 V

good only if == 0

 

default compiler settings, maybe you need to change the settings for this controller samg51n18 ?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Well done for searching out a samg51 thread but I don't think your question is really relevant to the thread you found.

 

Also this thread is in a section for 8bit AVR while your question is about 32bit ARM (yeah, the 2017 thread was in the wrong place too!)

 

I could split/move but the first thing I observe is that the working forma only uses %x, %d. The one that fails (and the bit that fails is using %f. This is not unlike 8bit AVR - you may have to do something to enable use of %f

 

(BTW didn't you get good/bad the wrong way round? The one with "corrupt characters" you call good and the one that looks OK you called "bad").