XMega Samples Arrived -- Thanks Atmel!

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

I received two ATXMEGA128A1-AU samples today. The AVRs are marked ES 0820 -- which I take to mean manufactured in the 20th week of 2008. I assume the ES means "Engineering Sample" -- does anyone know if that assumption is valid?

I'm looking forwarded to testing some of the cool XMega features, though I'm finishing up a much more modest system running on an ATTiny2313 at 1.83MHz :)

Thank you, Atmel!

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

Kevin,

Just out of interest what are you going to use them in? Some dev board or your own design?

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

Quote:

I assume the ES means "Engineering Sample" -- does anyone know if that assumption is valid?

As far as I know, that would be correct.

The errata list seems to be growing quite long, and some of them are "serious" for production designs but should be able to be avoided during getting-to-know-you.

On the underside you should see more markings. (Hmmm--maybe not on ES.) See if you can find the chip revision letter and report back. The latest datasheet lists the errata for version G.

https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.p...

Quote:
Hello

You need to look at the back of the chip. The device code are usually
printed there. It is 355xxy for the new parts where xx is the part
number and y the revision letter. Older parts have the number 196xxy,
same system.

For some of the small devices there is not room for the device code. For those you will have to contact support to get the revision

The date code is not reliable enough.

Best Regards
Asmund Saetre
Atmel AVR Technical Support

Quote:
Just out of interest what are you going to use them in? Some dev board or your own design?

I plan to get the proper STK600 top module and start with that. At this point it is needed for PDI/PDO programming anyway, right? Or have any of the other tools caught up to do JTAG? (Dragon?)

Lee

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

clawson wrote:
ust out of interest what are you going to use them in? Some dev board or your own design?
Hi Cliff, initially I'll be using them in a STK600. As I decide which designs would benefit from the additional functionality, then I'd design boards with solder pads for the TQFP along with the support circuitry for that design.

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

AFAIK, the last release of firmware for JTAGICE MkII supports full featuring for the PDI/PDO, thus you can use it in your board without any need for STK600 (but IIRC, you are a happy STK600 user ;) )

Mmmm, that remembers me that I should contact Arrow to see if they have my samples already. Here in Spain, samples policy from Arrow is a real pain in the ass...

Guillem.
"Common sense is the least common of the senses" Anonymous.

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

Congratulations, Kevin.

Brr, envy, envy...

Guillem.
"Common sense is the least common of the senses" Anonymous.

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

theusch wrote:
On the underside you should see more markings. (Hmmm--maybe not on ES.) See if you can find the chip revision letter and report back. The latest datasheet lists the errata for version G.
Thanks for your thoughts, Lee. There is one G on the back side, but I suspect that does not indicated the Revision G quoted in the errata sheet.

Here are scans of the front and back.

Attachment(s): 

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

Guillem Planisi wrote:
AFAIK, the last release of firmware for JTAGICE MkII supports full featuring for the PDI/PDO, thus you can use it in your board without any need for STK600 (but IIRC, you are a happy STK600 user ;) )
I'll likely use the JTAGICE MkII and STK600 today for either JTAG or PDI/PDO debugging (beyond the STK600 JTAG programming only).

Good luck getting your samples soon in España!

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

Quote:

but I suspect that does not indicated the Revision G quoted in the errata sheet.

I think it does, but the Xmegas have a different leading 3-digit number:
Quote:

It is 355xxy for the new parts where xx is the part
number and y the revision letter.

So we have 359/53/G.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I've never met a pig I didn't like, as long as you have some salt and pepper.

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

theusch wrote:
I think it does, but the Xmegas have a different leading 3-digit number:
Great -- thanks for the information. Having an accurate errata sheet can make a huge difference when investigating issues when the device does not operate as expected.