Very interesting.
Looks like the tiny is not so tiny with these new devices.
Even seems to have some xmega type features.
Well, back to the datasheet...
Hmmm, no external high-speed crystal option. Only 16/20MHz internal RC oscillator or external clock.
...and not a sniff of them being available.
At least it's a 5V part :)
First a tiny was a AVR without USART.
then it was one without HW mul.
so what now? (it looks for me like this is a mega!)
So we have a new?? programming and debug interface UPDI. Smells like DW.
– Single pin Unified Program Debug Interface (UPDI)
A better internal clock.
Fusible 16/20MHz low power internal RC oscillator with:
– ±3% accuracy over full temp and voltage range
– ±1.5% drift over limited temp and full voltage range
A DAC finally even if only 8 bits.
8-bit Digital to Analog Converter (DAC
Custom logic
Configurable Custom Logic (CCL) with two programmable Lookup Tables (LUT)
Event system "EVSYS - Event System " and more goodies
I vote that the Atchip/Micromel sales department issues a development board to each one of us who posted on this thread just like what Atmel used to do when it used to have a "soul". 
Are there any target price?
Are there any target price?
Price? Let's start with availability first! By the time they hit the disti's shelves there'll have been a couple of price rises in the meantime.
Or any availability date?
Edit: Damn, too late
Or any availability date?
Atmel don't have a good track record when it comes to availability once a datasheet appears.
How about Microchip?
No price indications, and code size is a little small.
Will this fix problems of compete with present "Capable 8 bit" price-leaders of SiLabs, ST, Nuvoton etc ?
How about Microchip?
Seem to be much better.
I was idly looking at 32-bit chips the other weeks on Farnell/Element 14 and spotted that they had 100 of each of a PIC32 variant called the MM range which was new to me and when I looked it had only been announced a few weeks earlier.
code size is a little small
It is a Tiny.... looks very capable little beast.
David
The second parties are being primed.
https://octopart.com/search?q=attiny817 (Xplained Pro)
http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=0virtualkey0virtualkeyATTINY817XPRO
https://www.iar.com/iar-embedded-workbench/?focus=wbselector#!?device=ATtiny817&architecture=AVR (version 6.80)
I have the same opinion. HW multiplier = Mega. Why call it Tiny?
I scrolled thru the datasheet... can someone remind me if it has 16 regs or 32 regs? (if its a 16 reg cpu, some compilers dont work... bummer)
I vote that the Atchip/Micromel sales department issues a development board to each one of us who posted on this thread just like what Atmel used to do when it used to have a "soul". devil
+1 :)
Since it has LPM it must be 32
And where should the MUL result be placed?
But I guess that it could be a cut and paste error
What is this "Unified Program and Debug Interface"? Is it a new debug interface? At least it seems to be documented.
Edit: Event system, advanced timers, programmable logic, DAC, ADC with accumulation feature, HW multiplier... this will not come cheap, that's for sure.
And where should the MUL result be placed?
I scrolled thru the datasheet... can someone remind me if it has 16 regs or 32 regs?
I could use an t814 now!
Seems like a Tiny in pinout only...
I better check that my address is correct
By now, Oscar must have quite a stack of things shipped to me in Illinois.
If you don't know my whole story, keep your mouth shut.
If you know my whole story, you're an accomplice. Keep your mouth shut. 
Lee, you know you can click in the corner of your inserted images and reduce their size, right?
I could use an t814 now!
Me too!
Lee, you know you can click in the corner of your inserted images and reduce their size, right?
AFAIK at least on my Firefox, they size to the width of the pane as you are observing it. So no real need to reduce when cutting/pasting PDF fragments as they "auto size", right?
on my Firefox, they size to the width of the pane as you are observing it.
That's exactly the problem I have with it:
I like some consistency in font sizes, but perhaps it's just me… :-)
netizen wrote:I like some consistency in font sizes, but perhaps it's just me… :-)
It is just you.
After a quick think, I'll opine that when posting a fragment of whatever -- datasheet, schematic, ... -- sizing to fit the width allows max magnification according to how the >>viewer<< has set the browser pane size.
Now, if I pull a bigger chunk of datasheet indeed I'll often change the PDF viewer zoom setting before taking the Snapshot.
In one sense, it >>is<< consistency in font sizes as that is how I view my PDFs Fit to Width. So blame Firefox and Foxit.
Also, did you ever think that I might have been trying to make a point about "scrolling through the datasheet"? Besides the piece I quoted, letting the PDF viewer search for "32 general" gives hits; "16 general"/"16 reg" does not. In the time it took to compose the forum query when "scrolling through the datasheet" several searches could have been done.
After a quick think, I'll opine that when posting a fragment of whatever -- datasheet, schematic, ... -- sizing to fit the width allows max magnification according to how the >>viewer<< has set the browser pane size.
Nonsense! Viewers don't set their browser pane width to magnify your images. If they enlarge it it's to view more text, and the more they do the less text from your image they'll see… On the contrary, if they reduce their pane, a reduced image will still adapt and fit its width nicely. :-)
Now, if I pull a bigger chunk of datasheet indeed I'll often change the PDF viewer zoom setting before taking the Snapshot.In one sense, it >>is<< consistency in font sizes as that is how I view my PDFs Fit to Width.
You're consistent with yourself, I'll gladly give you that. :-)
But font size consistency is another matter altogether. Look at the above screenshot: when you cite two pieces of the same datasheet they come up with vastly different font sizes, respectively ~3 and ~5 times bigger than the forum font (on my setting). Your PDF fit-to-width is based on a constant page width, thus it yields consistent font size; Your excerpts are not. If you really liked the former, you'd do as I suggested.
Anyway, I've noticed that several times so I thought I'd seize this opportunity to ask you about it. After all, we're just feeding a thread that deserves a little flamish icon…
Consider the matter closed. :-)
interesting device..
only annoying thing is the lack of DIP options... DIP is ideal for testing (breadboard) and low volume
Indeed for breadboard though the SMT-to-DIP adaptors are common.
For testing some prefer protoboard (ground plane, thin, cut to fit a box)
Provided it has leads, I'll still manage to hand solder it. My problem is qfn and bga 
I scrolled thru the datasheet... can someone remind me if it has 16 regs or 32 regs?
The Ostrayn version of the data sheet shows
Did you download the summary or the full version?
interesting device..
only annoying thing is the lack of DIP options... DIP is ideal for testing (breadboard) and low volume
No-DIP is simply a sign of the times.
For testing, use the low cost evals, and for low volume, SOIC is fine - you can even wave solder SOIC14N
With all those nice new features (and no DIP), they should have called it XTiny 
Some of my code that can't run on these chips :(
You can't make pointers to registers! so loading registers can't be done with general routines.
On the good side now there are 3 pointers to flash, but here they didn't dare to remove the LPM instruction with a start at $0000 where a LD will start in $8000
And the comments about the LPM instruction don't make sense to me!
it take 2 clk but have the comment (1) that say add one cycle if it use NVM!!!!! does this mean that LPM is the same as LD nn,Z with last bit flipped (or perhaps as a don't care) , if not it should just say 3 clk.
Some of my code that can't run on these chips :(
You can't make pointers to registers! so loading registers can't be done with general routines.
On the good side now there are 3 pointers to flash, but here they didn't dare to remove the LPM instruction with a start at $0000 where a LD will start in $8000
Yeah, why make a unified memory but remove access to the register file? I never liked the registers mapped to 0x0000, but they could have put them somewhere in the I/O region. And you're right, with this arrangement, LPM and LD become kind of redundant...
And even though the memory seems unified, it's not possible to execute code from ram or eeprom (I think, from skimming through the datasheet).
What do virtual ports a,b,c do?
What do virtual ports a,b,c do?
I'm guessing that like the Xmega chips you can move some ports into the lower I/O space so that shorter op codes can be used (ie IN and OUT rather that LDS/STS)
I had a quick look at the release notes for AS7-10006 but no mention yet of these chips.
I guess we will need to wait for the latest (and bug free of course) version of AS7 before we can even have a look at anything. We should be graced with an update "momentarily" as the last release was in June?
hmmm will it still be AS7 or some other weird version of MPLAB with the Atmel toolchain bolted on??
I had a quick look at the release notes for AS7-10006 but no mention yet of these chips.
I guess we will need to wait for the latest (and bug free of course) version of AS7 before we can even have a look at anything. We should be graced with an update "momentarily" as the last release was in June?
hmmm will it still be AS7 or some other weird version of MPLAB with the Atmel toolchain bolted on??
I think they just need to update the ATtiny_dfp device pack.
I just checked in the device pack manager for updates but none yet.
It's sad but I guess I know why.
It happend first time for Xmega's , and a good guess is that it gave problems with the DMA controller if the reg. also was on the addr buss.
But this chip don't have a DMA controller so here I don't see a problem , (and even if they had to add one clk it would have been nice, now you can't load a reg without it's absolute name sad sad).
Appears that Atmel Packs has been updated for tiny817 and such :
Atmel Packs
I see Digikey show stocks of the XMINI and ATTINY817-XPRO-ND, but still no chip lead times or prices...
http://www.digikey.com/product-d...
No data on the XMINI - anyone know how XMINI/XPRO differ in Debug support chip and features ?
Xplained Mini has mEDBG
IIRC Xplained Pro has EDBG
http://www.atmel.com/Images/Atmel-42726-ATtiny817-Xplained-Mini_User-Guide.pdf
via
http://www.atmel.com/tools/ATTINY817-XMINI.aspx?tab=documents
My idea from #7 https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment... (last paragraph) is still a pretty good one for me.
After all WE are providing free support.
I vote that the Atchip/Micromel sales department issues a development board to each one of us who posted on this thread just like what Atmel used to do when it used to have a "soul"
Perhaps the soul-less are listening...
-JoFreak
