hello i am really a newbie(an electronics student) and i have to use at85c51snd3b but i dont know how to set uvision for it. there is no proper target in device database. But uVision tells it supports.
actually i am supposed to built an mp3 player. i'll really appreciate any help for it. (at85c51snd3b1 does not include an built in mp3 decoder and i have to implement it by my own way. but again i have no idea about mp3 decoding(but i know about DSPs and microcontroller, and i am good at programming)
thx a lot for any help
Yes, I have already visited that page, but all references are for the SND1 or SND2 chips, and I didn't find any links that pops up a registration form. They either moved to other pages, or opened downloads of SND1/SND2 software or documentation.
lesson learned; investigate fully before selecting derivative. so, now, go buy a snd1 or a snd2
Erik
I'm not on a hunt for a SND1, SND2 or SND3. I was just curious where Andy managed to locate the link.
not addrssed to you, Per, just a comment on your post which reflect on the OP
But your claim was still valid anyway.
I did the mistake of selecting the wrong ARM derivative not too long ago. I went for an LPC2119 for a project without realizing that it is truly lousy at sending data as an SPI slave, requiring a change to an LPC2364. Since the Keil tools doesn't simulate the 2364 yet, I'm now waiting to see if the Keil update or the HW prototype will arrive first.
This is what I did:
Go to http://www.atmel.com/
Type "at85c51snd3b" into the 'Search' box on that page
The results give nothing really interesting: " href= "http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/advanced_search_results.asp?device=1&tools=1&faqs=1&datasheets=1&appNotes=1&userGuides=1&software=1&press=1&articles=1&flyers=1&checkAll=1&checkAllReference=1&target=at85c51snd3"> www.atmel.com/.../advanced_search_results.asp
This one has the link to the Registration form!
So I removed the suffix and put that into the 'Search' box
just realize that quoted like this it makes no snese, please read "So I removed the suffix and put the basic name into the 'Search' box"
Yes, that makes a lot more snese!
" i am a student and i am not able to buy a $700 costing kit"
There is an important lesson to learn here!
Many things need to be considered when deciding what components to use in a proposed project, and one of them is the cost of the tools required.
If you're making a 1-off or low-volume product, this can be very significant; If you're making a high-volume product, then a few thousand dollars spent once at the start of the project to save a few pennies on every one of millions of units sold obviously makes sense!
Undoubtedly, Atmel are aiming at the high-volume market for this.
Even for low-volume commercial projects, Engineering design time is expensive - and $700 doesn't buy many hours!
"By the way, i mailed to atmel about resources and they told me, i had to purchase their development kit, for full firmware support! i am a student and i am not able to buy a $700 costing kit just for 2-3 simple firmware. do you have any other idea?"
You'd probably be better talking to your local Atmel distributor. Explain your situation as a poor student keen to use Atmel - they might be prepared to view this as an "investment" and lend (or even give) you (or your college) the kit.
Of course, if they don't, you can bear this in mind in your future career when selecting devices...
Andy: Thanks for informing me what masteries are needed to find information on the Atmel site.
they might be prepared to view this as an "investment" and lend (or even give) you (or your college) the kit.
or you may be fortunate enough that they will not and you will not use Atmel, but a decent brand instead.
Erik,
At the risk of being flamed for being off-topic, why are you so anti-Atmel...?
Just curious... Dave.
why are you so anti-Atmel...? Just curious...
When Atmel came out with the first flash based '51s I found a silicon bug in a revision somewhere around rev 'g'. I told my then management that we could not use the Atmel chip and they wrote Atmel "when is this going to be fixed?". Atmel wrote back "there is no such bug, we can not take bug reports from imcompetent (my emphasis) people into consideration". You can imagine what such a statement from a big company did to my relationship with management (I was told to do the impossible; use the chip since there was no bug). Now, lo and behold, somewhere around revison 's' what i had reported appeared in the errata.
Now you know.
PS I have been forced to work with Atmel since (inhereited projects) and the sluggishness in 'admitting bugs' is still there. Maybe now that the Perlegos'es are gone that will change, we have to see. The trade press commenting on the power shift has mentioned that, according to Perlegos Atmel could do no wrong.
We have had "non-existing" bugs with Microchip chips.
We have had a large number of "non-existing" bugs in Wavecom GSM modules. They have a number of times claimed that the bugs where in our software. The only strange thing is of course than when they 6 months later releases new firmware, the errors suddenly disappears in our software, while new problems arrives. The new problems often disappears in yet newer firmware, just to be replaced by a new set of strange - but not existing! - bugs.
Borland lost most of it's market share when they got controlled by ties and suddenly stopped admitting to bugs.
Quite a lot of companies have shown a bad track record. There is nothing else that is as effective when it comes to getting their customers to migrating to alternative products/solutions.
To this day, my only irritation with Atmel is their extremely poor simulation of their AVR chips. Getting a 3GHz Prescott to manage about 1MHz simulation speed of a trivial AVR core without almost any peripherial support can only be seen as a tour-de-force of bad programming.
my absolute rejection of all things Atmel is not based solely on their 'delay' in issuing errata. While that is bad enough, my total ire is due to them (in the pre e-mail days) writing my management "there is no such bug, we can not take bug reports from imcompetent (my emphasis) people into consideration". That they are idiots is one thing, but calling me one just because they [do not want to take the time to check]/[will not admit] a bug is a quite different story.