??? 01/25/06 04:00 Read: times |
#108255 - Some I/O expansion, some nostalgia Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Neil Kurzman said:
Here is your Problem. You are stuck in the 80's Precisely. Get an Atmel or Phillips 89C52 or 87C52. The flash ROM is builtin, and the boot load is also builtin.
All your port pins are free. You lose the 8255 the EPROM and decoder. You hook up a MAX232 chip to the serial pin and you can program it from you PC. They even give you the download software free. Or any of the other modern derivatives that support ISP. There are lots of them. So
5 pins motors 10 pins led`s 4 pins micro switches 9 pins 20 way key pad 6 pins lcd 2 comm port = 36 pins only 32 on a standard Chip you only need 4 more. Combine some or get a Shift or latched LED Driver and you are golden. Your I/O needs could be handled with a solution as simple as a couple of sub-$1 74xx573 latches. Should you prefer something that can be connected with less wires, a serial shift register will work as Neil suggested. There are also a variety of serially-interfaced (I2C, SPI, etc.) I/O expanders from a umber of vendors, including Maxim/Dallas. PS: Some history for the young folk. Back in the early 90's UV 8752 was expensive. The multi-chip solutuion was cheaper by far. Now the single chip solution is cheaper. That still seems to be the case. Last time I got EPROM-based 87C51/2 devices some years ago, I remember them being about $20, and a quick search on Digi-Key a few minutes ago found none for less than that. So, now for a little nostalgia. The OTP versions of 87C51/2 devices are significantly cheaper than their EPROM counterparts, but why? I thought the OTP devices were based on the same technology as the EPROM versions, with the primary difference being the absence of the quartz window to let in the UV light for erasing. Is the price difference largely a result of market pressures, where demand/supply are low in the era of flash-based derivatives? I realize the EPROM versions usually come in ceramic packages, but thought this was to avoid UV-induced plastic package deterioration, and was not responsible for radical price differences. --Sasha Jevtic |