>>>>> "JDH" == JDH services <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Werner Almesberger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The idea is to replace the SiLabs C8051F326 microcontroller with an >> Atmel ATmega32U2 (or ATmega16U2, etc.). The motivation is that AVRs >> are fairly popular in DIY circles while 8051-based chips tend to be >> treated with distaste, so the ATmega32U2 should be a more attractive >> choice and would lower the barrier for others to contribute to the >> firmware. I for my part must say that I'd actually prefer 8051 based chips. It's much simpler to just install sdcc, compared to the headaches it takes to get a working gcc cross-toolchain set up. Yes, performance-wise the 8051 is abysmal. > Why doing you get Atmels written permission to release a open source > clone of Atmel's own AVR and AVR32 architectures BEFORE you force > everyone to write their software for that proprietary architectures. > So we(Qi hardware projects) don't have to relive the MIPS legal issues > over again? I think he might be talking about: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/AVR32#Architecture "Several U.S. patents are filed for the AVR32 ISA and design platform." But as long as we don't have tons of AVR-specific assembly code I'd say it plays no role which controller is actually used. Nobody forces us to re-implement the AVR ISA when eventually (if at all) moving to an open source cpu. cheers, David -- GnuPG public key: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~dvdkhlng/dk.gpg Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205 D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40
pgpQ3JEjFA4wh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Qi Hardware Discussion List Mail to list (members only): [email protected] Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
