Related
I'm in the processes of buying a new data acquisition system for my company to use for various projects. At first, it's primary purpose will be to monitor up to 20 thermocouples and control the temperature of a composites oven. However, I also plan on using it to monitor accelerometers, strain gauges, and to act as a signal generator.
I probably won't be the only one to use it, but I have a good bit of programming experience with Atmel microcontrollers (C). I've used LabVIEW before, but ~5 years ago. LabVIEW would be good because it is easy to pick up on for both me and my coworkers. On the flip side, it's expensive. Right now I have a NI CompactDAQ system with 2 voltage and one thermocouple cards + LabVIEW speced out and it's going to cost $5779!
I'm going to try to get the same I/O capabilities with different NI hardware for less $ + LabVIEW to see if I can get it for less $. I'd like to see if anyone has any suggestions other than LabVIEW for me.
Thanks in advance!
Welcome to test and measurement. It's pretty expensive for pre-built stuff, but you trade money for time.
You might check out the somewhat less expensive Agilent 34970A (and associated cards). It's a great workhorse for different kinds of sensing, and, if I recall correctly, it comes with some basic software.
For simple temperature control, you might consider a PID controller (Watlow or Omega used to be the brands, but it's been a few years since I've looked at them).
You also might look into the low-cost usb solutions from NI. The channel count is lower, but they're fairly inexpensive. They do still require software of some type, though.
There are also a fair number of good smaller companies (like Hytek Automation) that produce some types of measurement and control devices or sub-assemblies, but YMMV.
There's a lot of misconception about what will and will not work with LabView and what you do and do not need to build a decent system with it.
First off, as others have said, test and measurement is expensive. Regardless of what you end up doing, the system you describe IS going to cost thousands to build.
Second, you don't NEED to use NI hardware with LabView. For thermocouples your best bet is to look into multichannel or multiple single-channel thermocouple units - something that reads from a thermocouple and outputs to something like RS-232, etc. The OMEGABUS Digital Transmitters are an example, but many others exist.
In this way, you need only a breakout card with lots of RS-232 ports and you can grow your system as it needs it. You can still use labview to acquire the data via RS-232 and then display, log, process, etc, it however you like.
Third party signal generators would also work, for example. You can pick up good ones (with GPIB connection) reasonably cheaply and with a GPIB board can integrate it into LabView as well. This if you want something like a function generator, of course (duty cycled pulses, standard sine/triangle/ramp functions, etc). If you're talking about arbitrary signal generation then this remains a reasonably expensive thing to do (if $5000 is our goalpost for "expensive").
This also hinges on what you're needing the signal generation for - if you're thinking for control signals then, again, there may be cheaper and more robust opitons available. For temperature control, for example, separate hardware PID controllers are probably the best bet. This also takes care of your thermocouple problem since PID controllers will typically accept thermocouple inputs as well. In this way you only need one interface (RS-232, for example) to the external PID controller and you have total access in LabView to temperature readings as well as the ability to control setpoints and PID parameters in one unit.
Perhaps if you could elaborate on not just the system components as you've planned them at present, but the ultimaty system functionality, it may be easier to suggest alternatives - not simply alternative hardware, but alternative system design altogether.
edit :
Have a look at Omega CNi8C22-C24 and CNiS8C24-C24 units -> these are temperature and strain DIN PID units which will take inputs from your thermocouples and strain gauges, process the inputs into proper measurements, and communicate with LabView (or anything else) via RS-232.
This isn't necessarily a software answer, but if you want low cost data aquisition, you might want to look at the labjack. It's basically a microcontroller & usb interface wrapped in a nice box (like an arduino (Atmel AVR + USB-Serial converter) but closed source) with a lot of drivers and functions for various languages, including labview.
Reading a thermocouple can be tough because microvolts are significant, so you either need a high resolution A/D or an amplifier on the input. I think NI may sell a specialized digitizer for thermocouple readings, but again you'll pay.
As far as the software answer, labview will work nicely with almost any hardware you choose -- e.g. I built my own temperature controller based on an arduino (with an AD7780) wrote a little interface using serial commands and then talked with it using labview. But if you're willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed to work out of the box solution, you can't go wrong with labview and an NI part.
LabWindows CVI is NI's C IDE, with good integration with their instrument libraries and drivers. If you're willing to write C code, maybe you could get by with the base version of LabWindows CVI, versus having to buy a higher-end LabView version that has the functionality you need. LabWindows CVI and LabView are priced identically for the base versions, so
that may not be much of an advantage.
Given the range of measurement types you plan to make and the fact that you want colleagues to be able to use this, I would suggest LabVIEW is a good choice - it will support everything you want to do and make it straightforward to put a decent GUI on it. Assuming you're on Windows then the base package should be adequate and if you want to build stand-alone applications, either to deploy on other PCs or to make a particular setup as simple as possible for your colleagues, you can buy the application builder separately later.
As for the DAQ hardware, you can certainly save money - e.g. Measurement Computing have a low cost 8-channel USB thermocouple input device - but that may cost you in setup time or be less robust to repeated changes in your hardware configuration for different tests.
I've got a bit of experience with LabView stuff, and if you can afford it, it's awesome (and useful for a lot of different applications).
However, if your applications are simple you might actually be able to hack together something with one or two arduino's here, it's OSS, and has some good cheap hardware boards.
LabView really comes into its own with real time applications or RAD (because GUI dev is super easy), so if all you're doing is running a couple of thermopiles I'd find something cheaper.
A few thousand dollars is not a lot of money for process monitoring and control systems. If you do a cost/benefit analysis, you will very quickly recover your development costs if the scope of the system is right and if it does the job it is intended to do.
Another tool to consider is National Instruments measurement studio with VB .NET. This way you can still use the NI hardware if you want and can still build nice gui's quickly.
Alternatively, as others have said, it is perfectly viable to get industrial serial based instruments and talk to them with LabVIEW, VB .NET, c# or whatever you like.
If you go down the route of serial instruments, another piece of hardware that might be useful is a serial terminal (example). These allow you to connect arbitrary numbers of devices to your network. You computers can then use them as though they were physical COM ports.
Have you looked at MATLAB. They have a toolbox called Data Acquisition. compactDAQ is a supported hardware.
LabVIEW is a great visual programming environment. In terms if we want to drag,drop and visualize our system. NI Hardware also comes with the NIDAQmx Library which can be accessed through our code. Probably a feasible solution for you would be to import the libraries into another programming language and write code for all the activities which otherwise you were going to perform using LabVIEW. Though other overheads like code optimization would be the users responsibility, you are free to tweak the normal method flow, by introducing your own improvements at suitable junctures in the DAQ process.
I am new to the locating hardware side of embedded programming and so after being completely overwhelmed with all the choices out there (pc104, custom boards, a zillion option for each board, volume discounts, devel kits, ahhh!!) I am asking here for some direction.
Basically, I must find a new motherboard and (most likely) re-implement the program logic. Rewriting this in C/C++/Java/C#/Pascal/BASIC is not a problem for me. so my real problem is finding the hardware. This motherboard will have several other devices attached to it. Here is a summary of what I need to do:
Required:
2 RS232 serial ports (one used all the time for primary UI, the second one not continuous)
1 modem (9600+ baud ok) [Modem will be in simultaneous use with only one of the serial port devices, so interrupt sharing with one serial port is OK, but not both]
Minimum permanent/long term storage: Whatever O/S requires + 1 MB (executable) + 512 KB (Data files)
RAM: Minimal, whatever the O/S requires plus maybe 1MB for executable.
Nice to have:
USB port(s)
Ethernet network port
Wireless network
Implementation languages (any O/S I will adapt to):
First choice Java/C# (Mono ok)
Second choice is C/Pascal
Third is BASIC
Ok, given all this, I am having a lot of trouble finding hardware that will support this that is low in cost. Every manufacturer site I visit has a lot of options, and it's difficult to see if their offering will even satisfy my must-have requirements (for example they sometimes list 3 "serial ports", but it appears that only one of the three is RS232, for example, and don't mention what the other two are). The #1 constraint is cost, #2 is size.
Can anyone help me with this? This little task has left me thinking I should have gone for EE and not CS :-).
EDIT: A bit of background: This is a system currently in production, but the original programmer passed away, and the current hardware manufacturer cannot find hardware to run the (currently) DOS system, so I need to reimplement this in a modern platform. I can only change the programming and the motherboard hardware.
I suggest buying a cheap Atom Mini-ITX board, some of which come with multi - 4+ RS232 ports.
But with Serial->USB converters, this isn't really an issue. Just get an Atom. And if you have code, port your software to Linux.
Here is a link to a Jetway Mini-Itx board, and a link to a 4 port RS232 expansion module for it. ~$170 total, some extra for memory, a disk, and a case and PSU. $250-$300 total.
Now here is an Intel Atom Board at $69 to which you could add flash storage instead of drives, and USB-serial converters for any data collection you need to do.
PC104 has a lot of value in maximizing the space used in 19" or 23" rackmount configurations - if you're not in that space, PC104 is a waste of your time and money, IMHO.
The BeagleBoard should have everything you need for $200 or so - it can run Linux so use whatever programming language you like.
A 'modern' system will run DOS so long as it is x86, I suggest that you look at an industrial PC board from a supplier such as Advantech, your existing system may well run unchanged if it adheres to PC/DOS/BIOS standards.
That said if your original system runs on DOS, the chances are that you do not need the horsepower of a modern x86 system, and can save money by using a microcontroller board using something fairly ubiquitous such as an ARM. Also if DOS was the OS, then you most likely do not need an OS at all, and could develop the system "bare-metal". The resources necessary just to support Linux are probably far greater than your existing application and OS together, and for little or no benefit unless you intend on extending the capability of the system considerably.
There are a number of resources available (free and commercial) for implementing a file system and USB on a bare-metal system or a system using a simple real-time kernel such as FreeRTOS or eCOS which have far smaller footprints than Linux.
The Windows embedded site ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/default.mspx )
has a lot of resources and links to hardware partners, distributors and development kits. There's even a "Spark" incubation project ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/community/spark/default.mspx )
What's also really nice about using windows ce is that it now supports Silverlight as a development environment.
I've used the jetway boards / daughter cards that Chris mentioned with success for various projects from embedded control, my home router, my HTPC front end.
You didn't mention what the actual application was but if you need something more industrial due to temperature or moisture constraints i've found http://www.logicsupply.com/ to be a good resource for mini-itx systems that can take a beating.
A tip for these board is that given your minimal storage requirements, don't use a hard drive. Use an IDE adapter for a compact flash card as the system storage or an SD card. No moving parts is usually a big plus in these applications. They also usually offer models with DC power input so you can use a laptop like or wall wart external supply which minimizes its final size.
This http://www.fit-pc.com/web/ is another option in the very small atom PC market, you'd likely need to use some USB converters to get to your desired connectivity.
The beagle board Paul mentioned is also a good choice, there are daughter cards for that as well that will add whatever ports you need and it has an on board SD card reader for whatever storage you need. This is also a substantially lower power option vs the atom systems.
There are a ton of single board computers that would fit your needs. When searching you'll normally find that they don't keep many interface connectors on the processor board itself but rather you need to look at the stackable daughter cards they offer which would provide whatever connections you need (RS-232, etc.). This is often why you see just "serial port" in the description as the final physical layer for the serial port will be defined on the daughter card.
There are a ton of arm based development boards you could also use, to many to list, these are similar to the beagle board. Googling for "System on module" is a good way to find many options. These again are usually a module with the processor/ram/flash on 1 card and then offer various carrier boards which the module plugs into which will provide the various forms of connectivity you need.
In terms of development, the atom boards will likely be the easiest if your more familiar with x86 development. ARM is strongly supported under linux though so there is little difficulty in getting these up and running.
Personally i would avoid windows for a headless design like your discussing, i rarely see a windows based embedded device that isn't just bad.
Take at look at one of the boards in the Arduino line, in particular the Arduino Mega. Very flexible boards at a low cost, and the Mega has enough I/O ports to do what you need it to do. There is no on-chip modem, but you can connect to something like a Phillips PCD3312C over the I2C connector or you can find an Arduino add-on board (called a "shield") to give you modem functionality (or Bluetooth, ethernet, etc etc). Also, these are very easy to connect to an external memory device (like a flash drive or an SD card) so you should have plenty of storage space.
For something more PC-like, look for an existing device that is powered by a VIA EPIA board. There are lot of devices out there that use these (set-top boxes, edge routers, network security devices etc) that you can buy and re-program. For example, I found a device that was supposed to be a network security device. It came with the EPIA board, RAM, a hard drive, and a power supply. All I had to do was format the hard drive, install Linux (Debian had all necessary drivers already included), and I had a complete mini-computer ready to go. It only cost me around $45 too (bought brand new, unopened on ebay).
Update: The particular device I found was an EdgeSecure i10 from Ingrian Networks.
I'd like to start messing around programming and building something with an Arduino board, but I can't think of any great ideas on what to build. Do you have any suggestions?
I show kids, who have never programmed, or done any electronics before, to make a simple 'Phototrope', a light sensitive robot, in about a day. It costs under £30 (GBP) including Arduino, electronics and off-the-shelf mechanics. If folks really get into mobile robots, the initial project can grow and grow (which I feel is part of the fun).
There are international robot competitions which require relatively simple mechanics to get started, e.g. in the UK http://www.tic.ac.uk/micromouse/toh.asp
Ultimate performance require specially built machines (for lightness) , but folks would get creditable results with an Arduino Nano, the right electronics, and a couple of good motors.
A line following robot is the classic mobile robot project. The track can be as simple as electrical tape. Pololu have some fun videos about their near-Arduino 3PI robot. The sensors are about £1, and there are a bunch of simple motor+gearbox kits from lots of places for under £10. Add a few £ for motor control, and you have autonomous robot mechanics, in need of programming! Add an Infrared Remote receiver (about £1), and you can drive it around using your TV remote. Add a small solar cell, use an Arduino analogue input to measure voltage, and it can find the sun. With a bit more electronics, it can 'feed' itself. And so it gets more sophisticated. Each step might be no more than a few hours to a few days effort, and you'll find new problems to solve and learn from.
IMHO, the most interesting (low-cost) competitions are maze solving robots. The international competition rule require the robot to explore a walled maze, usually using Infrared sensors, and calculate their optimal route. The challenges include keeping track of current position to near-millimeter accuracy, dealing with real world's unpredictably noisy environment and optimising straight-line speed with shortest distance cornering.
All that in 16K of program, and 1K RAM, with real-time interrupt handling (as much as 100K interrupts/second for some motor systems), sensor sampling, motor speed control, and maze solving is an interesting programming challenge. (You might make it 'easy' with 32K of program, and 2K RAM :-)
I'm working on a 'constrained' robot challenge (based on Arduino) so that robot performance is mainly about programming rather than having a big budget.
Start small and build up to something more complex. Control servos. Blink LEDs. Debounce inputs. Read analog sensors. Display text on an LCD. Then put it together.
Despite the name, I like the "Evil Genius" book for PIC microcontrollers because of the small, easily digestible projects that tend to build on one another. It is, of course, aimed at PIC programmers rather than the Arduino, but the material covered will be useful no matter what you're developing on.
I know Arduino is trendy right now, but I also like the Teensy++ development board because of its low price-point ($24), breadboard-compatible PCB, relatively high pin count, Linux development environment, USB connectivity, and not needing a programmer. Worth considering for smaller projects.
If you come up with something cool, let me know. I need an excuse to do something fun :)
Bicycle-related ideas:
theft alarm (perhaps with radio link to a base station which is connected to a PC by Ethernet)
fancy trip computer (with reed switch or opto sensor on wheel)
integrate with a GPS telematics unit (trip logging) with Ethernet/USB download of logged data to PC. Also has an interesting PC programming component--integrate with Google Maps.
Other ideas:
Clock with automatic time sync from:
GPS receiver
FM radio signal with embedded RDS data with CT code
Digital radio (DAB+)
Mobile phone tower (would it require a subscription and SIM card for this receive-only operation?)
NTP server via:
Ethernet
WiFi
ZigBee (with a ZigBee coordinator that gets its time from e.g. Ethernet or GPS)
Mains electricity smart meter via ZigBee (I'm interested now that smart meters are being introduced in Victoria, Australia; not sure if the smart meters broadcast the time info though, and whether it requires authentication)
Metronome
Instrument tuner
This reverse-geocache puzzle box was an awesome Arduino project. You could take this to the next step, e.g. have a reverse-geocache box that gives out a clue only at a specific location, and then using physical clues found at that location coupled with the next clue from the box, determine where to go for the next step.
You could do one of the firefighting robot competitions. We built a robot in university for my bachelor's final project, but didn't have time to enter the competition. Plus the robot needed some polish anyway... :)
Video here.
Mind you, this was done with a Motorola HC12 and a C compiler, and most components outside the microcontroller board were made from scratch, so it took longer than it should. Should be much easier with prefab components.
Path finding/obstacle navigation is typically a good project to start with. If you want something practical, take a look at how iRobot vacuums the floor and come up with a better scheme.
Depends on your background and if you want practical or cool. On the practical side, a remote control could be a simple starting point. It's got buttons and lights but isn't too demanding.
For a cool project maybe a Simon-style memory game or anything with lights & noises (thinking theremin-style).
I don't have suggestions or perhaps something like a line follower robot. I could help you with some links for inspiration
Arduino tutorials
Top 40 Arduino Projects of the Web
20 Unbelievable Arduino Projects
I'm currently developing plans to automate my 30 year old model train layout.
A POV device could be fun to build (just google for POV Arduino). POV means persistence of vision.
I've experience in doing desktop and web programming for a few years. I would like to move onto doing some embed system programming. After asking the initial question, I wonder which hardware / software IDE should I start on...
Arduino + Arduino IDE?
Atmel AVR + AVR Studio 4?
Freescale HCS12 or Coldfire + CodeWarrior?
Microchip PIC+ MPLAB?
ARM Cortex-M3 + ARM RealView / WinARM
Or... doesn't matter?
Which development platform is the easiest to learn and program in (take in consideration of IDE usability)?
Which one is the easiest to debug if something goes wrong?
My goal is to learn about "how IO ports work, memory limitations/requirements incl. possibly paging, interrupt service routines." Is it better to learn one that I'll use later on, or the high level concept should carry over to most micro-controllers?
Thanks!
update: how is this dev kit for a start? Comment? suggestion?
Personally, I'd recommend an ARM Cortex-M3 based microcontroller. The higher-power ARM cores are extremely popular, and these low-power versions could very well take off in a space that is still littered with proprietary 8/16-bit cores. Here is a recent article on the subject: The ARM Cortex-M3 and the convergence of the MCU market.
The Arduino is very popular for hobbyist. Atmel's peripheral library is fairly common across processor types. So, it would smooth a later transition from an AVR to an ARM.
I don't mean to claim that an ARM is better than an AVR or any other core. Choosing an MCU for a commercial product usually comes down to peripherals and price, followed by existing code base and development tools. Besides, microcontrollers are general much much simpler than a desktop PC. So, it's really not that hard to move form one to another after you get the hang of it.
Also, look into FreeRTOS if you are interested in real-time operating system (RTOS) development. It's open source and contains a nice walk through of what an RTOS is and how they have implemented one. In fact, their walk-through example even targets an AVR.
Development tools for embedded systems can be very expensive. However, there are often open source alternatives for the more open cores like ARM and AVR. For example, see the WinARM and WinAVR projects.
Those tool-chains are based on GCC and are thus also available (and easier to use IMHO) on non-Windows platforms. If you are familiar with using GCC, then you know that there are an abundance of "IDE's" to suit your taste from EMACS and vi (my favorite) to Eclipse.
The commercial offerings can save you a lot of headaches getting setup. However, the choice of one will very much depend on your target hardware and budget. Also, Some hardware support direct USB debugging while others may require a pricey JTAG adapter.
Other Links:
Selection Guide of Low Cost Tools for Cortex-M3
Low-Cost Cortex-M3 Boards:
BlueBoard-LPC1768-H ($32.78)
ET-STM32 Stamp Module ($24.90)
New Arduino to utilize an ARM Cortex-M3 instead of an AVR microcontroller.
Given that you already have programming experience, you might want to consider getting an Arduino and wiping out the firmware to do your own stuff with AVR Studio + WinAVR. The Arduino gives you a good starting point in understanding the electronics side of it. Taking out the Arduino bootloader would give you better access to the Atmel's innards.
To get at the goals you're setting out, I would also recommend exploring desktop computers more deeply through x86 programming. You might build an x86 operating system kernel, for instance.
ARM is the most widely used embedded architecture and covers an enormous range of devices from multiple vendors and a wide range of costs. That said there are significant differences between ARM7, 9, 11, and Cortex devices - especially Cortex. However if getting into embedded systems professionally is your aim, ARM experience will serve you well.
8 bit architectures are generally easier to use, but often very limited in both memory capacity and core speeds. Also because they are simple to use, 8-bit skills are relatively easy to acquire, so it is a less attractive skill for a potential employer because it is easy to fulfil internally or with less experienced (and therefore less expensive) staff.
However if this is a hobby rather than a career, the low cost of parts, boards, and tools, and ease of use may make 8 bit attractive. I would suggest AVR simply because it is supported by the free avr-gcc toolchain. Some 8 bit targets are supported by SDCC, another open source C compiler. I believe Zilog make their Z8 compiler available for free, but you may need to pay for the debug hardware (although this is relatively inexpensive). Many commercial tool vendors provide code-size-limited versions of their tools for evaluation and non-commercial use, but beware most debuggers require specialist hardware which may be expensive, although in some cases you can build it yourself if you only need basic functionality and low speeds.
Whatever you do do take a look at www.embedded.com. If you choose ARM, I have used WinARM successfully on commercial projects, although it is not built-for-comfort! A good list of ARM resources is available here. For AVR definitely check out www.avrfreaks.net
I would only recommend Microchip PIC parts (at least the low-end ones) for highly cost sensitive projects where the peripheral mix is a good fit to the application; not for learning embedded systems. PIC is more of a branding than an architecture, the various ranges PIC12, 16, 18, 24, and PIC32 are very different from each other, so learning on one does not necessarily stand you in good stead for using another - often you even need to purchase new tools! That said, the dsPIC which is based on the PIC24 architecture may be a good choice if you wanted to get some simple DSP experience at the same time.
In all cases check out compiler availability (especially if C++ support is a requirement) and cost, and debugger hardware requirements, since often these will be the most expensive parts of your dev-kit, the boards and parts are often the least expensive part.
This is kind of a hard question to answer as your ideal answer very much depends on what it is your interested in learning.
If your goal is just to dive a little deeper into the inner workings of computing systems i would almost recommend you forgo the embedded route and pick up a book on writing a linux kernel module. Write something simple that reads a temperature sensor off the SMbus or something like that.
If your looking at getting into high level (phones, etc) embedded application development, download the Android SDK, you can code in java under eclipse and even has a nice emulator.
If your looking at getting into the "real" microcontroller space and really taking a look at low level system programming, i would recommend you start on a very simple architecture such as an AVR or PIC, something without an MMU.
Diving into the middle ground, for example an ARM with MMU and some sort of OS be it linux or otherwise is going to be a bit of a shock as without a background is both system programming and hardware interfacing i think the transition will be very rough if you plan to do much other than write very simple apps, counting button presses or similar.
Texas Instruments has released a very interesting development kit at a very low price: The eZ430-Chronos Development Tool contains an MSP430 with display and various sensors in a sports watch, including a usb debug programmer and a usb radio access point for 50$
There is also a wiki containing lots and lots of information.
I have already created a stackexchange proposal for the eZ430-Chronos Kit.
No it doesn't matter if you want to learn how to program an embedded device. But you need to know the flow of where to start and where to go next. Cause there are many micro-controllers out there and you don't know which one to choose. So better have a road-map before starting.
In my view you should start with - Any AVR board (atmega 328P- arduino boards or AVR boards)
then you should go to ARM micro-controller - first do ARM CORTEX TDMI
then ARM cortex M3 board.Thus this will give you an overall view after which you can choose any board depending on what kind of project you are working and what are your requirements.
Whatever you do, make sure you get a good development environment. I am not a fan of Microchip's development tools even though I like their microcontrollers (I have been burned too many times by MPLAB + ICD, too much hassle and dysfunction). TI's 2800 series DSPs are pretty good and have an Eclipse-based C++ development environment which you can get into for < US$100 (get one of the "controlCARD"-based experimenter's kits like the one for the 28335) -- the debugger communications link is really solid; the IDE is good although I do occasionally crash it.
Somewhere out there are ICs and boards that are better; I'm not that familiar with the embedded microcontroller landscape, but I don't have much patience for poor IDEs with yet another software tool chain that I have to figure out how to get around all the bugs.
Some recommend the ARM. I'd recommend it, not as a first platform to learn, but as a second platform. ARM is a bit complex as a platform to learn the low-level details of embedded, because its start-up code and initialisation requirements are more complicated than many other micros. But ARM is a big player in the embedded market, so well worth learning. So I'd recommend it as a second platform to learn.
The Atmel AVR would be good for learning many embedded essentials, for 3 main reasons:
Architecture is reasonably straight-forward
Good development kits available, with tutorials
Fan forum with many resources
Other micros with development kits could also be good—such as MSP430—although they may not have such a fan forum. Using a development kit is a good way to go, since they are geared towards quickly getting up-and-running with the micro, and foster effective learning. They are likely to have tutorials oriented towards quickly getting started.
Well, I suppose the development kits and their tutorials are likely to gloss over such things as bootloaders and start-up code, in favour of getting your code to blink the LED as soon as possible. But that could be a good way to get started, and you can explore the chain of events from "power-on" to "code running" at your pace.
I'm no fan of the PICs, at least the PIC16s, due to their architecture. It's not very C-friendly. And memory banks are painful.
It does matter, you need to gradually acquire experience starting with simpler systems. Note that by simpler I dont mean less powerful, I mean ease of use, ease of setup etc. In that vein I would recommend the following (I have no vested interest in a any of the products, I just found them the best):
I've started using one of these (MBED developer board). The big selling points for me were that I could code in C or C++, straightforward connection vis USB and a slick on-line development environment (no local tool installation required at all!).
http://mbed.org/
Five minutes afer opening box I had a sample blinky program (the 'hello world' of the emedded world) running the following:
#include "mbed.h"
DigitalOut myled(LED1);
int main()
{
while(1)
{
myled = 1;
wait(0.2);
myled = 0;
wait(0.2);
}
}
That's it! Above is the complete program!
It's based on ARM Cortex M3, fast and plenty of memory for embedded projects (100mhz, 256k flash & 32k ram). The online dev tools have a very good library and plenty of examples and theres a very active forum. Plenty of help on connecting devices to MBED etc
Even though I have plenty of experience with embedded systems (ARM 7/9, Renases M8/16/32, Coldfire, Zilog, PIC etc) I still found this a refreshingly easy system to get to grips with while having serious capability.
After initially playing with it on a basic breadboard I bought a base board from these guys: http://www.embeddedartists.com/products/lpcxpresso/xpr_base.php?PHPSESSID=lj20urpsh9isa0c8ddcfmmn207. This has a pile of I/O devices (including a miniture OLED and a 3axis accelerometer). From the same site I also bought one of the LCPExpresso processor boards which is cheap, less power/memory than the MBED but perfect for smaller jobs (still hammers the crap out of PIC/Atmega processors). The base board supports both the LCPExpresso and the MBED. Purchasing the LCPExpress processor board also got me me an attached JTAG debugger and an offline dev envoronment (Code Red's GCC/Eclipse based dev kit). This is much more complex than the online MBED dev environment but is a logical progression after you've gained expeience with the MBED.
With reference to my original point noite that the MBED controller is much more capable than the the LPCExpresso controller BUT is much simpler to use and learn with.
I use microchips PIC's, its what I started on, I mainly got going on it due to the 123 microcontroller projects for the evil genius book. I took a Microprocessors class at school for my degree and learned a bit about interrupts and timing and things, this helped a ton with my microcontrollers. I suppose some of the other programmers etc may be better/easier, but for $36 for the PicKit1, I'm too cheap to go buy another one...and frankly without using them I don't know if they are easier/better, I like mine and recommend it every chance I get, and it took me forever to really actually look at it, but I was able to program another chip off board with ICSP finally. I don't know what other programmers do it, but for me that's the nicest thing 5 wire interface and you're programmed. Can't beat that with a stick...
I've only used one of those.
The Freescale is a fine chip. I've used HC-something chips for years for little projects. The only caveat is that I wouldn't touch CodeWarrier embedded with a 10 foot pole. You can find little free C compilers and assemblers (I don't remember the name of the last one I used) that do the job just fine. Codewarrior was big and confusing and regardless of how much I knew about the chip architecture and C programming always seemed to only make things harder. If you've used Codewarrior on the Mac back in the old days and think CW is pretty neat, well, it's not at all like that. CW embedded looks vaguely similar, but it works very differently, and not very well.
A command-line compiler is generally fine. Professionals who can shell out the big bucks get expensive development environments, and I'm sure they make things better, but without that it's still far better than writing assembly code for a desktop PC in 1990, and somehow we managed to do that just fine. :-)
You might consider a RoBoard. Now, this board may not be what you are looking for in terms of a microcontroller, but it does have the advantage of being able to run Windows or DOS and thus you could use the Microsoft .NET or even C/C++ development tools to fiddle around with things like servos or sensors or even, what the heck, build a robot! It's actually kinda fun.
There's also the Axon II, which has the ATmega640 processor.
Either way, both boards should help you achieve your goal.
Sorry for the robotics focus, just something I'm interested in and thought it may help you too.
I use PICs, but would consider Arduino if I chose today. But from your goals:
how IO ports work
memory limitations/requirements
interrupt service routines
I wonder if you best bet is just to hack in the Linux kernel?
BBC Micro Bit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Bit
This cheap little board (~20 pounds) was crated by ARM Holdings as an educational device, and 1M units were given out for free to UK students.
It contains an ARM Cortex-M0, the smallest ARM core of all.
I recommend it as a first micro-controller board due to its wide availability, low cost, simplicity, and the fact that it introduces you to the ARM architecture, which has many more advanced boards also available for more serious applications.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm looking to learn about embedded programming (in C mainly, but I hope to brush up on my ASM as well) and I was wondering what the best platform would be. I have some experience in using Atmel AVR's and programming them with the stk500 and found that to be relatively easy. I especially like AVR Studio and the debugger that lets you view that state of registers.
However, If I was to take the time to learn, I would rather learn about something that is prevalent in industry. I am thinking ARM, that is unless someone has a better suggestion.
I would also be looking for some reference material, I have found the books section on the ARM website and if one is a technically better book than another I would appreciate a heads up.
The last thing I would be looking for is a prototyping/programming board like the STK500 that has some buttons and so forth.
Thanks =]
"embedded programming" is a very broad term. AVR is pretty well in that category, but it's a step below ARM, in that it's both simpler to use, as well as less powerful.
If you just want to play around with ARM, buy a Nintendo DS or a Gameboy Advance. These are very cheap compared to the hardware inside (wonders of mass production), and they both have free development toolchains based off of gcc which can compile to them.
If you want to play around with embedded linux, BeagleBoard is looking to be a good option, only $150 and it has a ton of features.
Personally I think AVR is best for the smaller-sized 8-bit platforms, and ARM is best for the larger, more powerful 32-bit based platforms. Like many AVR fans, I don't like PIC. It just seems worse in pretty much every way. Also avoid anything that requires you to write any type of BASIC.
If you just want to play around with it, I'd suggest the Arduino platform (http://www.arduino.cc). It's based on the ATmega168 or ATmega8, depending on the version. It uses a C-like language and has its own IDE.
Myself I've worked in embedded programming for 9 years now and have experience on TI MSP430, Atmel AVR (a couple of flavours) and will be using an ARM soon.
My suggestion is to pickup something that has some extra features in the processor like ethernet controller and CAN controller, even get two or three if you can. Embedded devices are nice to work with, but once they can talk to other similar devices via CAN or get onto a network, they can become much more fun to play with.
ADI's Blackfin is another option since it's quite a straight forward architecture to program, yet can also do some fairly hefty DSP stuff should you choose to go down that route. It helps that the assembly language is quite sane too.
The Blackfin STAMP boards are an inexpensive (~$100 last I checked) way in, and they support the free GCC tools and uClinux.
Whatever architecture you choose I'd definitely recommend first downloading the toolchain\SDK and looking through the sample projects and tutorials - generally having a bit of a play about. You can often get quite acquainted with the architecture through simulation without even touching any hardware.
ARM has the nicest instruction set of the widely used embedded platforms, leaving you free to pick up the general principles of writing software for embedded platforms without getting bogged down in weird details like non-orthogonal registers or branch delay slots. There are plenty of emulators - ARM's own, while not free, is cycle-accurate; and a huge variety of programmable ARM-based hardware is cheap and easy to come by as well.
The TI MSP430 is a great platform for learning how to program microcontrollers. TI has a variety of FREE Tools and some cheap evaluation boards (starting at $20). Plus, it's a low-power, modern microcontroller.
A nice choice would be PIC18 by Microchip
It has quite alot of material, documentation, tutorials and projects on the internet
Free IDE and compiler.
you can pull your own flash writer in a few minutes.
(Although for a debugger to work you'll need to work harder)
If you're a student (or has a student email address) Microchip will send you free sample chips. So basically you can have a full development environment for close to nothing.
PICs are quite prevalent in the industry. Specifically as controllers for robots for some reason although they can do so much more.
Arduino seems to be the platform of choice these days for beginners although there are lots of others. I like the Olimex boards personally but they are not really for beginners.
Microchip's PIC range of CPUs are also excellent for beginners, especially if you want to program in assembler.
BTW, Assembler is not used as much as it used to. The general rule with embedded is if you've got 4k of memory or more, use C. You get portability and you can develop code faster.
I suppose it depends on your skill level and what you want to do with the chip. I usually choose which embedded chip to use by the available peripherals. If you want a USB port, find one with USB built in, if you want analogue-to-digital, find one with an ADC etc. If you've got a simple application, use an 8-bit but if you need serious number crunching, go 32 bits.
I'd like to suggest the beagleboard from TI. It has a Omap3 on it. That's a Cortex-A8 ARM11 CPU, a C64x+ DSP and a video accelerator as well.
The board does not need an expensive jtag device. A serial cable an an SD-Card is all you need to get started. Board costs only $150 and there is a very active community.
www.beagleboard.org
Your question sort of has been answered in this question.
To add to that, the embedded processor industry is very segmented, it doesn't have a major player like Intel/x86 is for the "desktop" processor industry. The ARM processor does have a large share, so does MIPS I believe, and there are many smaller more specific microcontroller like chips available (like the MSP430 etc from TI).
As for documentation, I do embedded development for a day job, and the documentation we have access to (as software developers) is rather sparse. Your best bet is to use the documentation available on the processor manufacturers site.
Take a look at Processing and the associated Arduino and Wiring boards.
If you just want to have fun, then try the Parallax Propeller chip. The HYDRA game platform looks like a blast. There's a $100 C compiler for it now.
I started on BASIC stamps, moved up through SX chips and PICs into 8051s, then 68332s, various DSPs, FPGA soft processors, etc.
8051s are more useful in the real world... the things won't go away. There's TONS of derivatives and crazy stuff for them. (Just stay away from the DS80C400) The energy industry is absolutely full of them.
Start with something tiny. If you have external RAM and plenty of registers... what's the difference between that and a SBC?
Many moons ago I've worked with 8-bitters like 68HC05 and Z80, later AVR and MSP430 (16-bit). However most recent projects were on ARM7. Several manufacturers offer ARM controllers, in all colors and sizes (well, not really color).
ARM(7) is replacing 8-bit architecture: it's more performant (32-bit RISC at faster instruction cycles than most 8-bitters), has more memory and is available with several IO-configurations.
I worked with NXP LPC2000 controllers, which are also inexpensive (< 1 USD for a 32-bitter!).
If you're in Europe http://www.olimex.com/dev/index.html has some nice low-cost development boards. Works in the rest of the world too :-)
For a fun project to test, have a look at xgamestation
But for a more industrial used one chip solution programming, look at PIC
For my Computer Architecture course I had to work with both a PIC and an AVR; in my opinion the PIC was easier to work with, but that's maybe because that's what we worked with the most and we had the most time to get used to. We used the AVR maybe only a couple of times so I couldn't get the hang of it perfectly but it also was nothing overly complicated, or at least not more frustrating than the other.
I think you can also order microprocessor samples from Microchip's website so you could also get started with that?
Second that:
Arduino platform http://www.arduino.cc
HTH
For learning, you can't go past the AVR. The chips are cheap and they'll run with zero external components - they also supply enough current to drive an LED straight from the port.
You can start with a cheap programmer such as lady-ada's USBTinyISP (USD$22 for a kit) which can power your board with 5V from the USB port. Get the free tools WinAVR (GCC based) and AVRStudio and get a small project working in no time.
Yes the AVRs have limitations - but developing software for microcontrollers is largely about managing resources and coping with those problems. It's unlikely that you'll experience problems such as running out of stack space, RAM or ROM when you're making hobbist projects for powerful ARM platforms.
That said, ARM is also a great platform which is widely used in the industry, however, for learning I highly recommend AVRs.
I would suggest Microchip's PIC18F series. I just started developing for them with the RealICE in-circuit emulator, but the pickit2 is a decent debugger for the price. You could say this for the AVR's also, but there is a large following for the device all over the web. I was able to have a - buggy, yet functional - embedded USB device running within days due to all the PIC related chatter.
The only thing I don't like about the PICs is that a lot of the sample code is VERY entwined into the demo boards. That can make it hard to tear out sections that you need and still have an application that will build and run for your application.
Texas Instruments has released a very interesting development kit at a very low price: The eZ430-Chronos Development Tool contains an MSP430 with display and various sensors in a sports watch, including a usb debug programmer and a usb radio access point for 50$
There is also a wiki containing lots and lots of information.
I have already created a stackexchange proposal for the eZ430-Chronos Kit.
You should try and learn from developpers kits provided by Embedded Artists. After you get the kit, check their instructional videos and videos provided by NXP, which are not as detailed as they could be, but they cover a lot of things. Problems with learning ARM as your first architecture and try to do something practicall are:
You need to buy dev. kit.
You need a good book to learn ARM assembly, because sooner or later you will come across ARM startup code, which is quite a deal for a beginner. The book i mentioned allso covers some C programming.
Combine book mentioned above with a user guide for your speciffic processor like this one. Make sure you get this as studying this in combination with above book is the only way to learn your ARM proc. in detail.
If you want to make a transfer from ARM assembly to C programming you will need to read this book, which covers a different ARM processor but is easier for C beginner. The down side is that it doesn't explain any ARM assembly, but this is why you need the first book.
There is no easy way.
mikroElektronika has nice ARM boards and C, Pascal and Basic compilers that might suite your demands.