The PSoC3 and PSoC5 had 3 or 4 variants with different hardware/flash combination, would ready like to know if that's the same with PSoC4. And we may have PSOC1 projects that needs to upgrade to a more powerfully CPU. PSoC 4 would be a good alternative.
Good Cypress came out with a follow on to the PSoC line, was starting to get concerned.
Trust they also had a defined market for this entry device, we've been using the PSoC3 and I find it hard to justify going up to a 32bit, yet have half the storage and RAM, and UDB.
If anything, would have liked them to have a upgrade to the 3/5 with more analog/digital.
Saw the EETimes article, where Cypress anticipates increases to the PSoC4 in a couple years.
Intresting. I don't see any mention of DMA or RTC for that matter. The RTC is very important for my application, can anyone confirm if it is not present?
Correct, no RTC.
RTC is mainly software and a periodic interrupt. Neither in PSoC3 nor 5 the RTC was from hardware-side something complicated. So I suspect that it might be easily implemented and may come a bit later as an improvement.
Here is an old example used for PSOC 1, might be the basis fort a port.
The big problem, at least for the 4100 and 4200 series PSoC 4 is that it doesn't have a 32 Khz Xtal circuit. There is no reason you cant implement something in software as mentioned earlier, but you'll need an accurate timebase.
Any idea when PSoC4 with more flash/RAM/UDB would be released?
Youc an always make a 32 Khz oscillator with an OpAmp in the 4100/4200, this is a
reprersentative circuit to try, otehrs on net.
When I heard the first time about PSoC4 I was told (by Cypress) that it will arrange itself between PSoC1 and PSoC3. I expected something like a shrunk PSoC3/5 hardware with an m0 processor. I have to admit that I am overhelmed by the flexibility the TCPWM usermodules offer! "Thinking PSoC4" is a bit different compared to the other family members. Some of the problems the former UMs have had, may be avoided now: I had some problems with the updating of PWM-compare values, but now with the switch to a different buffer value there will be no glitches!! I am VERY confident that the PSoC4 will find its applications.
Note, circuit shown for 32 Khz oscillator uses a comparator. 4100/4200 also
have comparators you can try.
OpAmp approaches vs Comparator have various characteristics.
Then you can also consider age old CMOS gate oscillator, although it tends
to use a lot more power than a carefully designed OA or COMP solution.
To Bob Marloe:
You are always too optimistic about PSOC in general.
I think that your optimism about PSOC1 was much better targeted.
I had compared the pin out arrangement of psoc4 with other psoc. it is not a drop in replacement for psoc1.
Cannot compare with psoc3 and psoc5 as they don't have such a small package.
We had project using psoc3 because changing between psoc3 and psoc5 doesn't need to redesign the PCB. Not sure if that is same with psoc4, It would be good if it is same pin arraignment as psoc3 and psoc5.
PSOC 1 is substantially a different animal than PSOC 4, not only content
but simple stuff like analog output column buffers, etc..
Yes, would be nice if there were common pinouts across packages,
but decisions get made. No small amount of $$ needed to qualify
die/packages. Usually one looks at some min opportunity to offer
a package, like 1M+ pieces for starters.
That being said would not mind seeing 8/12/16 pin packages :)