2 of 2 people found this helpful
Currently, we are planning 5 lineups in the PSoC 6 architecture. However, the PSoC 6 architecture has been built so that more features and capabilities can be added, so we plan to have more lineups in the future to address market requirements and needs. In terms of information, we have the PSoC 6 brochure, but we plan to update this community with datasheets of each of the lineups moving forward, so please stay tuned and check back with the community for these updates. Lastly, thank you for the feedback on the ADC, we will take into consideration this feedback.
Many thanks, I'll be waiting these documents.
Yes I strongly support the higher quality ADC (as per PSoC5).
Wonder why Cypress missed this ???
Also I personally do not regard Bluetooth as relevant to IoT, where is WiFi (kit, module?)
1 of 1 people found this helpful
The PSoC 6 architecture has been built so that more resources and features (analog and digital) can be added, depending on market needs and requirements. Regarding the higher performance DelSig ADC, since the current PSoC 6 lineups are targeted for more consumer and wearable type applications, we did not consider this higher spec ADC for these lineups. But in saying this, we do have plans for future PSoC 6 lineups to support higher performance analog for applications that require them, such as the medical market.
In regards to Bluetooth, we are seeing more IoT applications and devices (wearables, consumer products) support this type of connectivity. We are also seeing WiFi needs as well, and PSoC 6 can address these needs by being the host MCU to a WiFi module, such as our WICED chipset (PSoC 6 has the resources to interface with a WiFi module). In addition, we are planning a new Pioneer Kit with PSoC 6 that has a WiFi module on it and PSoC 6 is the host MCU interfacing with it, planned for later in the year for release.
Question for you, why do you think that Bluetooth is not important to the IoT?
Lastly, thank you for the comments and questions. Let me know if something needs clarification, we can always continue the dialog!
In my opinion - Bluetooth is good, if you want to built a network of PSoC-powered devices. But if you want to interface this network to the "outside world" = to your home network, for example, you'll need Wifi.
So, I'd like to vote for another kit with both Bluetooth and Wifi.
Only Wifi, that would be worse. I'm not saying that it won't have applications, but surely less than Bluetooth+Wifi board.
And when we're talking about boards, I would also like a lower-cost board like CY8CKIT-059 is. Just Bluetooth, maybe Wifi, and exposed pins. It is okay to have a few on-board external circuits in a board, when you're testing a program for example. However sometimes you just need the PSoC.
Most of you probably have no problems soldering packages used for present PSoCs...but honestly, I do. And I understand, that those easily-solderable packages like DIPs are not good for so many pins. But a board like CY8CKIT-059 is a nice workaround
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Thanks for your feedback. The options which you mentioned are already Work In Progress, we are working on bringing boards based on PSoC 6 that shall feature both BT and Wifi capabilities.
Regarding a prototyping kit for PSoC 6, similar to CY8CKIT-059, yes this is in the plan and we'll bring this out pretty soon.
Glad to hear this
Thanks for reply.
I have always been confused by the concept of Bluetooth being part of the internet.
I guess it's part of a tricky marketing push by Bluetooth manufacturers, but I have often been let down by technical articals and other adverts for connecting to things on the internet. I have had great success using WiFi to connect instrumentation from small embedded devices to the net. Whenever I have tried Bluetooth I have to use bridging devices (wifi or cable) to get internet connectivity. Along with that, unreliable and slow Bluetooth discovery and connectivity is common, just try a Bluetooth mouse.... all the above makes me steer clear of so called "IoT" that uses Bluetooth.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but are there any Bluetooth devices that connect directly to the Internet?
Wifi does this with ease...
There are a lot of open source small operating systems such as: RIOT, Contiki, they support 6LoWPAN, IPv6 and CoAP, but do not know why the official no relevant manual. As an IOT embedded engineer,personally feel the official IOT positioning direction a little problem, not in line with market demand
The problem with Wifi is it is very power hungry. If they are putting the PSoC 6 out as a Ultra Low Power device, then I would think that rules out Wifi. Just my $0.02...
The Wifi should definitely be an upgrade, but as some of you stated already the power requirements are too high. Also I do not see the need for a 20 bit ADC since this is an internal ADC and I believe the noise is too great for such a small resolution(even more if you add the Wifi). Moreover, even if the BLE is not truly part of the IoT, it is a good option for low power requirements. At any time you can make a network with BLE devices and only one node with Wifi integrated.
Last point to this will be the price which I believe it will increase dramatically with the addition of a Wifi capability. I am talking here about the chip alone not the development board which can be kept in a reasonable price. Even the best PSOC 4 BLE are not very cheep for an end chip.
I agree that power is the key. I guess it's horses for courses, and as always every solution is a compromise to solve the problem at hand. But in general, if you have an application that needs to be battery powered, needs many small sensors, that need to be in the field for a long time (perhaps a year), and crucially until now, only needs to report a small amount of data, then Bluetooth is a good fit because of the low power. It will need a bluetooth to internet hub at the centre to collate and transmit the data, but hopefully this can be located in a building with mains power and an internet connection via ethernet or wifi. However, if you have access to significant power and/or need to stream significant amounts of data, another solution is required. But as has been pointed out, cost, power and security can add constraints.
Personally, I am looking forwards to the extra bandwidth and the meshing capabilities of BT5. I think this opens up additional possibilities.