It is 4800 baud and not adjustable. It also requires some extra timing delays for each character sent.Guy Lavoie said:If you or someone else could post the baud rate (or if its adjustable) then that would be great.
6 mSec would be a lot, considering that at 4800 baud, it takes about 2 mSec to send one byte. That would reduce the sustained data transfer rate to about 1200 baud... So if they say 6 mSec between characters as opposed to between commands or whatever, then that's kind of bad. I wonder how their USB version handles data buffering?ericvic said:Guy,
I have to be vague because of the stupid NDA you have to agree to in order to get the SDK.
There is only a 3 character buffer (as I understand it) and you are suppose to put 6ms between characters.
Eric
Guy, Do people still use the 8051? (on purpose?)Guy Lavoie said:Actually, I'm thinking microcontroller here...8051
Absolutely! It is still the most popular 8-bit micro in use!Do people still use the 8051? (on purpose?)
How sad!I have a client who refused to adapt ZWave because it based on the 8051.
Are you sure that's mips and not megahertz? The 8051 needs 12 clock cycles per instruction cycle, so the 50 MHz versions are near 4 mips.TonyNo said:I have not needed them yet, but there are variants that run 33, 50, and even 300 MIPS!
The 12 clock cycle thing is true for the earlier chips, but the newer ones need as little as two clock cycles per instructions.rocco said:Are you sure that's mips and not megahertz? The 8051 needs 12 clock cycles per instruction cycle, so the 50 MHz versions are near 4 mips.TonyNo said:I have not needed them yet, but there are variants that run 33, 50, and even 300 MIPS!
My client's concern was that none of their programmers wanted to code for it, and that 8051 code is very expensive to maintain. Having to shuffle everything through the data-pointer register (four instructions to do a simple move from an I/O port), the small range of a conditional branch and the lack of a parameter stack makes for some pretty bloated and bug-prone code.
I did try an 8051 C compiler back in 1987, but it didn't take long for some simple routines to fill the address space. It was also dog-slow. Again, it was the lack of a stack.
It's not that it wasn't a great achievement back in the 70s. It's just that it's architecture is out of the stone age of microcontrollers. Micros are so much better now.
Well, I love coding assembly on them... I guess it's because I cut my teeth on Z80's.I have to concede that my dislike of the 8051 comes purely from the perspective of an assembly language programmer