CASTalk.com

Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other
smaller dsp will not do the job.
I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture based
on 21262 dsps !

Jerome wrote:
Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other
smaller dsp will not do the job.
I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture based
on 21262 dsps !

You might well be. The 212xx and 213xx are due to lack of link ports not
really suited for multiprocessing. Better are 21161 and TigerSharcs -
beware that none of the TigerSharcs have any serial ports.

I'm not sure, does the 212xx support cluster processing?

"Andor Bariska" <an2or@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:41b6fe8d$1@news1.ethz.ch...
Jerome wrote:
Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other
smaller dsp will not do the job.
I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture
based on 21262 dsps !

You might well be. The 212xx and 213xx are due to lack of link ports
not really suited for multiprocessing. Better are 21161 and
TigerSharcs - beware that none of the TigerSharcs have any serial
ports.

I'm not sure, does the 212xx support cluster processing?

It looks like the 21262 doesn't have much if any support for
multiprocessing. There are no link ports and none of the shared
bus/arbitration features found in the other parts. I think they are
gearing it toward audio applications where all the processing can fit
in one chip.

If you really want to use this chip, your best bet is to use the
serial ports to exchange data between the various DSPs. You could
create a ring architecture Or since each chip has 6 serial ports,
there are enough for each one to have two direct connections to the
other 3, which would give you simple bi-directional communication
between any pair of DSPs. Hopefully the serial port bandwidth is high
enough for the amount of data you need to send between the chips.

The chip also has a parallel port for interfacing to "external memory
devices". Maybe that could be adapted to communicate between chips? I
don't know enough about that feature to say, not having used that chip
before. But you could also use a shared memory to pass messages and
data between the chips.

ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor support.
It won't be sampling until at next summer.

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...

ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor
support. It won't be sampling until at next summer.

Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still
waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in
SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be able to live
without the links and use the SPORTs instead if everything else was
there.

:-)

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net:

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...

ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor
support. It won't be sampling until at next summer.

Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still
waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in
SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be able to live
without the links and use the SPORTs instead if everything else was
there.

Might be a long wait, I'm afraid.


Not so long,

We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We were
first with the ADSP-21262)

If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check out
our roadmap:

http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap

There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements.

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9B196B3FEBaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net:

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...

ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor
support. It won't be sampling until at next summer.

Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still
waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing,
built-in SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be
able to live without the links and use the SPORTs instead if
everything else was there.

Might be a long wait, I'm afraid.


Not so long,

We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We
were first with the ADSP-21262)

If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check
out our roadmap:

http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap

There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements.

Thanks, Al. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that fits my
wish list either on your site or ADI product map. In particular, the
lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us and the lack of
link ports is a smaller problem as well.

particular, the lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us
....

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net:


The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new
parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364.

We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that
include an FPGA and SDRAM.

"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9F35504C2Baclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net:


The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new
parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364.

We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that
include an FPGA and SDRAM.

Thanks, Al! Somehow I missed the SDRAM controller feature when I
looked at those parts. If you don't mind me asking, what is the
difference between the '67 and '68? The selection table doesn't show
any differences except for package.

Hi Al,

I asked this in the MacOS X development thread but apparently it got
lost: any plans to support MacOS X in the long run? There are some of
us who'd love to do their development work on that platform...

Hi Stephan,

I'm not sure if I know the context of your question.
Our current dspstak boards have USB driver support (via ftdichip.com)
for most OS's including MAC. I don't know of any way to run the ADI
tools except from Windows.

BeastRider tools also support Linux. There is a 21262 version.

Of course, you could buy lots of boards and develop the MAC support
yourself ;-). We have ZERO experience with the MAC.

Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still
waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in
SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be able to live