MikeWhy wrote:


> Dude! The OP said "decades". I'm thinking 1982 compared to today; today 
> compared to 2035.

Z80 is still available, and so is 68HC11. Those parts have good chance 
to be in production until 2035, too :)


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

In article <L03ck.12757$j...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, 
a...@hotmail.com says...
> 
> 
> tns1 wrote:
> > I am faced with selecting a replacement processor/uC for a re-design of 
> > some industrial controller/safety equipment. The technical requirements 
> > can be satisfied by just about any 32bit risc style uP/uC, but one key 
> > requirement is that since the product life is decades long, the 
> > particular part or at least the architecture should continue to be 
> > supported by the vendor for as long as possible.
> > 
> > This seems a pretty tough requirement. Years ago, the x86 would have 
> > been a good choice, but probably not today. I also think this pretty 
> > much rules out any Microchip or Atmel parts as their 32bit line is too 
> > new and they have already obsoleted their earliest parts. The latest 
> > architectures may be too new to say anything about longevity. I am 
> > leaning towards the ARM architecture or perhaps MIPs - something that 
> > already has a very large installed base to guarantee continued support. 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Motorola/FreeScale has a good reputation for the parts longevity as well 
> as the reliability. The ColdFire will probably last for quite some time; 
>   MPC family could be the choice also.
> 
The Motorola/Freescale MC68332 has been in production since about 1990. 
I'm still using it in low-power data loggers.  It's   available
in the DigiKey catalog for $22.65, qty 1.  The 68K architecture goes
back even further.  Based on that longevity,  I second Vladimir's
recommendation of Freescale.


Mark Borgerson

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:48:55 -0700 (PDT), rickman <g...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>This is just my opinion of course, but have you considered that
>although someone is asking for 20 to 40 year product life (btw 20 to
>40 years is not spec, they need to decide if 20 is good enough or if
>they really need 40) is that really a useful target.  Usually a long
>life time for a product is desired when the development requires a lot
>of testing or there is some other high expense associated with
>changing the product.

In the industrial sector that I work most of the time, the typical
contractual requirement is that the product should have at least a 10
year support period. 

One of my customers are using a design that was made 20 years ago and
they still tried to sell it (even if a replacement product has been
available for a decade).  I successfully tried to warn them that if
such products are sold today, we still would have to support it for
the next decade. 

Fortunately that product version is no longer sold to new
installations, but of course we have to support current installations
with the original product or with the replacement product for the next
decade.

Paul

tns1 wrote:

> I am faced with selecting a replacement processor/uC for a re-design of
> some industrial controller/safety equipment. The technical requirements
> can be satisfied by just about any 32bit risc style uP/uC, but one key
> requirement is that since the product life is decades long, the
> particular part or at least the architecture should continue to be
> supported by the vendor for as long as possible.
> 
> This seems a pretty tough requirement. Years ago, the x86 would have
> been a good choice, but probably not today. I also think this pretty
> much rules out any Microchip or Atmel parts as their 32bit line is too
> new and they have already obsoleted their earliest parts. The latest
> architectures may be too new to say anything about longevity. I am
> leaning towards the ARM architecture or perhaps MIPs - something that
> already has a very large installed base to guarantee continued support.
> Thoughts?

A couple of articles in EPD magazine may be of interest:-

<http://www.epdonthenet.net/article.aspx?ArticleID=13203>;
<http://www.epdonthenet.net/article.aspx?ArticleID=15476>;
<http://www.epdonthenet.net/article.aspx?ArticleID=12692>;

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://P...@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

In article <2b94272f-ffd2-4c72-8fb5-26776e4563e4
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
> Looking at your stated requirements realistically, I think that 20
> years is a very outside possibility for a product lifetime.  

Think of life as sales life + service life and the outlook may be a 
little different.  At one time a company I was working for was looking 
at developing a product with another company.  One of the requirements 
was that there be service spares available for 20 years after the *end* 
of normal production. 

That places a minimum availability requirement on components, unless you 
are willing to reserve resources for continuing engineering after the 
end of the sales life of the product the service parts are for.

What's the service life of a Boeing 747?

Robert
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:18:17 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<b...@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.arch.embedded:

> "Jack Klein" <j...@spamcop.net> wrote in message 
> news:5...@4ax.com...
> > You might want to snare the 2007 version as well, under the assumption
> > that you might be forced to move Windows Vista someday.
> 
> Dude! The OP said "decades". I'm thinking 1982 compared to today; today 
> compared to 2035. Ciarcia was still writing for Byte magazine back then. 
> Around that time, he was espousing programmable logic for hobbyists; I wrote 
> him off for many years, stopped reading his columns, as being a little too 
> radical. :)
> 
> (Thanks for the links.)

I have a Z80 tool set that I first used over 20 years ago that ran on
MS-DOS.  I can run it on my DOS 6.22 VM today.  Not quite 1982, I was
still using Z80 tools on CP/M 80.  But 1984, I think, we moved to Z80
tools on the PC.  So about a year shy of the quarter century mark.

Still, that's 2.4 decades, definitely plural.

-- 
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

Jack Klein wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> I have a Z80 tool set that I first used over 20 years ago that ran on
> MS-DOS.  I can run it on my DOS 6.22 VM today.  Not quite 1982, I was
> still using Z80 tools on CP/M 80.  But 1984, I think, we moved to Z80
> tools on the PC.  So about a year shy of the quarter century mark.
> 
> Still, that's 2.4 decades, definitely plural.

And, with a few discrete macros, they work just fine for a 64180
(or Z180) etc.  One of the advantages of the CLI.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
            Try the download section.

"Jack Klein" <j...@spamcop.net> wrote in message 
news:i...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:18:17 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> <b...@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
>
>> "Jack Klein" <j...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:5...@4ax.com...
>> > You might want to snare the 2007 version as well, under the assumption
>> > that you might be forced to move Windows Vista someday.
>>
>> Dude! The OP said "decades". I'm thinking 1982 compared to today; today
>> compared to 2035. Ciarcia was still writing for Byte magazine back then.
>> Around that time, he was espousing programmable logic for hobbyists; I 
>> wrote
>> him off for many years, stopped reading his columns, as being a little 
>> too
>> radical. :)
>>
>> (Thanks for the links.)
>
> I have a Z80 tool set that I first used over 20 years ago that ran on
> MS-DOS.  I can run it on my DOS 6.22 VM today.  Not quite 1982, I was
> still using Z80 tools on CP/M 80.  But 1984, I think, we moved to Z80
> tools on the PC.  So about a year shy of the quarter century mark.
>
> Still, that's 2.4 decades, definitely plural.

I was remarking on the Vista reference in your post. Some things survive the 
years better than others. Of course, Vista's teething problems today might 
well not even warrant a footnote in 20 years. Who can know such things?

tns1 wrote:
> More info, OS and toolchain discussion...
> 
> This is industrial safety monitoring equipment that also has to meet 
> some minimal radiation rating. Trailing edge technologies with larger 
> process geometries may actually fare better. Compatibility with in-house 
> assembly equipment may eliminate using BGA components.
> 
> The overall HW design will include RS232,RS485, current loop, A/D, D/A, 
> a key panel with display, and some GPIO. The biggest change is to add an 
> ethernet port which could be satisfied by some kind of separate serial 
> to ethernet adaptor design as long as all the IP were available.
> 
> I am still getting an idea of what my requirements really are and what 
> that means in terms of component selection. My interpretation so far is 
> to stay away from proprietary architectures and tools which may go away. 
> I think I will want the source for every piece, so open source or 
> commercialized open source.
> 
> The original system design used the Intel i960 running the Intel iRMK 
> kernel. You are lucky if you can even find any mention of this 
> processor/scheduler combo today (tell me if you find anything), let 
> alone any reference manuals. Intel is still going strong but these 
> particular products have long been abandoned. The old command line 
> cross-tools are still workable under XP, but obviously won't be of use 
> on the re-design.
> 
> The iRMK/iRMX product was sold and the new company has continued with 
> the x86 port. I'd consider it if I still wanted to use x86.
> 
> The existing kernel is just a scheduler without a filesystem. It only 
> uses the most basic kernel services (tasks, semaphores, mailboxes). The 
> only new complication is ethernet, which may not need to be handled 
> directly by the main processor if it complicates the whole safety 
> verification part too much. There is a big advantage in preserving 
> existing code and task partitioning - something simple and very similar 
> to the existing kernel.
> 
> Possible candidates so far are Ecos, QNX, FreeRTOS/SafeRTOS, L4. If it 
> isn't already ported to many devices or the complete source is not 
> available, then it isn't a candidate. On the other hand, my app code is 
> commercial and probably can't be made public.
> 
> 
> 

One way to go would be to build your own chip.
If the quantities you need are less than a few thousand per year, then a 
multi-project wafer would be the way to go.

This can work out as a surprisingly cost effective way to go.
We made our own chip in 0.35um - not the state of the art but a good 
solid process (used extensively in the Auto industry) and the total cost 
came to less than 50K euros.

You need to make sure that you get the source code for the entire design 
  as well as the source code for the entire toolchain (Compiler, linker, 
debugger, IDE etc etc).

You can then be in complete control.

A few processor IP companies will do this for you - one is Cortus 
(http://www.cortus.com).

I doubt that ARM and any of the market leaders will though.

I will add Micrium uC/OS-II to your list of RTOS's to which you get the 
complete source code.

>I am faced with selecting a replacement processor/uC for a re-design of 
>some industrial controller/safety equipment. The technical requirements 
>can be satisfied by just about any 32bit risc style uP/uC, but one key 
>requirement is that since the product life is decades long, the 
>particular part or at least the architecture should continue to be 
>supported by the vendor for as long as possible.
>
>This seems a pretty tough requirement. Years ago, the x86 would have 
>been a good choice, but probably not today. I also think this pretty 
>much rules out any Microchip or Atmel parts as their 32bit line is too 
>new and they have already obsoleted their earliest parts. The latest 
>architectures may be too new to say anything about longevity. I am 
>leaning towards the ARM architecture or perhaps MIPs - something that 
>already has a very large installed base to guarantee continued support. 
>Thoughts?
>
>
>

I wouldn't expect any ARM derivative to have anywhere near a long
lifespan.  It's a licensed core with all kinds of peripherals glued around
it.  These processors don't seem to last long.  I would lean toward
Freescale (e.g. PowerPC).  They carry their processor parts for a good long
while, they're technically as good or better than most and
support/documentation is excellent.  The company is also likely to be
around, even if they change their name again (Moto Semi => Freescale =>
?).

Jeff
http://www.e2atechnology.com