I'm looking for Microntroller (something like ARM Cortex M4) that will have Bluetooth and CAN support. ST has a lot of Bluetooth or CAN chips, but none has both together...
We would like to avoid two chip design...
Thanks.
I did some brief research:
NXP KW39. This would be an M0+.
Renesas RA4W1 is a M4.
Silicon Labs have lots of Bluetooth products but I didn't find one with a CAN controller - I didn't look that carefully though.
ESP32 has both Bluetooth and CAN (they call it "Two-Wire Automotive Interface").
Here is a link to the datasheet: https://www.espressif.com/sites/default/files/documentation/esp32_datasheet_en.pdf
Related
I am looking into persona devices as described in Appendix G of the Redhawk manual.
Is there a detailed "how to" for this anywhere?
In my scenario my 'Programmable Device' would be a Redhawk FEI device that interfaces with a kernel API that controls tuners, fans, gps, buttons and LCD displays. I would like to break this out into three or four persona devices that interface with the main FEI Device.
Thought I'd ask.
If you head to Geon's github and look at the RFNoC_ProgrammableDevice and RFNoC_DefaultPersona, you can get an idea of how these Devices interact with one another. It should be noted that these Devices are still under development. Unfortunately, the manual appendix you mentioned and these examples are really the closest thing to a "how to" there is right now.
That being said, this pattern is generally reserved for FPGAs, with the programmable Device controlling access to the programmable hardware (and FEI functionality, if present) and the persona(s) controlling access to specific bit file capabilities. If you're not interacting with an FPGA, then the pattern will most likely be more trouble than it's worth to obtain modularity.
Do you know if Apple's keyboards use same usb coding as in this pdf:
http://www.mindrunway.ru/IgorPlHex/USBKeyScan.pdf
If not, then could someone post proper coding table for apple's usb keyboards?
Thanks
I would assume that Apple's keyboards work with non-Apple computers, so they should implement the standardized USB Human Interface Device (HID) specification. The key codes for that specification are found in the HID Usage Tables, table 12:
http://www.usb.org/developers/hidpage/Hut1_12v2.pdf
The task at hand is to integrate/interface an already existing ultrasonic sensor like this one to a Z-wave transceiver.
Here are the questions related to it:
Is it possible?
What all do I need for it? (Hardware + Software)
Are there any examples that i can follow?
If this sensor is Arduino compatible, you can have a look ar the Z-Uno project.
Their product is an Arduino compatible Z-Wave board, which you can program from Arduino IDE and use as a Z-Wave sensor/actor.
I am trying to do USB keyboard interfacing with arduino UNO. I would like to take input in the form of ascii values. How can i do it?
Thank you for answering my question. But i figured it out that we could use a female USB connector and connect the data pins with the pwm pins and further use the PS2Keyboard.h library to read input.
The newer 32u4-based Arduino boards (such as Leonardo) support a native Mouse and/or Keyboard integration. For the Arduino Uno you will need extra libraries/firmware to realize a HID keyboard. You can find several approaches and libraries on the web (e.g. Arduino HID Project 2.2, Turning an Arduino into a USB keyboard and so on. Search "Arduino Uno as HID keyboard").
What is the experience running programs written in an audio synthesis/analysis language such as ChucK, Pure Data, Csound, Supercollider, etc. in an embedded device such as an Arduino Mega, Beagle Board or a custom board with a microprocessor or DSP chip?
I would like to know which language and hardware you chose and why. What were the obstacles, etc.? My objective is to run programs that can be easily programmed by musicians/producers in a board that is not too expensive.
I received input from someone who is successfully running ChucK programs in a Beagle Board (Ubuntu Linux on a Beagle Board running ChucK), but his choice of language and hardware was made very lightly, his setup is not using the DSP in the Beagle Board and it seems like overkill to run a whole Linux install to process audio signals.
Any input is appreciated!
Update: I found Zengarden which is a Pd runtime implementation (as a standalone C++ library) and runs well on ARM based devices. For now, I'll go with the BeagleBoard and Zengarden but in a later stage of the project, I'll need to replace the BeagleBoard with something that costs less.
I'd love to hear more input from the community.
Thanks everyone for your comments and answers. For everybody else's reference, I ended up writing a JACK client in C++ that parses and interprets PureData patches and ran it on a BeagleBoard with Angstrom Linux and JACK server. Here's a video and a tutorial that I wrote: http://elsoftwarehamuerto.org/articulos/691/puredata-beagleboard/
First, I am not an audio programmer, so I'm not familiar with the actual demands of the signal processing necessary to achieve what you want to achieve.
But, it's difficult to contrast something like the Beagle Board and the Arduino Mega, since they're really in different leagues of base performance. The Beagle Board is a 1 GHz ARM vs the Arduino Mega's 16 MHz. That tells me that whatever processing you may be interested in doing may well be within the capabilities of the Beagle Board, but the Arduino Mega would have almost no chance without an attached DSP to do the actual work.
The next consideration, is whether any of the packages you were considering using actually target DSPs for their runtimes. At a glance they seem like high level sound processing languages. With the Beagle Board, you may well have the processing power to evaluate and compile the sound source code that these packages use and let them compile in to their targets, but on the Arduino Mega, that seems unlikely.
If all you're doing is working with a piece of hardware that will be running the artifacts created by the packages you mentioned, then the Arduino Mega may well be suitable as the "development" is done on a more powerful machine. But if you want to work with these packages as is, and use them as a development tool, then running them on a Linux port to something like the may simply be a better option.
Again, after casual looking about, the Arduino Mega is roughly half the price of the Beagle Board, but the Beagle Board may well let you work at a much higher level (generic Linux). Whether either will be powerful enough for your final vision, I can't say. But I would imagine you could get a lot farther, a lot faster, using the more powerful system -- at least in the short term.