Tag Archives: ARM Cortex A

How to prevent execution surprises for Cortex-M7 MCU


We know the heavy weight linked with software development, in the 60% to 70% of the overall project cost.


The ARM Cortex-A series processor core (A57, A53) is well known in the high performance market segments, like application processing for smartphone, set-top-box and networking. If you look at the electronic market, you realize that multiple applications are cost sensitive and don’t need such high performance processor core. We may call it the embedded market, even if this definition is vague. The ARM Cortex-M family has been developed to address these numerous market segments, starting with the Cortex-M0 for lowest cost, the Cortex-M3 for best power/performance balance, and the Cortex-M4 for applications requiring digital signal processing (DSP) capabilities.

For the audio, voice control, object recognition, and complex sensor fusion of automotive and higher-end Internet of Things sensing, where complex algorithms for audio and video are needed for rich audio and visual capabilities, Cortex-M7 is required. ARM offers the processor core as well as the Tightly Coupled Memory (TCM) architecture, but ARM licensees like Atmel have to implement memories in such a way that the user can take full benefit from the M7 core to meet system performance and latency goals.

Figure 1. The TCM interface provides a single 64-bit instruction port and two 32-bit data ports.

The TCM interface provides a single 64-bit instruction port and two 32-bit data ports.

In a 65nm embedded Flash process device, the Cortex-M7 can achieve a 1500 CoreMark score while running at 300 MHz, offering top class DSP performance: double-precision floating-point unit and a double-issue instruction pipeline. But algorithms like FIR, FFT or Biquad need to run as deterministically as possible for real-time response or seamless audio and video performance. How do you best select and implement the memories needed to support such performance? If you choose Flash, this will require caching (as Flash is too slow) leading to cache miss risk. Whereas SRAM technology is a better choice since it can be easily embedded on-chip and permits random access at the speed of processor.

Peripheral data buffers implemented in general-purpose system SRAM are typically loaded by DMA transfers from system peripherals. The ability to load from a number of possible sources, however, raises the possibility of unnecessary delays and conflicts by multiple DMAs trying to access the memory at the same time. In a typical example, we might have three different entities vying for DMA access to the SRAM: the processor (64-bit access, requesting 128 bits for this example) and two separate peripheral DMA requests (DMA0 and DMA1, 32-bit access each). Atmel has get round this issue by organizing the SRAM into several banks as described in this picture:

Figure 2. By organizing the SRAM into banks, multiple DMA bursts can occur simultaneously with minimal latency.

By organizing the SRAM into banks, multiple DMA bursts can occur simultaneously with minimal latency.

For a chip maker designing microcontrollers, licensing ARM Cortex-M processor core provides numerous advantages. The very first is the ubiquity of the ARM core architecture, being adopted in multiple market segments to support variety of applications. If this chip maker wants to design-in a new customer, the probability that such OEM has already used ARM-based MCU is very high, and it’s very important for this OEM to be able to reuse existing code (we know the heavy weight linked with software development, in the 60% to 70% of the overall project cost). But this ubiquity generates a challenge: how do you differentiate from the competition when competitors can license exactly the same processor core?

Selecting a more aggressive technology node and providing better performance at lower cost are an option, but we understand that this advantage can disappear as soon as the competition also move to this node. Integrating larger amount of Flash is another option, which is very efficient if the product is designed on a technology that enables it to keep the pricing low enough.

If the chip maker has designed on an aggressive technology node for higher performance and offers a larger amount of Flash than the competition, it may be enough differentiation. Completing with the design of a smarter memory architecture unencumbered by cache misses, interrupts, context swaps, and other execution surprises that work against deterministic timing allow bringing strong differentiation.

Pic

If you want to more completely understand how Atmel has designed this SMART memory architecture for the Cortex-M7, I encourage you to read this white paper from Jacko Wilbrink and Lionel Perdigon entitled “Run Blazingly Fast Algorithms with Cortex-M7 Tightly Coupled Memories.” (You will have to register.) This paper describes MCUs integrating SRAM organized into four banks that can be used as general SRAM and for TCM, showing one example of a Cortex-M7 MCU being implemented in the Atmel | SMART SAM S70, SAM E70 and SAM V70/V71 families.


This post has been republished with permission from SemiWiki.com, where Eric Esteve is a principle blogger, as well as one of the four founding members of the site. This blog was originally shared on August 6, 2015.

Active-Semi goes turnkey with Atmel’s eMPUs

Active-Semi has debuted a number of reference design solutions for Atmel’s ARM Cortex A5 and ARM9-based eMPUs (Embedded Micro Processor Units) using Active-Semi’s ACT8865 and ACT8945A PMICs (Power Management Integrated Circuits).

activesemiatmelsketch

According to Jacko Wilbrink, Senior Product Marketing Director of ARM eMPU & Secure at Atmel, the above-mentioned embedded solutions offer high differentiation, specifically for low-power applications such as smartwatches, wearables, POS (Point-of-Sale) and HMI (Human Machine Interface).

“These turnkey, highly integrated power IC solutions from Active-Semi fit well with Atmel’s eMPU platform approach by reducing design cycle-time up to 80% and enabling the lowest standby power (under 2mW), critical in conserving battery life in portable applications,” Wilbrink explained. “Working with Active-Semi to develop the ACT8865 and ACT8945A Family of PMICs has helped to further simplify our customer’s system design and reduce the number of power components by as much as 80 percent.”

As Mark Cieri, Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Active-Semi notes, the ACT8865 and ACT8945A PMICs integrate the complete voltage regulator requirements of Atmel eMPU-based systems, including three step-down DC-DC converters and two low-dropout (LDO) linear regulators – all while leaving free two additional LDO for auxiliary customer-specific functions.

The devices also include pre-configured power rail sequencing that removes the associated design complexity of discrete solution alternatives. In addition, the ACT8945A offers an integrated battery charger and ActivePath power path management to efficiently regulate battery charging. Both products offer serial communication interfaces to configure and control the operation of the PMICs.

“We see tremendous market opportunity for high density and energy efficient microprocessors such as Atmel’s SAMA5 and SAM9 that are enabling a new class of consumer and industrial embedded applications,” Cieri added. “Our ACT8865 and ACT8945A devices have proven valuable, as they enable up to a 50% reduction in both size and total cost of the power solution but at higher performance than the discrete alternatives.”

The ACT8865 and ACT8945A are in production today. For more information and to order samples, evaluation kits or Atmel reference design information, readers can visit www.active-semi.com/AtmelPMU.