WTD: info on AMD palce22v10

I have found a tube of these AMD parts from on old project.

AMD no longer manufactures these parts. Does anyone know who
picked up these parts from AMD ?

I am also looking for a simple programmer for these parts.

I have found $500+ programmers out on the net, but I would like
to keep it cheap.

Thanks for any info.


hamilton

"hamilton" <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote in message
news:400b2ce4$1_1@omega.dimensional.com...

> I have found a tube of these AMD parts from on old project.
> AMD no longer manufactures these parts. Does anyone know who
> picked up these parts from AMD ?

AMD spun-out its PLD lines as Vantis.

Before too long, Vantis was taken over by Lattice.

As far as I know, Lattice still offers these parts
(or something very similar).

> I am also looking for a simple programmer for these parts.
> I have found $500+ programmers out on the net, but I would like
> to keep it cheap.

ISTR that the programming algorithm for PALCE devices was
reasonably straightforward, so you could probably do
something home-grown - maybe using some of your newly-
found PALs in its logic :-)  But in general, programmers
for PLDs were expensive with good reason - getting the
programming algorithms right is pretty tough.  You may
find it's better to junk the old parts and get some
newer Lattice in-system=programmable (ISP) parts,
which can be programmed much more simply and cheaply
using a simple download cable that you can easily build
from information in their data sheets.
--

Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Verification * Project Services

Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223                    mail: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573                           Web: http://www.doulos.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

The 22V10 originated at AMD (I was there!), but later became the
"standard" for high-end PALs. You can find it with anybody who (still)
makes PALs. Try Lattice, TI, NSC...
There are bipolar and CMOS versions, sharing the same functionality and
pin-out, but obviously not the programming.
The 22V10 dates back to the early 'eighties. That's 20 years ago. At my
analogy of 15 human years per 1 programmable logic year, these 22V10s
are 300-year-old "senior citizens".  Using them for a new design would
be silly (inhumane?).
One cheap CPLD runs circles around several 22V10s, and CoolRunner CPLDs
consume almost no power... 
Peter Alfke
========================
hamilton wrote:
> 
> I have found a tube of these AMD parts from on old project.
> 
> AMD no longer manufactures these parts. Does anyone know who
> picked up these parts from AMD ?
> 
> I am also looking for a simple programmer for these parts.
> 
> I have found $500+ programmers out on the net, but I would like
> to keep it cheap.
> 
> Thanks for any info.
> 
> hamilton

Jonathan Bromley wrote:
> ISTR that the programming algorithm for PALCE devices was
> reasonably straightforward, so you could probably do
> something home-grown - maybe using some of your newly-
> found PALs in its logic :-)

	Is this algorithm documented somewhere ??

	The data sheet I found does not mention any algorithm.

	I have picked Atmel ATF1504 as a replacement device.

Thanks

Yeah, but can you get CPLDs in QFN packages???  Sometimes a "little"
logic goes a long way.  :)  

Too bad we can't get any sort of FPGA in a physically small package.  I
could do a lot with a 100 LEs (or 50 slices) in a TQFP32/48 or a
QFN32/48.  The new tiny packages are really amazing.  

I know I am not alone, but it seems we are not running with the herd.  



Peter Alfke wrote:
> 
> The 22V10 originated at AMD (I was there!), but later became the
> "standard" for high-end PALs. You can find it with anybody who (still)
> makes PALs. Try Lattice, TI, NSC...
> There are bipolar and CMOS versions, sharing the same functionality and
> pin-out, but obviously not the programming.
> The 22V10 dates back to the early 'eighties. That's 20 years ago. At my
> analogy of 15 human years per 1 programmable logic year, these 22V10s
> are 300-year-old "senior citizens".  Using them for a new design would
> be silly (inhumane?).
> One cheap CPLD runs circles around several 22V10s, and CoolRunner CPLDs
> consume almost no power...
> Peter Alfke
> ========================
> hamilton wrote:
> >
> > I have found a tube of these AMD parts from on old project.
> >
> > AMD no longer manufactures these parts. Does anyone know who
> > picked up these parts from AMD ?
> >
> > I am also looking for a simple programmer for these parts.
> >
> > I have found $500+ programmers out on the net, but I would like
> > to keep it cheap.
> >
> > Thanks for any info.
> >
> > hamilton

Ralph Malph wrote:
> Yeah, but can you get CPLDs in QFN packages???  Sometimes a "little"
> logic goes a long way.  :)  
> 
> Too bad we can't get any sort of FPGA in a physically small package.  I
> could do a lot with a 100 LEs (or 50 slices) in a TQFP32/48 or a
> QFN32/48.  The new tiny packages are really amazing.  
> 
> I know I am not alone, but it seems we are not running with the herd.  

  All it takes is enough noise to convince the vendors to add the
smaller packages - it's not a massive investment, mainly a mindset
problem - 'We don't do that because no one buys them'.
  The SPLD/CPLD market is in 'follow mode', but the Microcontrollers
and Logic have by now widely deployed QFN, and lattice have recently 
added QFN in 22V10, and TQFP48 in CPLD.

  So the other, more sluggish, vendors will follow eventually....
Some will claim BGA is their small package solution, but they
miss the point that cannot go onto single sided PCB.

> Peter Alfke wrote:
> 
>>The 22V10 originated at AMD (I was there!), but later became the
>>"standard" for high-end PALs. You can find it with anybody who (still)
>>makes PALs. Try Lattice, TI, NSC...
>>There are bipolar and CMOS versions, sharing the same functionality and
>>pin-out, but obviously not the programming.
>>The 22V10 dates back to the early 'eighties. That's 20 years ago. At my
>>analogy of 15 human years per 1 programmable logic year, these 22V10s
>>are 300-year-old "senior citizens".  Using them for a new design would
>>be silly (inhumane?).

Sweeping statements are dangerous....
We still use 16V8's for new designs, because of their price/size.
Poor CPLD package offering is one problem slowing the replcaement of 
22V10 : There are many sockets where your '300 year old' analogy has no
more modern physical replacement.
  There are cost equivalents, but not physical equivalents, and
I call that 'a little blinkered'

-jg

I too think that FPGA-s in small packages would be great things. I
also think that this secrecy politics that programmable logic
manufacturers use, has made FPGA very imaginationless component. Look
at microcontrollers, how many different packages, architectures and so
on. And hunderds of different manufacturers.

Returning to original question - i too are interested in programmer or
programming algorithm for PALCE-s. GAL algorithms are available but
these can't be used here.

regards,
Raivo

Raivo Nael wrote:
> 
> I too think that FPGA-s in small packages would be great things. I
> also think that this secrecy politics that programmable logic
> manufacturers use, has made FPGA very imaginationless component. Look
> at microcontrollers, how many different packages, architectures and so
> on. And hunderds of different manufacturers.


That is a good point, that MCUs and FPGAs seem to be handled very
differently in the market place.  I have seen several startup FPGA
companies look good and then fail.  This even includes large companies
like Motorola.  They talked about an FPGA line using the "Pilkington"
architecture and came very close to introduction before they shut it
down.  I never did hear anything about why they turned it off.  

I expect that there is a bit more NRE and maintenance for FPGA products
than there is for an MCU line.  I can't really rationalize this other
than to say that FPGA software seems to require constant upgrades while
most MCU compilers are supported by a smaller team that mostly does
minor upgrades and bug fixes.  Am I off base on this?  
I would also say that they seem to make more changes to FPGAs when they
introduce a new family than they typically do when they come out with a
new MCU family member.  Maybe that is it?  MCUs normally have a new
family member, while FPGAs get entirely new families.

Ralph Malph wrote:
> 
>   I have seen several startup FPGA
> companies look good and then fail.  This even includes large companies
> like Motorola. 

Here is a partial list of major companies that introduced FPGAs, and
then gave up:

Motorola (never got out of the starting gate, relied on external software...)
Intel (sold it to Altera, who then canned it quietly)
NSC (disappeared quietly)
AMD (sold it to Lattice)
ATT (sold it to Lattice)
T.I. ( stopped being second source to Actel)
Toshiba (never really made it) 
Cypress (?)

The moral of the story is that you survive as an FPGA manufacturer only
when you are totally dedicated to that product line, which is true for
Xilinx, Altera, Lattice, Actel, Quicklogic and some small start-ups.
The Big Guys usually find it easier to make their money on other products.

Peter Alfke

Atmel  .. still in it, but I still can't figure out why
Dynachip .. got as far as producing silicon before dying
Gatefield ..  sold to was it Actel?
Concurrent Logic ..  became the Atmel/NSC architecture
IBM ..  got rights from the spoils of concurrent.  Toyed with multi-chip module
implementations, but never really made it out of the labs
Not to mention numerous universities with academic architectures
and the list goes on...

The fact of the matter is that development tools for MCUs are a heck of a lot
easier to develop.  The problem is much more constrained (limited number of
instructions and linear sequential operation) for an MCU.  As I'm sure both
Xilinx and ALtera have found, the tools development is a larger effort than the
silicon architecture and design effort by a large margin.  I still maintain that
FPGA companies are really software companies that just happen to have an
expensive dongle that happens to be useful to circuit designers.

Peter Alfke wrote:

> Ralph Malph wrote:
> >
> >   I have seen several startup FPGA
> > companies look good and then fail.  This even includes large companies
> > like Motorola.
>
> Here is a partial list of major companies that introduced FPGAs, and
> then gave up:
>
> Motorola (never got out of the starting gate, relied on external software...)
> Intel (sold it to Altera, who then canned it quietly)
> NSC (disappeared quietly)
> AMD (sold it to Lattice)
> ATT (sold it to Lattice)
> T.I. ( stopped being second source to Actel)
> Toshiba (never really made it)
> Cypress (?)
>
> The moral of the story is that you survive as an FPGA manufacturer only
> when you are totally dedicated to that product line, which is true for
> Xilinx, Altera, Lattice, Actel, Quicklogic and some small start-ups.
> The Big Guys usually find it easier to make their money on other products.
>
> Peter Alfke

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759