Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Josť A. Ruiz
02/13/13 02:55
Read: 1630 times
United Kingdom

#189352 - Multi-CPU designs
I am considering a multi-cpu design for a personal project and I would like to know what you people think about these systems. With 'multi-cpu design' I mean 'several cheap MCUs on the same board connected over a single-master-multiple-slave SPI link', not multi-board or multi-core systems.

This matter has been discussed here occasionally; people usually agree that a multi-cpu design makes more sense the more loosely coupled the CPUs are.

For me, the main advantage of a multi-cpu system would be that the software would get neatly partitioned into much simpler and independent units, making it far cheaper in development time. For example, instead of running several concurrent, loosely coupled state machines on a single CPU, you would have each state machine run in a separate CPU as an almost trivially simple task.

So the idea looks promising in principle. But are there any potential pitfalls or caveats a first-timer should look out for? is this really as good an idea in practice as it sounds? Am I going to regret it?

For example, as has been mentioned in other posts, some of the things that can get messy are OCD and IAP; looks like I'll have to chain all the CPUs on the same JTAG link and make sure the debugging/programming software supports that scheme, or provide a separate connector for each MCU.

I think it would be interesting if you could share your opinions, comments, success and failure stories...


List of 7 messages in thread
Multi-CPU designs      Josť A. Ruiz      02/13/13 02:55      
   Commonly Done       Jim Granville      02/13/13 03:41      
   Fun with network protocols      Oliver Sedlacek      02/13/13 08:55      
      and also a twisted ring network      Jim Granville      02/13/13 14:12      
         Please explain a bit more      Oliver Sedlacek      02/14/13 02:11      
            more details       Jim Granville      02/14/13 04:15      
   I'd use I¬≤C      Erik Malund      02/14/13 10:33      

Back to Subject List