Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

ti.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#61

Post by kawogi »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #57
Karliss wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1KB isn't so bad unless you are making something complicated or need large buffers. You can do quite a bit of nontrivial stuff with it. Years ago I made universal remote with ATtiny13 + external EEPROM for storing remote data. It has only 64 bytes of RAM, that's what I would call very tight. Was still able to program it in C, 1KB flash and number of pins were bigger limiting factor than ram. Plenty of DIY projects us…

Yes, that's "bare metal" as opposed to programming in MicroPython, Javascript with Espruino, Lua/NodeMCU, Rust, or adding your C application on top of an off-the-shelf RTOS. C support is basically universal these days, very few chips require you to program in only assembly anymore.

I had no troubles targeting an ATTiny13A with Rust.

(had to disable debug symbols, though)

Why should that be any harder than C?

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#62

Post by chlorion »

daveguy wrote: post #58
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's "bare metal" as opposed to programming in MicroPython, Javascript with Espruino, Lua/NodeMCU, Rust, or adding your C application on top of an off-the-shelf RTOS. C support is basically universal these days, very few chips require you to program in only assembly anymore.

Rust compiles to bare metal (assembly aka machine instruction code), just like C does.

It also supports running in freestanding setups without an OS, and quite a lot of the language's features still work.

I was extremely surprised by how much functionality is packed into "core", and runs without an OS when using freestanding rust. Even stuff that requires an allocator can run provided you provide your own heap!

A cool example of this was implementing fmt::Write for a memory mapped uart console thing. Then implementing a kprintln! macro that supports all of the formatting machinery that you are use to. This worked without even a heap available.

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#63

Post by kridsdale1 »

daveguy wrote: post #58
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's "bare metal" as opposed to programming in MicroPython, Javascript with Espruino, Lua/NodeMCU, Rust, or adding your C application on top of an off-the-shelf RTOS. C support is basically universal these days, very few chips require you to program in only assembly anymore.

Rust compiles to bare metal (assembly aka machine instruction code), just like C does.

Check out the video introducing Swift for Embedded. Seems like a really nice devX for this kind of thing.

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#64

Post by wang_li »

alex_suzuki wrote: post #12
emil-lp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd buy it and put it in the Drawer of Dreams aka unfinished projects.

What a nice name for that particular box that keeps on growing and growing. Mine is called Why did I buy this, again?

What even are these things?

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#65

Post by kridsdale1 »

GordonS wrote: post #59
emctech wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! I want to try and sell them but I just have a few bugs to squash and to finish off the mechanical design of the charging cradle.

Have you blogged about the earrings perchance? They really do look great, and I'd love to see some details of your process.

Yes, I’d love to see a video of them in action.

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#66

Post by MarkusWandel »

arnejenssen wrote: post #17

A silly question (from a non-HW guy). Why are digital bathroom scales so coarse? Some have a weight resolution of +/- 500 grams. Would a better microcontroller make a weight faster or more presise? I guess this TI micro controller is overkill for a bathroom scale.

I used to have a bathroom scale with a single strain gauge that was accurate. Accurate, as in weigh yourself, pick up a 1lb object, weigh yourself again and see an extra pound. That scale had a "lifetime" nonreplaceable battery in it and after 20 years or so, gave up the ghost.

Every scale I've tried since is wildly inaccurate, and they do have brains and they fake it. Step on, get a random weight within a 5lb range of the true weight. Step on repeatedly, even after the scale has timed out and had to be rezeroed, and get that exact weight again. Fake. Every single 4-sensor scale (one in each corner post) that I've tried does this.

I've since found another relatively vintage single strain gauge scale whose battery still works. And I have a mechanical scale in reserve for when it no longer does.

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#67

Post by aappleby »

emctech wrote: post #36

This line of micros has been out for almost 2 years now but they only just took the 1.38mm^2 package out of pre-production. I started a design last year of a tiny earring with ~102 addressable LEDs on it, a microphone, a bunch of supporting circuitry and this micro. https://i.ibb.co/JWh57LLw/IMG-20260408-183807502-HDR.jpg Unfortunately by the time I was ready to order the boards I found the tiny package was unobtaniu…

You might enjoy this dime-sized earring I designed ~13 years ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyBhdRp_5rY

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#68

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #66
arnejenssen wrote: post #17

A silly question (from a non-HW guy). Why are digital bathroom scales so coarse? Some have a weight resolution of +/- 500 grams. Would a better microcontroller make a weight faster or more presise? I guess this TI micro controller is overkill for a bathroom scale.

I used to have a bathroom scale with a single strain gauge that was accurate. Accurate, as in weigh yourself, pick up a 1lb object, weigh yourself again and see an extra pound. That scale had a "lifetime" nonreplaceable battery in it and after 20 years or so, gave up the ghost. Every scale I've tried since is wildly inaccurate, and they do have brains and they fake it. Step on, get a random weight within a 5lb range…

> Fake. Every single 4-sensor scale (one in each corner post) that I've tried does this.

Huh. I have never experienced this and didn't even know this was a thing. My cheapo Chinesium scale that I bought from Amazon years ago occasionally jumps by a pound or so. I measure myself a couple of times to be sure. But it definitely doesn't "freeze" measurements, as I see a different measurements shoes on in back-to-back measurements.

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#69

Post by 15155 »

self_awareness wrote: post #2

It seems awesome, but I'm having a problem with figuring out how can a "normal" person use it. How would YOU use it, reader of this comment?

Power sequencing or such in mobile electronics, using a pick-and-place machine.

This specific SKU has serious limitations due to the SRAM - TI limits the features (ROM bootloader IIRC, etc.) severely on these due to this.

Re: 1.38 Millimeter Microcontroller

#70

Post by supertroop »

daveguy wrote: post #58
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's "bare metal" as opposed to programming in MicroPython, Javascript with Espruino, Lua/NodeMCU, Rust, or adding your C application on top of an off-the-shelf RTOS. C support is basically universal these days, very few chips require you to program in only assembly anymore.

Rust compiles to bare metal (assembly aka machine instruction code), just like C does.

Bare metal refers to not using an rtos. I know that sounds weird but it is an industry convention. It does not refer to the language.
Post reply on HN