MOTM

> Wouldn't that be a more expensive processor, and a bit of a waste of 
> bandwidth just for a USB port? As paul mentions, the CGX could do it's 
> job on a much lower clockspeed were it not for the USB port. However I 
> am not that familiar with these processors, so perhaps I am totally 
> wrong, this comment about price is totally based on a gut feeling. :-)

I wasn't recommending Paul switch. It wasn't a comment on the choice of 
the chip, rather it was my recent experience with the SAM9's PLL and clock 
tree layout thinking the SAM7 had the same clock flexibility.

For the purpose of the CGX, the SAM9 would be a waste of money. It's a BGA 
package (vs. LQFP), runs at up to 240Mhz, has an SDRAM bus, and a bunch 
more features that aren't present on the SAM7.

-->Neil

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Neil Bradley - KE7IXP - The one eyed man in the land of the blind is not
                            king. He's a prisoner.