avrdude 6.0.1, avr-gcc 4.8, and keestux Eclipse AVR Plugin 2.4.1

Always looking for the latest and greatest code for AVR, I scan the debian Sid repositories every few months for updated packages to use. Recently debian Sid included the latest gcc-avr 4.8 package, binutils-avr and the new avrdude 6.0.1 package. So I had to install them all to test.

Updated and Local

Updated and Local

The new avrdude 6.0.1 is the first release in two years, so it has a lot of good stuff, including a fix for the long standing chip delay bug affecting the AVRmega1284p used in the Goldilocks and Pololu SVP platforms.

Unfortunately, there is a new device format used in the avrdude.conf file which breaks the standard Eclipse AVR Plugin, rendering the MCU choice ineffective.

Asking a question on avrfreaks.net found the answer. keestux has fixed the problem and has released an interim AVR Plugin 2.4.1 which incorporates a fix for the change in avrdude.conf file format.

keestux Eclipse AVR Plugin 2.4.1 is at: http://www.ijzerbout.nl/avr-eclipse/updatesite

Add his update site to your software sources, and life is good again.

AVR Plugin 2.4.1

uIP on Wiznet W5200 versus W5100 on Goldilocks 1284p

I guess it is no secret, the reason why I’ve put so much effort into getting the Goldilocks 1284p board built. I was looking for a platform that would allow me to experiment with the uIP TCP/IP and UDP/IP stack with the most performance and flexibility possible while still being compatible with the huge range of sensors and actuator Shields that form the Arduino legacy. From the microprocessor view, the ATmega1284p used in the Goldilocks certainly achieves that goal.GOLDILOCKS-oblique_large

I’ve written in a previous post about the theoretical performance difference between the common Wiznet (or IINChip) W5100 used in almost all Arduino Ethernet shields and the component I have selected that uses the W5200 to provide the Ethernet interface. This post demonstrates the real world performance differential with a simple example.

Recently, I’ve been working with the W5500 on a ioShield-A.

But first, I am happy with the result of the uIP port to the Wiznet platform within freeRTOS. I’ve taken some of the old uIP v0.9 and v1.0 files from many sources, and updated them with the latest snapshot status from Contiki 2.7, to try to bring the last 5 years of experience into the result. Whilst the resulting codebase has not as yet been extensively tested, it seems to work as expected.


This is a simple test, sending 1300 byte PING packets to the MACRAW interface on the IINChip to be handled by uIP. After 100 PINGs the W5200 takes on average 3.804 ms, whilst the W5100 takes on average 22.109 ms for each round trip.

This means the W5200 is nearly 6x faster than the W5100 in real world performance.

uIP_on_W5200 uIP_on_W5100

Of note, this real world result is achieved whilst over-clocking the W5100 SPI bus out of specification at 5.5MHz (being SCK/4), rather than at 4MHz which is the specification. The W5200 SPI bus can, of course, run up to 30MHz or faster, so its limits are not even being tested by the Goldilocks ATmega1284p MCU.

W5200 SPI bus

The key differential which provides the W5200 its performance advantage is the use of multi-byte burst transfer mode for moving payload data into and out-of its controlling MCU. In theory the entire 32 kByte Address space of the W5200 could be transferred in one transaction. In practice, a full Ethernet frame can be transferred in just over 1 ms.

These shots show how the W5200 SPI multi-byte transfer works in practice.


The W5200 supports multi-byte burst mode transfers on the SPI bus. This is a 1300 Byte PING frame transfer out of the W5200, and returned by the AVR.

This screenshot shows an entire received 1300 Byte payload PING frame being transferred in 1.34ms.


The AVRmega1284p generates a PING response frame, and transfers it back to the W5200 in one burst mode transfer.

The Goldilocks AVR1284p takes 0.29ms to generate the response PING, and then it is transferred back to the W5200 for transmitting on the wire.

Detail of the burst mode multi-byte SPI transfer capability of the W5200.

Detail of the burst mode multi-byte SPI transfer capability of the W5200.

This screenshot shows the detail of the transmission of the PING frame to the AVRmega1284p. Note that each Byte takes less than 1 us to transfer.

W5100 SPI bus

The W5100 SPI bus uses a 4 byte transaction to transfer a single payload byte, and it is not capable of a multi-byte burst mode.


The Wiznet 5100 uses a 4 byte protocol to transfer a single data payload byte.

This screenshot shows the detail of the transmission between the AVRmega1284p and the W5100. It shows that to transfer 1 payload byte it takes about 0.036 ms (which is 36 us or 36x longer than the equivalent transfer on the W5200).


P1040382If you’re planning on building anything that relies on wired Ethernet, then go out of your way to find a Elecrow W5200 Shield or Seeed W5200 Shield. It is about six times faster than the common W5100 in the real world testing, and has many other great features.

uIP works well on the Goldilocks and provides a great platform for developing TCP/IP and UDP/IP stack applications.

Next steps are to implement CoAP and MQTT clients on this platform, to increase my understanding of both of these important IoT protocols.

Code, as usual, on Sourceforge.

Wiznet W5200 Arduino Shield by Elecrow

Oh W5100, why you so slow?

For a long time the standard Arduino Ethernet Shield has been driven by the Wiznet W5100 Internet Processor. This shield and the chip upon which it is based forms the basis of just about every IP enabled networking project in the Arduino world.

The Wiznet W5100 chip has some interesting features, such as direct and indirect memory access, but it has some severe limitations in its SPI bus capabilities . Also, the W5100 can support only 4 ports within its hardware IPv4 engine. Unlimited software ports can be added, by providing your own IP stack in MACRAW mode using Port 0, but that is not the road well travelled.

There are two major issues with interfacing with the W5100. First, the SPI interface is only specified to run at 4MHz. And second, the SPI interface supports only a byte mode transmission.

The limitation in SPI rate to 4MHz means that the standard 16MHz Arduino board SPI bus cannot be driven at any speed greater than SCK/4, if it is to remain within specification for driving the W5100. 20MHz boards, such as the Goldilocks, it must drop to SCK/8 if they are to remain within specification.

Also, the W5100 byte mode transmission requires a 4 byte SPI bus transaction for each byte of data to be transferred into and out of the network interface.

Counting the (unachievable) theoretical best case rate for the W5100, it means that 4 * 8 * 4 = 128 system clocks elapse to transfer a single byte of data. Ugh! Slow.

What to do?

I guess Wiznet must have realised this performance issue (which is more apparent with more capable 32 bit MCUs which run at higher system clocks than the slow old 8 bit AVR ATmega range) and they’ve recently released the W5200 as a replacement (specific to SPI bus interfacing) for the W5100 chip.

Wiznet 5200

Wiznet 5200

The W5200 brings a number of new performance features to the game, based on the well known and understood IPv4 network engine of the W5100. The table below contrasts the two chips.

Comparison Table showing Wiznet W5100 vs W5200

Key features comparison W5200 vs W5100

The W5200 is a much smaller and simpler chip to locate on the board, and it is easier to solder for those interested in private SMD constructions. Importantly for networking performance, the W5200 has twice as much Tx/Rx buffer memory for IP packets, and supports 8 simultaneous hardware IP sockets. These features make the W5200 a great performance increment on the W5100, and already sufficient to make a switch. An example of the size of the two chips compared can be found below, with the Elecrow W5200 on the left and an old DF Robot W5100 v1.0 on the right.


Elecrow W5200 and DF Robot W5100 v1

However, the greatest improvement in the W5200 lies in the area of the SPI bus interface. Wiznet has ditched the Direct addressing mechanisms (that took all the pins) on the W5100, and made the W5200 a SPI specialist, capable of running at up to 80MHz clock. That is a 20x increment.

Additionally, the W5200 supports SPI burst mode transmission. This means that up to the full Tx/Rx buffer (32kByte) could be read or written written in one transaction.

In the Arduino situation the W5200 can be driven at SCK/2, the maximum SPI speed achievable on an AVR ATmega MCU, and each byte takes one SPI byte to transfer. This means we can achieve a rate of 2 * 8 * 1 = 16 system clocks to transfer a byte of data.

This means the W5200 is 8x faster for the Arduino, and for Goldilocks 20MHz boards it will be 16x faster than the W5100 – fast as a leopard!

A practical analysis of the speed difference between the two Wiznet chips is here.

Easy to use.

The W5200 is easy to use, and easy to get.

Wiznet have provided some ready made W5200 driver files to include into the Arduino IDE. These replacement drivers for the existing W5100 driver files provided within the IDE just have to be substituted (or overwritten) to enable the slightly different SPI interfacing requirements of the W5200. They also provide C code drivers, which I used as a basis for my AVR freeRTOS code.

The Socket API provided by the W5100, and utilised by the Arduino IDE remains unchanged in the W5200. This means that it is only the performance enhanced SPI bus interface that needs to be rewritten to take advantage of the burst mode transmission, and the slightly different register locations associated with the increased Tx/Rx buffer and number of sockets available.

W5200 functional blocks

I was waiting for a long time for the W5200 to be put onto an Arduino compatible shield, so that I could use it easily. Suddenly, there are two on the market. One from W5200 Shield from Elecrow in China, and the other W5200 Shield from Wiznet.

I decided to purchase some of the Elecrow W5200 Shields. They looked to have a much better design than the Wiznet version, because Elecrow have utilised proper 5V to 3.3V buffers to ensure the safety of the on board uSD card, and have designed using the Arduino R3 standard.

The key and unique (afaik) feature of the Elecrow W5200 boards is the use of the lowered RJ45 jack, that allows the Ethernet shield to between other boards with no clearance problems. I have taken some pictures to show the difference between the standard RJ45 jack and the Elecrow W5200 board version, mounted on a Goldilocks board, and a standard Arduino Uno, with a LCD Touch Shield (even with under-slung SD Card cage) mounted over the top.

Image Image

Some small improvements.

I spent some time working with the Elecrow W5200, and have been in discussion with Richard and David (Tech Support) at Elecrow about the implementation. They have been very helpful in resolving some issues I have found in using their design.

Firstly, they have used quite a high resistance on the PWDN pin (which is intended to allow the W5200 to be powered down to reduce energy consumption). There is insufficient current on this resistor to hold ground, and sometimes the W5200 slips into PWDN mode and can’t be addressed. This can be solved by pulling jumper J2-2 to ground, or (permanently) by bridging Pin 1 and Pin 2 on U6 which is the buffer chip controlling the PWDN line. Check the schematics to see why this is so.

Secondly, the buffer chips used are driven from from 3.3V for Vcc. They are a little slow (100ns/V skew) at this supply voltage, and for the return data path on the MISO line they should properly be driven from 5V Vcc. At 5V Vcc the buffer chips are also much faster (20ns/V skew). The slower buffer chips, the LPF characteristic generated by the sensibly included output resistors, and the lower logic level compared to the AVR 5V TTL levels all combine to reduce the speed at which the SPI bus can work. Whilst the correct resolution is to drive the buffer chip at 5V Vcc for the inbound (AVR point of view) signal lines, I have found it is sufficient to remove and bridge the R24 resistor to achieve the SCK/2 SPI rate we desire.

This view of the Elecrow W5200 board shows the modifications in detail. I believe that later versions of the board will resolve these issues. And, with the Elecrow W5200 Shield’s unique recessed RF45 connector’s advantages and the speed of the W5200 MCU, all other sins are forgiven.

Elecrow W5200 showing R24 delete and U6 Pin 1-2 bridge.

Elecrow W5200 showing R24 delete and U6 Pin 1-2 bridge.


The Elecrow W5200 is a very speedy and easy to use alternative to the standard Arduino W5100 based solution. It is a great addition to my collection of IPv4 networking shields.

A practical analysis of the speed difference between the two Wiznet chips is here.

My code, as usual, on Sourceforge.

Goldilocks 1284p plus Elecrow W5200 Ethernet Shield

Goldilocks 1284p plus Elecrow W5200 Ethernet Shield

Making waves – Open Music Labs’ DSP Shield – Arduino – freeRTOS

There’s a great new Arduino Uno (pre-R3) Shield available from Open Music Labs. Their Audio Codec Shield is an Arduino shield that uses the Wolfson WM8731 codec. It is capable of sampling and reproducing audio up to 88kHz, 24bit stereo, but for use with the Arduino it is practically limited to 44kHz, 16bit stereo. The Audio Codec Shield has 1/8″ stereo input and headphone output jacks, a single pole analogue input aliasing filter, and 2 potentiometer for varying parameters in the program on the fly.

Open Music Labs WM8731

The Open Music Labs provides a some libraries and code examples for use with the Arduino IDE, and also with the Maple IDE. But, rather than just use the existing code, I thought it would be fun to develop some freeRTOS libraries from their basis code.

I spent quite some time understanding exactly how the WM8731 worked, and what was needed to make it perform, in a RTOS environment. It is clear, that to work at the audio rate of 44.1kHz, that the Arduino needs to be clocked by a hard interrupt, rather than by a soft timer. So, I spent some time designing and playing with different methods of driving the board.

Initially, I thought it would be good to limit the interrupt processing to constant clock in and clock out of data, that MUST happen every sample (at 44.1kHz) or the sound sampling or playback is simply broken, and allow the interrupt to semaphore a further processing task to wake it up. However, once I understood just how limited the time available is for processing, it became apparent that (at least for the 16MHz Arduino) there is no time left to muck about with a RTOS, and everything has to be kept as simple and regular as possible.

Never the less, the freeRTOS code is useful to provide serial and I2C libraries to set up the board, and possibly to do some other tasks where possible.

The resulting code consists of just one freeRTOS Task, that initialises the Shield, and then suspends itself indefinitely. The freeRTOS Scheduler keeps on running, but finding no available task will just pend itself until its next timer tick.

  AudioCodec_ADC_init();    // initialise the potentiometer sampling.
  AudioCodec_SPI_init();    // initialise the SPI bus for special purpose Audio Codec use.
  AudioCodec_init();        // initialise the Audio Codec using I2C bus.
  AudioCodec_Timer1_init(); // set up the sampling Timer1, runs at audio sampling rate.
  vTaskSuspend(NULL);       // well, we're pretty much done here...

First the Arduino ADC is initialised into free running mode, to provide inputs from the two potentiometers on the Shield. The Open Music Labs have provided an analysis of the Arduino ADC, and they show that the free running mode provides the lowest noise floor. Not that it is important to have a low noise floor for this purpose, as it is just potentiometer sampling. However, they missed the trick of using decimation to improve the sampling resolution, choosing instead to use a dead-band for the sampling. I’ve changed the ADC initialisation to do variable sample decimation, depending on the bit depth desired.

This is the example code for a single potentiometer.

static inline void AudioCodec_ADC(uint16_t* _mod0value)
  if (ADCSRA & (1 << ADIF))     // check if sample ready
    _mod0temp += ADCW;  // fetch ADCL first to freeze sample is done by the compiler
    ADCSRA = 0xf7;      // reset the interrupt flag
    if (--_i == 0)      // check if enough samples have been collected
      _mod0temp >>= DECIMATE;   // Decimate the summed samples
                                // (to get better accuracy), see AVR8003.doc
      *_mod0value = _mod0temp;  // move temp value to the output
      _mod0temp = 0x0000;       // reset temp value
      _i = _BV(2 * DECIMATE);   // reset loop counter

Then the SPI bus is configured to sample the data from the ADC on the WM8731, and to write data back to the DAC. Since we’re using the DSP interface, which is very similar to the SPI bus interface, with 16 bit transfers, the SPI mechanics can be used effectively, removing the need to bit-bang the interface. I found that although SPI Mode 0 nominally looks to be correct, it would lose the most significant bit of most transactions, being the left channel input values. I needed to use Mode 3 to get effective transactions.

The I2C bus is used on pins A4 and A5, which is pre-R3 format. I would digress to say that decision not to continue to support the SDA/SCL pins being available on A4 and A5 is a very bad one, in my opinion. There are many old, and this quite new, Shields that will simply be broken by this decision. Simply, bad for the Arduino legacy.

I have completed the register and pin definitions in the header file, to allow simple selection of the configuration, by adding the appropriate bit values into the register settings.

The initial I2C command transaction looks like this.

I2C command preamble

Here is a bit more detail on the DIGITAL_PATH_CONTROL command.

Vol I2C preamble detail

The true heart of the project lies within the use of Timer 1 to signal the 44.1kHz timing required to produce the sound samples. An interrupt driven by the Timer 1 counter signals the transfer of data, performing any audio processing required on the incoming data, and writing it to the output ready for the next transfer, and sampling the analogue potentiometers to use them as as mod inputs on the signal. The Timer 1 counter is incremented by counting the CLKOUT line coming from the Shield.

  // WM8731 data transfer routine
  // move data from and to the WM8731 - done first for regularity (reduced jitter).
  AudioCodec_data(&left_in, &right_in, left_out, right_out);

  // audio processing routine - do processing on input - prepare output

  // adc sampling routine
  // sampling the potentiometers (no sound here)
  AudioCodec_ADC(&mod0_value, &mod1_value);

  // end mark - check for end of interrupt - for debugging only
  PORTD |= _BV(PORTD6);   // Ping Audio Shield buffer line.
  PORTD &= ~_BV(PORTD6);

As I noted above, timing is everything. Based on the plots below, it takes exactly 6us for the AudioCodec_data() function to transfer the data from and to the WM8731. This doesn’t seem like very long, but to maintain a sample rate of 44.1kHz, each transaction must be completed in less than 22.7us, as shown below.

Vol 44kHz mid

The logic trace below shows the situation with the simplest AudioCodec_dsp() function available. Here the DSP processing is completed with over 15.7us to spare. The actual AudioCodec_data() function takes exactly 6us to complete (T1-T2), and can be used as a scale for other logic traces below.

inline void AudioCodec_dsp(void) // straight through connection I-O
  left_out  =  left_in; // put in to out on left channel
  right_out =  right_in; // put in to out on right channel

Simple IO Snapshot

Other more complicated routines, such as a sine-wave Voltage Controlled Oscillator (digital of course) take a little more time from our limited budget, needing 9.6us to complete.

VCO snapshot

I have used the same code on a Freetronics Eleven, an Arduino Uno clone, overclocked to 22.1184MHz, and as can be seen below, it results in the AudioCodec_data() function taking 4.33us (vs 6us standard) and the VCO code taking 6.125us (vs 9.6us standard). Whilst these savings are relatively small, by comparing the two logic traces, I think they do change the result enough to make it worthwhile for this application.

VCO Overclocked Arduino

Code is as usual on Sourceforge in avrfreeRTOS.

In further work, I will build some useful DSP programs from the examples provided, such as a reverb or flanger filter.


After reading this article on the MicroMonsterModular I’m going to play with adding some new sequences.

This WurstCaptures web site can help to build them quickly, and CounterComplex has a few ideas too.

output = t * (t >> (pot1>>4) | t >> (pot2>>4) )&((pot3>>3) + 16)
output = (t * (( t>>9 | t>>13 ) & 15)) & 129
output = (t * (t>>8 + t>>9)*100) + sin(t)
output = t * (((t>>12)|(t>>8))&(63&(t>>4)))

ArduSat SD Card Prototyping

Since my last post on the ArduSat and the idea I had to use the Supervisor node, an ATmega2561, as the core of a centralised eXtended RAM system for the Client nodes, ATmega328p “Arduino” devices, I’ve been thinking and working on a solution for building a centralised non-volatile SD Card based storage solution.

With design, sometimes it is necessary to let an idea stew for a while before the right answer just sort of distils out of the soup. For the solution for this problem, this was the case. There was some thinking space required…

thinking space

The Question

There are 16 Client nodes in the ArduSat platform. Each and any of them may wish to use the central SD Card to store information at the same, or at different times. How would it be possible to allow more than 16 files to be open on the one SD Card (connected to the Supervisor node) whilst maintaining consistency in the file system? How would access to the file system be scheduled?

The Tools

I have been using the ChaN FatFs file system libraries now for some time. They are fully featured and have a very clean design, fully separating the file system layer from the underlying physical media access layer (the drivers). This means that the file system tools can be implemented on many different architectures, with only changes to the driver layer (DiskIO) needed for each platform.

The Thought Process

My initial thought was that the Supervisor node should maintain the file system, and that I should write packaging for the FatFs file system commands to allow them to be remotely implemented across the SPI bus, in a similar manner as described in the XRAMFS post.

The idea of writing these “remote controls” for the file system commands was scary, as I recognised that there are 33 commands in the interface, and each of them has their own characteristics. Also, maintaining these interfaces would likely be problematic, as I would have to test each command extensively to ensure that there were no “thick thumb” errors introduced into the stable and proven FatFs library.

Some weeks passed…

Then at about 3am, I realised that the right answer was to write a “shim” between the standard FatF file system commands and the standard physical media drivers, and to have this shim operate across the SPI bus in exactly the same manner as the XRAMFS solution.

So, I wrote it.

The Solution

The solution separates the ChaN libraries into two parts. The file system part is resident on the Client node. Each Client node maintains its own view of the file system on the Supervisor SD Card. As the ChaN FatFs library is written for low memory devices, the file directory tree is refreshed each time a change in the working file is done. The Supervisor node only does the DiskIO under the command of each of the Clients.

There are only 5 relevant driver layer DiskIO commands. These commands are used in the Supervisor node to execute requests sent over the SPI bus from the individual Clients. Since there are only a small number of commands, and they are static and dependent on the architecture of the machine they’re running on, their functionality is quite constant. The Supervisor has no knowledge of the file system at all. It simply implements DiskIO commands on sectors of the SD Card as requested, one a time, as requested by Clients.

The Supervisor implementation simply expands on the existing Task loop established for the XRAMFS system, by adding in the 5 additional DiskIO commands. The added complexity, that the SD Card is accessed over the SAME SPI bus as the communications between Client and Supervisor, means that I had to introduce an interim “Pending” state for commands to allow the Client to wait for confirmation that a task has been completed or, in the case of disk_read or disk_ioctl, to recover the waiting data from the Supervisor.

The Client implementation inserts different shim DiskIO commands for the FatF system to call. These commands use the SPI bus to call the Supervisor, and enter a request. Some commands return immediately, allowing the Supervisor to continue with the command, once the command and any required data has been transferred. Other commands wait until they can retrieve information from the Supervisor, before returning to the FatF file system layer of the library.

In this solution, the XRAMFS was instrumental in simplifying the transfer of information. The exclusive availability of 16kB of RAM for each Client meant that disk_write or disk_read commands could cache their data in XRAMFS whilst it was actually written to or read from the SDCard. Because the RAM is available exclusively, there is no consideration that another Client may overwrite the results of a command, or that memory exhaustion may corrupt data.

The code is available at Sourceforge in the usual location.

How does it work?

When a Client program calls one of the FatFs library commands, it in turn calls one of the special ArduSat SPI DiskIO shim routines. These routines signal the Supervisor in the normal manner, and transfer any data associated with the command into the Page of XRAMFS assigned to the Client.

The Supervisor will then undertake the standard DiskIO command, retaining the result of the command and any data resulting from the command in XRAMFS.

Both Client DiskIO routines, and the Task running in the Supervisor are aware of the “Pending” state, which is where a DiskIO command has been completed on the Supervisor and there is data waiting in the XRAMFS for the Client to recover.

Once the Client DiskIO command completes, it returns the normal interface information to the calling FatFs command.

Here a monitor program on a Client is initialising the SD Card. If the Supervisor notices that the SD Card is not initialised, it will return Error, and then undertake to initialise the card. The second call for initialisation will then be successful. This decoupling method ensures that Clients cannot reinitialise the card, whilst other Clients may be using the Card.

The file system (on the Client) is then initialised Then, the SD Card status is read. Finally, the current working directory is read and printed.


In this screenshot, a file is opened for reading, and the file pointer set to the start of the file. A dump of the first 64 Bytes of the file is read and printed. Then the file is closed.


Here, the same file as above is opened for writing, and 45 bytes of 0x10 (16) are being written. The result is checked by opening the file for reading, and dumping the relevant bytes to the screen. Success!



The Client (Arduino) ATmega328p has so little Flash and RAM that implementing the FatFs consumes a significant proportion of the available resources. From the ChaN FatFs web site, at least 13 kByte of Flash (of 32 kByte on the Arduino), and 600 Bytes of RAM (of 2048 Bytes on the Arduino) are consumed by the library alone. This is excluding the working buffers necessary to prepare or process data for storage.

I was unable to fully test the FatFs solution, because of RAM and Flash limitations. I simply couldn’t turn on all the features. However, I have some confidence that the solution fully works, because the actual FatFs library is unchanged from the working solution that I’ve tested on the Arduino Mega platform. It is only the DiskIO routines that have been tampered with, and since they produce reliable results for some of the FatFs functions, there is every reason to believe they would work for all of the functions.

Thank you

Jon for providing a new Freetronics EtherMega, so that I could complete the prototyping work.

ArduSat and NanoSatisfi for running a great project, which inspired this thought process. Possibly, this work might be useful for one of the launches over the coming years.

On which tool to use and when

Recently, I’ve been thinking about tools and what to use as my preferred “platform” for this hobby I call hacking. Actually, I’ve been worrying about this since October 2011, when I first wrote the proposal for the Goldilocks, my project for building a 1284p based Arduino Uno clone.

In 2011, I had tried to build several projects utilising uIP and other IP stacks (W5100 Arduino Ethernet), and RFID and uSDCard FatFS support as some of the foundations. I found that the Arduino Uno simply didn’t allow me to do anything requiring complex libraries, because it lacked RAM resources. Because of these issues, I tried two things. Firstly, I started using the Arduino Mega platform, and I also tried to use ARM based platforms with Arduino physical compatibility (e.g. Maple, Teensy, kl25z). Also, people have commented, why not use a RaspberryPi or BeagleBone as the platform for your projects, they are cheap and 50 times more capable than the Arduino Uno.

I wasted a lot of time in 2012 looking at how to achieve what I want to learn, without actually getting much satisfaction. Each one of the noted suggestions has issues, but the key issue is always complexity. I keep on coming back to the AVR ATmega 8 bit platform as the right answer. These notes are my attempt to discuss (justify) why I think that may apply for others too.

My interest lies in working with a soldering iron (hardware) and a compiler, and understanding how software interacts with the physical world. The ability to directly and explicitly influence the state of a pin on a micro-controller, either in C language or in assembler is the point of the exercise. Being able to interact with physical devices, through low level bus protocols, such as SPI or I2C, or standards, such as servo-motor timing or TCP/IP, enables me to understand what the sensors, motors, and actuators of the world really do.

Many platforms attempt to abstract away the “complexity” of dealing with these issues, and give their users the power to achieve much more in short periods of time with high level languages such as Python, or JavaScript. These languages give their users rich platforms which can quickly integrate into web applications. That in itself is a great thing, but it is simply not what interests me.

The key advantage of the AVR ATmega platform is that the platform is absolutely mature, completely open, and is very scalable. The power of the ability to compile and link a simple C program with avr-gcc, and upload it to an AVR with avrdude (either with a bootloader, or SPI interface) cannot overstated. These tools with avr-libc make the AVR ATmega platform very easy to love, and easy to scale with.

In comparison, the ARM based platforms mentioned, as well as others I’ve not mentioned, suffer from a very fragmented approach to library availability, support from the C compiler, and proprietary approaches uploading compiled code. Specifically, each ARM platform seems to need to have its own libraries and linker scripts and, because of the nature of the ARM licencing, each platform may have different capabilities and ways of servicing its hardware interfaces. All very confusing for me at least.

So why not use a RaspberryPi or a BeagleBoard? Well whilst both of these are great platforms (which I also own and use), they are normally used with a full scale Linux based operating system. Having the systematic overhead of a Hardware Abstraction Layer, and device driver interfaces just takes away the purity of simple one machine instruction equals one physical outcome.

I guess what I’m saying that one day I’ll migrate to ARM based 32 bit systems for this kind of enjoyment, but that day is not today.

“Goldilocks” 1284p Arduino UNO Clone

The Pozible project for Goldilocks boards is funded and closed.
Pozible Goldilocks

As featured in Make.

Freetronics Goldilocks is now sold out.
Freetronics Goldilocks

But, Freetronics are considering making a new version.
Please add your wish list here.

Also, I’m working on a new version, Goldilocks Analogue with an integrated dual channel DAC. Now a second prototype of the Goldilocks Analogue has been designed and tested. It has taken a year, because I’ve been using the existing Goldilocks boards for a number of projects. Now I’m designing (hopefully) the final iteration of the Goldilocks Analogue before it goes into production.

I have a Kickstarter project to get the Goldilocks Analogue into production. The project was successfully funded.

I sell on Tindie

Updated Firmware for Goldilocks (Pozible & Freetronics)

  •  LUFA 140928 for ATmega32u2 DFU and for U2duino (USB to USART).
  • Increased bootloader timeout for ATmega1284p.
  • Updated IDE file structure to provide support for Arduino IDE 1.6.x.
  • Renumbered I/O pins for greater commonality with Arduino core.
  • Also added a Goldilocks Analogue Bootloader, running at 24.576MHz

Look for Goldilocks in the Unofficial Boards Support List, and follow the instructions in the Goldilocks Analogue User Manual.


This proposal is to implement an Arduino clone using the ATmega1284p MCU, as replacement for the normal ATmega328p MCU, bringing significant improvements and longevity into the existing Arduino platform.

The current Arduino Uno and Leonardo devices cater for many applications, but they are becoming limited for some modern applications, such as Ethernet networking, SD Card storage, and USB based systems. The limitation in SRAM in the 328p and 32u4 is the most apparent issue, and this is the most difficult to supplement with external components. The Uno R3 platform is too small for demanding applications, and therefore not the right solution.

Arduino Mega devices are available which provide more RAM (but still less than Goldilocks) and many more interface pins, but unfortunately many of the standard Arduino Shields will not work with the Mega, unless you are prepared to hack them. The Mega platform is too big for the standard Shields, and therefore not the right solution.

Arduino and others are moving towards 32 bit MCU devices, including ARM Cortex based platforms such as the Arduino Due, which brings significantly more resource into play, but these platforms will require a major re-education of  users, and may actually fragment the Arduino user group. Also, these ARM processor based devices must be operated at 3.3V and can only supply 4mA per I/O, which makes them incompatible with many of the existing Arduino Shields.

I believe the Goldilocks solution is to use the Arduino Uno / Leonardo R3 physical format, for 100% Arduino Shield compatibility at 5V and with the standard pin layout. But using the ATmega1284p processor to provide significant improvements in RAM, FLASH, EEPROM, interfaces, and other factors.

I’ve been working with Arduino devices now for some years, and have found that my interest remains in fully understanding the way the “bare metal” processor is working. The Arduino platform gives me that opportunity.

Whilst many argue that the days of 8 bit processors are numbered, and that devices such as the Raspberry Pi are the future, I would say that there remains a need for very simple, but very capable platforms, such as the “Goldilocks” platform proposed here. Raspberry Pi and others are essentially Linux machines, and are addressing different needs to this platform.

The 1284p MCU has already been used by the RepRap project as a platform in their minimalist Arduino platform, as a result of them experiencing similar resource limitation issues. The RepRap 1284p platform maintains Arduino code compatibility (boot-loader, board descriptions, avrdude) but abandons physical compatibility, as theirs is a special purpose application and has no need to support Arduino Shields.


Similarly Pololu use the 1284p in their Orangutan SVP platform, but again theirs is a special application, which incorporates many robotics interfaces, and deviates from both the Arduino physical and software platform. Pololu also implement an on-board ISP, which removes the need for the Arduino serial bootloader freeing more space for program code.


Recently, others are starting to use the 1284p as the “Goldilocks” solution between 328p and 2560. This helps with establishing the precedent for the “Goldilocks” with the Arduino IDE and its hardware descriptions.

This is the final Goldilocks v1.1 board, that was prepared for Pozible Supporters.

Goldilocks 20MHz PCB

Here are some screenshots of the prototype board design.

Goldilocks Front Side

Differences between 328p and 1284p

The ATmega1284p has a number of significant differences from the 328p that make it a great MCU for the Arduino platform. Some are listed below, in no particular order.

  • 16kByte SRAM = 8x Uno SRAM

The 1284p has 8x more SRAM than the 328p, and also has double the SRAM of the 2560. There is no other AVR ATmega MCU with this much SRAM.

For Ethernet, video, and USB applications where large frame buffers need to be maintained or manipulated, the flexibility of having 16kByte of SRAM will change the kind of applications that can be implemented.

  • 4x Uno Flash & 2x Uno EEPROM

The 1284p has 4x more Flash and 2x more EEPROM than the 328p and therefore can store larger programs and non-volatile data. 

  • 2x Programmable USART

The 1284p has 2 programmable USARTs. These appear on Digital pin 0,1 and 2,3. This allows users to maintain the serial monitor connection with the Arduino IDE, whilst addressing another application, such as a GPS device. For new users and experienced alike having two serial interfaces will be a big improvement. 

  • Independent Analogue Platform (separate I2C bus pins)

Using the SMD package for the 1284p allows the board layout to implement a fully independent analogue platform. This is because the I2C bus pins are on a separate port to the ADC pins, and the ADC pins have no “alternate function” except for the PCINT function. Also separate AVCC and GND pins allow the analogue PA Port to be powered and grounded separately from the digital section of the MCU.

  • Timer 3 (Extra 16bit timer)

The 1284p has an extra 16bit timer, Timer 3, that is not present on any other ATmega MCU. Timer 3 does not have PWM outputs (unlike Timer 0, Timer 1, and Timer 2), and therefore is free to use as a powerful internal Tick counter, for example in a RTOS. freeRTOS has already been modified to utilise this Timer 3. Timer 3 (Extra 16bit timer)

  • Timer 2 (Real Time Clock Oscillator)

The 1284p has a 32.768 kHz capable timer, that can be fitted with an accurate watch crystal to enable real time keeping. Use of the avr-libc time.h functionality (present only in upstream release currently) allows an efficient SystemTick to match with advance time and date functions.

  • JTAG Interface

The 1284p implements a JTAG functionality which will allow advanced developers the option to debug their code.

  • Better PWM access

The 1284p brings additional 8bit Timer 2 PWM outputs onto PD, which creates the option for 2 additional PWM options on this port. It also removes the sharing of the important 16bit PWM pins with the SPI interface, by moving them to PD4 & PD5, thus simplifying interface assignments. 

  • Extra I/O pins (e.g. for internal SS pins)

The 1284p has additional digital I/O pins on the PB port. These pins could be utilised for on-board Slave Select pins (for example), without stealing on-header digital pins and freeing the Arduino Pin 10 for Shield SPI SS use exclusively.

Design Improvements on “Uno”

  • Add through-holes for all I/O

The existing Freetronics 2011 has space for prototyping, but doesn’t make any allowance for connecting pins to the prototyping space. Trying to solder jumpers between the I/O pins on the board backside is not very pretty, and also not robust for permanent prototyping. The Arduino Uno or Leonardo doesn’t have any prototyping space at all.

Suggest to include a row of through-holes inside the each of the pin headers to allow a header or jumper to be soldered to the I/O lead effectively.

Align the rows of through-holes to the 1/10” pitch, and to prototyping area pin pitch, to allow “Goldilocks” to have header pins soldered on the bottom, and be inserted into a standard breadboard.

  • Replicate SPI and I2C  to through-holes (with additional 1284p Alternate SS I/O).

The SPI and I2C interfaces are used for many daughter card options (from Sparkfun for example). Some examples include RTC, acceleration & magnetic sensors.

These mini-cards need access to the SPI or I2C interfaces which are shared with I/O pins. Bringing these SPI and I2C pins with Vcc and GND onto through-holes in the standard order (of Sparkfun cards, for example) at the left and right ends (respectively) of the prototyping area would simplify prototyping with these interfaces.

This is now implemented on the Arduino Uno Rev 3. as additional pins for I2C.


But, the additional through-holes remain valuable for the prototyping area.

  • Add JTAG Interface

Adding a standard JTAG interface at the edge of the card would allow in circuit debugging to be implemented. Whilst there may not be sufficient space to implement a standard JTAG connector, there would be space to bring the JTAG pins onto through-holes for headers.

  • Add a Micro SD Cage

There is space to add the long term storage capability brought by an integral Micro SD Card cage. Many projects require logging of sensor data, or capturing or playback of information, and the Micro SD card format is the easiest way to get data onto and off of any format of PC or Smartphone. The ATmega1284p also has plenty of SRAM to allow large buffers for reading and writing to the Micro SD card, so it makes sense to include it as a most needed option.

  • Link ATmega32u2 and ATmega1284p SPI interfaces

The USB-serial interface on the Uno is implemented by a ATmega16u2 device, but its SPI bus is only connected to the SPI programming header, and the SS pin is not even brought out. The Goldilocks will allow the ATmega32u2 MOSI, MISO, CLK, pins to to be easily bridged (solder pads on rear of board), and bring the SS pins of both ATmega devices to a patch pad. This will allow the two devices to work in concert for demanding multi-processing applications, involving USB and other peripherals.

  • Isolate analogue platform (optional SCL & SDA bridge)

For some applications digital noise and voltage droop (when using servo PWM), can have a significant impact on the accuracy of ADC conversions. Using the SMD 1284p it is possible to completely electrically isolate the digital Vcc and analogue AVcc and GND planes, as well as isolating the ADC converter within the MCU. A separate rectifier, or low pass filter could be used to provide AVcc.

The option to bridge the 1284p I2C pins on SDA and SCL with A4 and A5, where needed for compatibility with Arduino Shields, should be maintained through the use of solder bridges. 

  • Move Reset to edge

It is more common to need to use the Reset button with a shield in place, and if the Reset button is placed close to the edge (even vertically mounted, like the Seeed ADK main board), it can still be reached with a fingernail. Arduino Uno R3 implements this by moving Reset to the upper edge, near the USB connector.

  • Clock at 20MHz (or 22.1184MHz)

There is little reason to continue to run the MCU at 16MHZ, and given the MCU is specified to 20MHZ, being able to do 5 things, where previously we could only do 4, seems like a worthwhile improvement. Also, the use of a through hole precision crystal (not a SMD resonator) allows the use of after-market timing choices, eg 22.1184MHz for more accurate UART timings.


This is the Goldilocks v1.0 prototype.


This is a proposal to map the ATmega1284p pins to the Arduino physical platform.

328p Feature 328p Pin 1284p Pin 1284p Feature Comment
Analog 0 PC0 PA0
Analog 1 PC1 PA1
Analog 2 PC2 PA2
Analog 3 PC3 PA3
Analog 4 SDA PC4 PA4 PC1 I2C -> Bridged
Analog 5 SCL PC5 PA5 PC0 I2C -> Bridged
Reset Reset PC6 RESET Separate Pin
Digital 0 RX PD0 PDO RX0
Digital 1 TX PD1 PD1 TX0
Digital 2 INT0 PD2 PD2 INT0 / RX1 Xtra USART1
Digital 3 INT1 / PWM2 PD3 PD3 INT1 / TX1 Xtra USART1
Digital 4 PD4 PD4 PWM1 16bit PWM
Digital 5 PWM0 PD5 PD5 PWM1 16bit PWM
Digital 6 PWM0 PD6 PD6 PWM2
Digital 7 PD7 PD7 PWM2
Digital 8 PB0 PB2 INT2 Xtra External Interrupt
-> ATmega32u2 x-pad
Digital 9 PWM1 PB1 PB3 PWM0
Digital 10 SS / PWM1 PB2 PB4 SS / PWM0 SPI
-> ATmega32u2 x-pad
Digital 11 MOSI / PWM2 PB3 PB5 MOSI SPI
Digital 12 MISO PB4 PB6 MISO SPI
Digital 13 SCK PB5 PB7 SCK SPI
 (Digital 14) PB0 -> SDCard SPI SS
 (Digital 15) PB1 -> SDCard Card Sense
SCL PC0 SCL I2C – Separate
SDA PC1 SDA I2C – Separate
XTAL1 PB6 PC6 TOSC1 Unused
XTAL2 PB7 PC7 TOSC2 Unused
 (Analog 6) PA6 Unused -> Pad / Hole
 (Analog 7) PA7 Unused -> Pad / Hole

Here’s a picture of one of the two prototype boards, where I have added some additional items. I have changed the 1284p crystal to 22.1184MHz, and added a 5ppm 32kHz watch crystal for testing the avr-libc provided time.h functions.

Also I added header sockets for the 32u2 so that I could test its ability to program the 1284p using the LUFA AVRISP code, and determine how much decoupling should be added to the SPI bus link option. This is to ensure that even if the SPI bus is linked between the two MCU, that the 32u2 can’t lock up the SPI bus for devices trying to talk to the 1284p.

Also, I’ve added bridges for the SCL/SDA pins to the A4/A5 pins for old format (pre R3) shields.


I’ve prepared a preliminary distribution of the entire code set for goldilocks, including the lufa 130313 code used in the 32u2 and the stk500v2 bootloader used in the 1284p. This code is laid out in the arduino manner, with the directories matching the usual layout of Arduino boards.

The production board design was finalised on June 28th and sent for manufacturing. The v1.1 production boards are shown below. Pick and place pictures soon.

Goldilocks v1.1 PCB Front

Goldilocks v1.1 PCB Front

Goldilocks v1.1 PCB Back

Goldilocks v1.1 PCB Back


Moved support to the Arduino IDE Boards Manager.

Recompiled bootloader binaries with avr-gcc 4.9.2.

Returned to the original 2013 pins_arduino.h pin numbering, now that analogRead() issues are corrected.

Look for Goldilocks in the Unofficial Boards Support List, and follow the instructions in the Goldilocks Analogue User Manual.

Support for Arduino IDE 1.6.x.

Increased 1284p bootloader time out to 4 seconds.

Set upload speed to 38400 (single speed UART) for Goldilocks Analogue.

Goldilocks_20160108 Files

Support for Arduino IDE 1.5.x. Updated to LUFA 140928 for DFU and U2duino for 32u2.

No change for 1284p. Added Goldilocks Analogue bootloader, but no LUFA required because of FTDI USB interface.

Updated directory structure to support Arduino IDE 1.5.x. Modified pins_arduino.h to support analogRead() correctly.

Goldilocks 20150101 Files

Updated to LUFA 130901 for DFU and U2duino for 32u2. No change for 1284p.

Goldilocks 20130918 Files

Obsolete – Fixed USART mismatch by adjusting stk500v2 bootloader to 38,400 baud.

Goldilocks 20130818 Files

Obsolete – Fixed 32U2 tristate RESET issue.

Goldilocks 20130814 Files

Obsolete – Fixed stk500v2 bootloader monitor issues and included compiled firmware files.

Goldilocks 20130605 Files

Obsolete – Initial release.

Goldilocks 20130601 Files