Posted on May 17, 2011 at 13:37We have driven a very similar (but not that exact model) TFT with one of ST's ''minimal'' 64 pin STM32F103. These smaller, lower cost MCUs do not include any FSMC.
General rule - if you comply with the TFT's signal & timing spec you will be ok - screen doesn't care re: source/creation of data.
Software approach ''is'' effected. With FSMC (like past data+address bus CPUs) a ''single'' MCU instruction can transact (read/write) with the screen. Without FSMC a multi-instruction sequence is required and proper set-up/hold times must - at all times - be observed.
Our firm specializes in such TFTs (and lower cost mono Lcds). Clients/we found the ''multi-instruction'' requirement inefficient and obviously a ''speed-brake.'' (especially penalizes user on a full-screen write or read) To greatly reduce this ''MCU-TFT'' inefficiency our firm has developed and is ''productionizing'' a semi-custom IC - which ''automates'' this data-transfer - reducing the number of MCU instructions on ''every'' transaction - and ''guaranteeing'' that all signal levels and timing constraints are met. And - our approach ''frees you'' from dedicating 16 I/O as MCU-TFT Data Bus. 16 I/O often ''cost us'' use of the RTC pins (unacceptable) - our approach reduces TFT I/O to just 12.
In summary - if you understand & comply with all of the TFT's signal/timing specs you may employ a smaller, lower-cost, non-FSMC MCU.
[ This message was edited by: jj.sprague on 12-01-2010 15:40 ]
