Any libraries for the W65C816 processor?

[dchisholm]

@AshtonSnapp

• I am way in over my head

That may, or may not, be true. We have very little insight into your general level of experience, your ability to learn new material, the nature of your project, your personal motivation for tackling it, nor the resources you have available to assist you. “Initiative” is a valued quality around here, and many Forum members will eagerly assist somebody who is making a sincere effort to complete a project.

@AshtonSnapp

I’m guessing y’all thought it was a micro-controller (it’s a processor)

The term “processor” is commonly applied to microcontrollers as well as microprocessors (as well as a few other digital devices). Your post didn’t include a link to the datasheet. Without that information many of us went with the most general interpretation of your question rather than forming a reply based on specific details of your component.

@AshtonSnapp

Sockets make life easier.

@SembazuruCDE cited an example where a socket is very helpful. Sockets also eat up acreage on your board and increase the BOM Cost of your project.

@AshtonSnapp

• I read this right after I finished making my own symbol for this thing (and I just realized you were talking about the Footprint library, not the Schematic Symbol library. My hard work is not wasted!)

As soon as you mentioned " the chip’s dimensions" in Post #8, we guessed you were concerned about the footprint rather than the schematic symbol.

There are several threads on the Forum where we discuss the most effective way to represent a microcontroller or microprocessor asba schematic symbol. The arguments apply more to microcontrollers, where most pins can have several different functions depending on nthe exact application, rather than your microprocessor . . . but even so, by making your own symbol (or, set of symbols) you can group pins in the way which best communicates your design intent. Or at least makes the schematic easier to lay out.

@AshtonSnapp

@hermit I’m using this chip because it developed from the processors used in computers from before I was born.

Gee whiz, this thing is a variant of the 6502! That puts it into the first-and-a-half generation of integrated processors, way back in the early 1970’s.

@AshtonSnapp

And also, I’m guessing they didn’t specify footprints because either they thought people who were going to use it would just “know” the dimensions from looking at the package,

There’s a lot of truth to that. @SembazuruCDE explained a lot of this in his post, but in the 1970’s everybody knew what a DIP package was. (In no small part because there weren’t many other varieties of packages.)

@AshtonSnapp

. . . . they hoped people would call them for extra information so they could sell more stuff.

Unlikely. Even in the 1970’s we studied Datasheets critically, looking for information that was missing as well as what was published. If critical information wasn’t in the datasheet we often assumed the part wasn’t yet into mass production.

Dale

[davidsrsb]

Back then there were a couple of DIL packages that might be either 0.3 or 0.6, caused a few bad boards for me. I also have a 64 pin 0.9" TRW ADC somewhere