Coursework Title: Microprocessor Referral Coursework 1

Programmes: BEng. (Hons) Electrical and Electronic Engineering
You should submit the following:
Task 1)
Please submit a short report indicating the functionality of your application. Include in this report your
program design.
You should also submit your assembly file (.ASM file) so I can verify its operation in picsim. The assembly
file should include comments and compile successfully using gpasm. If you do not submit this file you will
automatically be awarded 0% out of 50% for the program implementation.
Task 2)
You should submit a short report of 2 pages or less
The completed reports and flow charts should be saved as pdf files
These pdf files, along with the commented source code file should be zipped and submitted via
blackboard
Coursework Specification
Task 1) 50% for program design and implementation
Create an assembly application for the pic microcontroller that will increase and decrease a program
register.
You should design your application using an appropriate method (flowchart/pseudo code) and then
implement this on PICSIM board 1. The specification of what is required is as follows:
? You will use two buttons (RA1 and RA2) to cycle up and down the register values
? The register that will be used is PORTB (so that there is a display of the count in binary form)
? You will need to add a delay to the code so that the count can be seen.
You should provide the details of any assumptions made.
Task 2) 50% for report
Provide a short report (maximum 2 pages including references) that answers the following question:
What are the differences between the following processor instruction sets?
? RISC
? CISC
Include the following aspects.
? Timing
? Number of Instructions
? Processors using each approach
? Advantages and disadvantages of each approach
Marking Scheme or Guide to Assessment Criteria
Task 1 50%
Task 2 50%
See marking grid for detailed mark allocation.
4002ELE Embedded Systems Assignment 1 (2014/15 Ref)
Grade descriptors and feedback sheet for RefCW1 Student Name: Student Number:
Lecturer:
Outcome Below 40% 40 to 49% 50 to 59% 60 to 69% >70% Section
Mark
/100
Weight Weighted
Mark
Assembly Code Design and implementation – Does the diagram
provide an accurate representation of the operational
requirements? Is the diagram clear and well structured? Does the
annotation of the diagram follow standards
Is the code written using a formal notation. Is the code well
written? Does your application meet the requirements set out in
the requirements specification
diagram fails to
capture the
requirements of the
lift system. Application
provides little of the
required functionality,
there is little structure
and few comments
diagram details some
requirements but does
not contain correct
formatting.
Application provides
some of the
functionality required.
Is moderately well
written. With few
comments
Satisfactory coverage
of requirements and
mostly uses correct
formatting.
Application code
performs most of the
requirements. Little
formal notation and
structure.
All requirements are
covered with
satisfactory
formatting.
Application performs
as per the
requirements. Some
structure and
comments.
Diagram presented in
a professional manner.
Requirements clearly
covered. Formatting is
accurate. Application
meets the
requirements is well
written i.e not
verbose. Makes good
use of comments.
0.5
Instruction set report – Is the report well written does it address
the questions posed?
Discussion is missing
or very limited and
demonstrates that the
student does not have
a clear understanding
of the questions
Discussion is limited
and demonstrates that
the student has only a
basic understanding of
the questions
Discussion is of a
satisfactory standard
and demonstrates that
the student has a clear
understanding of
questions
Discussion is of a high
standard and
demonstrates that the
student has a good
understanding of the
questions external
sources have been
referenced
Discussion is of an
excellent standard and
demonstrates that the
student has a deep
understanding of the
questions a good
range of external
sources have been
used.
0.5
Final
Mark
Comments:
Please provide descriptive feedback in this section.
Guide to Performance Criteria
70% and above:
Your work must be of outstanding quality and fully meet the requirements of the coursework
specification and learning outcomes stated. You must show independent thinking and apply this to your
work showing originality and consideration of key issues. There must be evidence of wider reading on
the subject.
Key words which may describe a coursework at this level include: appraises, compares, concludes, contrasts,
criticizes, critiques, defends, discriminates, evaluates, explains, interprets, justifies, relates, supports.
60% – 70%:
Your work must be of good quality and meet the requirements of the coursework specification and
learning outcomes stated. You must demonstrate some originality in your work and show this by
applying new learningto the key issues of the coursework. There must be evidence of wider reading on
the subject.
Key words which may describe a coursework at this level include: categorizes, combines, compiles, creates,
devises, generates, modifies, reconstructs, identifies, illustrates, outlines, synthesizes.
50% – 60%:
Your work must be comprehensive and meet all of the requirements stated by the coursework
specification and learning outcomes. You must show a good understanding of the key concepts and be
able to apply them to solve the problem set by the coursework. There must be enough depth to your
work to provide evidence of wider reading.
Key words which may describe a coursework at this level include: demonstrates, changes, applies, operates,
produces, predicts, shows, solves, uses, translates, comprehends, converts, generalizes.
40% – 50%:
Your work must be of a standard that meets the requirements stated by the coursework specification
and learning outcomes. You must show a reasonable level of understanding of the key concepts and
principles and you must have applied this knowledge tothe coursework problem. There should be some
evidence of wider reading.
Key words which may describe a coursework at this level include: comprehends, defines, describes, identifies,
knows, labels, lists, matches, outlines, recalls, recognizes, reproduces, selects, states, rewrites.
Below 40%:
Your work is of poor quality and does not meet the requirements stated by the coursework specification
and learning outcomes. There is a lack of understanding of key concepts and knowledge and no
evidence of wider reading.
Recommended reading
Ramesh S. Gaonkar, ‘Microprocessor Architecture, Programming, and Applications with the 8085’, 2002
Prentice Hall fifth edition.
Fredrick M. Cady, ‘Microcontrollers and Microcomputers’, 1997 Oxford University Press, Inc.
Donald P. Leach and Albert P. Malvino, ‘Digital Principles and Applications’, 1994 McGraw-Hill fifth
edition.
Lin, W.C.’Microprocessors: Fundamental and Applications’
Douglas V. Hall ‘Microprocessors and Interfacing: Programming and Hardware’
Extenuating Circumstances
If something serious happens that means that you will not be able to complete this assignment, you
need to contact the module leader as soon as possible. There are a number of things that can be done
to help, such as extensions, waivers and alternative assessments, but we can only arrange this if you tell
us. To ensure that the system is not abused, you will need to provide some evidence of the problem.
More guidance is available at
http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/corporate/SPR/60399.htm.
Any coursework submitted late without the prior agreement of the module leader will receive 0
marks
Academic Misconduct
The University defines Academic Misconduct as ‘any case of deliberate, premeditated cheating,
collusion, plagiarism or falsification of information, in an attempt to deceive and gain an unfair
advantage in assessment’. The School takes Academic Misconduct very seriously and any suspected
cases will be investigated through the University’s standard policy (Academic Misconduct Policy). If you
are found guilty, you may be expelled from the University with no award.
It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand what constitutes Academic Misconduct and to
ensure that you do not break the rules. If you are unclear about what is required, please ask.
Cheating includes:
(i) any form of communication with, or copying from, any other source during an examination;
(ii) communicating during an examination with any person other than an authorised member of
staff;
(iii) introducing any written, printed or other material into an examination (including
electronically stored information) other than that specified in the rubric of the examination
paper;
(iv) gaining access to unauthorised material in any way during or before an assessment;
(v) the use of mobile phones or any other communication device during an assessment or
examination;
(vi) the submission of false claims of previously gained qualifications, research or experience in
order to gain credit for prior learning;
(vii) the falsification of research data, the presentation of another’s data as one’s own, and any
other forms of misrepresentation in order to gain advantage;
(viii) the submission of work for assessment that has already been submitted as all or part of the
assessment for another module without the prior knowledge and consent of the Module Leader
for the subsequent assessments;
(ix) the submission of material purchased or commissioned from a third party, such as an essay-writing
service, as one’s own.
Plagiarism is defined as the representation of the work, artefacts or designs, written or otherwise, of
any other person, from any source whatsoever, as the student’s own. Examples of plagiarism may be as
follows:
i) the verbatim copying of another’s work without clear identification and acknowledgement
including the downloading of materials from the Internet without proper referencing of
materials;
ii) the paraphrasing of another’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of
presentation, without clear identification and acknowledgement;
iii) the unidentified and unacknowledged quotation of phrases from another’s work;
iv) the deliberate and detailed presentation of another’s concept as one’s own.
Collusion includes:
(i) the conscious collaboration, without official approval, between two or more students in the
preparation and production of work which is ultimately submitted by each in an identical or
substantially similar form and/or is represented by each to be the product of his or her
individual efforts;
(ii) collusion also occurs where there is unauthorised co-operation between a student and
another person in the preparation and production of work which is presented as the student’s
own.
For more information you are directed to following the University web pages:
? Information regarding academic misconduct:
http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/studysupport/81924.htm
? Information on study skills:
http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/studysupport/
? Information regarding referencing:
http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/studysupport/69049.htm