You are here

PSoC Creator on Linux (or OSX) w/ or w/o wine | Cypress Semiconductor

PSoC Creator on Linux (or OSX) w/ or w/o wine

Summary: 38 Replies, Latest post by gmcintosh on 14 Jul 2016 10:10 PM PDT
Verified Answers: 0
Last post
Log in to post new comments.
elmom's picture
2 posts

I got introduced to the PSoC 5 chip by the freeSOC project on Kickstarter (and smARtDUINO, which is compatible with it). They are part of the Arduino community.

I've tried installing PSoC Creator with wine, with both Mono and Microsoft .NET. That didn't work. Then, I tried, and succeded in installing the separate .msi packages, but the program crashes at startup (I'll try to investigate those).

Now, some questions:

  • Does the .exe installer do anything important other than running the .msi installers?
  • How much does your code use native Win32 .dll's? Would it be possible to use only .NET APIs, so as to enable running the program on Mono on Linux or OSX?
  • Have you considered open sourcing any parts of your PSoC software? I know you've at least used compilers et' al based on the GPL'd gcc compiler suite. Is there any really important IP that mandates keeping the no cost sofware proprietary?

I'm sure you know about the success of Arduino and friends. The reason those 8 bit AVR based chips have been much more popular among hobbyists than similar PICs, is the fact that Atmel released their IDE to users at no cost. That is what you have done. Now, what has enabled the multi platform and really easy to use Arduino IDE (and Unix like cmd tools), is the fact that the AVRs are well supported by open source tools like GCC (which Atmel contributes to) and AVRDude.

Now, the Cortex-M3 in PSoC 5 is already supported by GCC (which you use through Sourcery G++), but the programmer protocol and the CPLD hardware configuration have no such support in the open source world (there is an abandoned project from 2006 to create such tools). I urge you to consider the Open Source HardWare movement and the hobbyists using linux, OSX, Android, (and Windows) who are constantly inventing new ways to create and better themselves and the world around us. I know you and them would have much to gain from each other, if you welcome them by realeasing some (simple) portable open source tools to usefully use you hardware in non-Win32 environments, with or without GUIs. You could start by releasing a simple open source tool to upload pre compiled binaries to your hardware, which would be useful for user side firmware upgrades etc. Even just documenting the protocol would help, I'm sure some of the freeSOC board owners will start developing tools if given the chance. I' know I would like to buy a freeSOC board if I can use it without the hassle of installing Windows in a VM, I want the user of my hardware or code to have free and easy to use tools on the platform of their choosing.

Thanks, and sorry for this lengthy post. I hope this will be read by the right people ;)

user_14586677's picture
7646 posts

This on an earlier post -


Can I run PSoC Designer on a Linux or UNIX based system or use a virtual machine with these systems?
Cypress does not test PSoC Designer using any Linux or UNIX based systems. PSoC Designer is not formally tested using virtual machine configurations with any Windows, Linux, or UNIX based OS, although Cypress has been notified by customers that they have successfully used virtual machine applications to run PSoC Designer on Linux and Mac OS systems.
For more information on the system requirements for PSoC Designer, see the PSoC Designer requirements page at:


Regards, Dana.

elmom's picture
2 posts

Yes, well, installing and using Windows in a VM is cumbersome, and I'm not after any official support, just some pointers for helping myself and others, and general opinions on psoobily having some kind of support for non-windows environments.

It might even be easy to port the software to work on top of Mono, or maybe they make some deal with CodeWeavers (commercial developer of wine).


And by possbily open sourcing some or all of the IDE, some one else will surely port it and extend it in new directions etc. All in all, it would be a big win for everyone, with hopefully minimal effort on the part of Cypress.

ddamato's picture
1 post

Well I attempted to install the PSoC Creator.exe on Kubuntu with WINE and was told that the file was invalid.   After reading this forum I decided I should install PSoC Creator.exe on my Windows 7 x64 machine and move on to development.  Well, that all resulted in an invalid executable file (see image).

Cypress PSoC IDE developers please port the code to Mac and Debian Linux or open the source so that these communities can extend the capabilities of this great tool.


frubbl's picture
1 post


I'd like to play with the cypress PSoC too, but being forced

to use Windows is a showstopper to me. 

There are just so many other great pieces of technology

around which have excellent free software / Linux support.

So for now I'd rather stick with my FPGAs and LPCs.

And, a bit off topic, but related:

Yesterday after many frustrated and wasted hours with trying

to use my FX2 FPGA connect board with Linux,

I finally decided to throw it into the box

and ordered an FTDI board.


BuGless's picture
2 posts

I'm impressed by the extraordinary price and flexibility/performance of the psoc platform.


However, after finding out that on Linux there is no native support to at least program or configure the CPLD/routing on a psoc, my conclusion is that this quite excellent hardware is not  worth my time.


Please note that I'm not looking for GUI-based programs, but would be thrilled to have some basic command line tools to VHDL-compile and/or upload a program to the psoc.  Back to AVR.

user_14586677's picture
7646 posts

For program loading there are bootloader solutions that you can

modify to get command line upload. I have personally not done it but

seems doable, like execute a script from a command line that

talks to BL.






/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}    AN68272  UART Bootloader     AN73503 USB Bootloader     AN60317 I2C Bootloader


Regards, Dana.

BuGless's picture
2 posts

That might work *if* the chips can be bought with the bootloader preinstalled *and* if it would allow reprogramming the ARM code, the PLD configuration and the pinrouting.

The only thing missing then is a commandline open source VHDL compiler.

user_302397898's picture
102 posts

You can purchase the PSoC 5LP with bootloader installed here:

Scott Atkins's picture
Cypress Employee
34 posts

So I don't post very often, but I was asked to respond to this thread.

I'm a software developer who's been working on Creator since day one.

And by working I really mean living, breathing, dreaming about and spending a good portion of my free time thinking about Creator from both a design and a usability point of view. I also handle third level support for Creator.

To answer some questions here:
There are several layers to the installer, but at the most basic level it is installing the MSIs and checking for dependencies. It also runs some optimizations on .Net assemblies to target the specific machine it was installed on.

I won't go into percentages, but a majority of the Cypress code is .Net based. That said, last time I checked, a good portion of the UI just refuses to run under mono. Part of that is the third party framework Creator uses, which is unfortunate.

As for making Creator open source, there are issues with that. First and foremost, we have chip specific IP in our tools that would be at risk. Furthermore, Creator is a venture into a new way at developing microprocessor designs. One that companies like TI are now trying to copy. We have nearly a decade of real world time and on the order of centuries worth of man effort invested. While you can download and install the tool without it costing you a penny, Creator is not free. It is value we bring to you when you use a Cypress part and that is absolutely considered part of our IP. That all said, we do look at what we can give back on a regular basis, provided it would not affect the user experience of the tool. We have given out source code for specific tools in the past. For example, SuiteUSB shows how to generate a driver similar to what LibUSB does. (Generally this code is not under GPL, which means your hobby project can become a commercial product without causing you grief.)

As for the programming protocol, we support standards like JTAG and SWD. While the Miniprog3 doesn't support support Linux that doesn't mean you can't program from Linux. Additionally, we do support boot loading as someone else pointed out.

Linux and MacOS support is on our roadmap; however, there is a lot of work to get there. I'm not going to talk about when that might happen because there are far too many unknowns. Not only does this require a significant investment on the development side, it requires significant investment on the testing and support side. Every supported environment is tested and must be available for a support call. Each new flavor (OS type+version) of an OS added is a multiplier on the resources required. This is far more complex and involved then people realize when they ask for Linux support.

For Linux support to even be on our roadmap means Cypress has made the conscious choice to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring this tool to the Linux community. We've had more than a few internal discussions about how to enable people, including porting just the command line tools to Linux. The problem is the user experience suffers as does the capabilities of the tool. The best we can do today is to offer exporting to Eclipse.

Now, I understand this is probably a disappointing reply (I'd love to say that we have a release next week supporting Linux, but we can't and we don't). Also I've simplified and condensed a lot of internal discussion/history/response for length here. (Hard to believe, but yes this is the abridge version.) That said, if you can give the tool a chance, despite the dependence on a Microsoft OS, I think you'll find an outstanding tool and platform that makes solving your problem easy and enjoyable.

Richard Elkins's picture
2 posts


As a software engineer, I respect the cost of R&D and implementation - especially when it contains a human interface.  On the other hand, having the Creator IDE on one O/S is, as you do appear to understand, highly inconvenient - if not a show-stopper, given the issues that you listed and the inconvenience and high cost of a M$ environment (my opinions but to each their own).

Suggestion:  Do not port to Linux or MacOSX in the future.  Port one more (hopefully, last) time to something like Java or Python (I don't really care which).  Both of the above run reasonably efficiently everywhere and support GUIs.  Your future multi-machine environment support will be reduced in scope and less costly.

All the best,


Log in to post new comments.