[Arm-netbook] EOMA-68 Carrier Board Concept

[Christopher]

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:29 PM, "luke.leighton" <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Christopher Thomas
> <christopher at firemothindustries.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Scott Sullivan <scott at ss.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 08/15/2013 05:51 AM, Christopher Thomas wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> So, Ejectable PCMCIA, 4 Port USB Hub IC, with 2 available external
>>>> ports, two ports are being utilized for the ATMEGA32U4, and USB Audio
>>>> IC.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd like to catch this now. It has been a major sin of ARM board
>>> manufactures to only provide USB ports with USB connectors. The Via APC
>>> boards are particularly bad for this, especial because they have a mini-ITX
>>> like form factor (called Neo ATX?)[1].
>> 
>> We are kind of “hamstrung” by the limitations of the 68pins.
> 
> that's... a "downer" way to look at it.  the alternative - the
> flip-side - is to look at that concept modular PC that was developed
> by a taiwanese company: they did a custom module, custom 100-pin
> interface, developed working prototype PC and carrier board.... total
> investment required: $USD 10m.  when i heard this i was like WAARG!
> and for a while i was really jealous...
> 
> ... by contrast, by re-using PCMCIA the biggest cost we've had is only
> $8k... and that was for redoing the u-shaped plastic surround (oh, and
> redesigning the micro-usb so that the front metal edge was straight,
> supported by the plastic).
> 
> that $10m investment cost... it's going to have to be amortised
> across the unit cost of their products, isn't it?   [that's if they
> get any customers]
> 
> .... so, chris: you choose :)  would you prefer to have really
> expensive custom-designed modular systems where you'd have to put in a
> MOQ of 100k units and it would _still_ be expensive... or would you
> prefer a budget system done on a shoe-string where there are no
> investors, no bank loans to repay, and no shareholders demanding their
> dividends be added on to the costs?
> 


I think you misunderstand me. I used quotes on hamstring to convey that what might be seen as a limitation really isn't one. There are different requirements and uses for every scenario. And regardless of the IO options of the 68 pins, the components I selected are what I feel necessary regardless of the CPU card. I was just trying to explain my choices of components And why additional USB isn't really feasible or necessary.


> 
>> Most of the
>> functionality that is being proposed on this board is duplicating features
>> already present on the A20,
> 
> ... and then you look at say an ingenic MIPS SoC, and it has a
> different set of functions which are quotes duplicated quotes, and you
> look at another SoC and it has a different set of functions which are
> quotes duplicated quotes, and you look at a TI SoC and it has a
> different set of functions which are quotes duplicated quotes and the
> EOMA68 set is, after you've analysed over 50 SoCs, the best
> lowest-common-denominator set of interfaces that suits general-purpose
> mass-volume computing appliances.
> 
> but there's another reason why you shouldn't be looking at this as
> quotes duplication quotes.  a) because of the reasons above: it's the
> closest portable mass-volume interface we could find: there aren't any
> 80-pin 2.5in mass-volume connectors around, and there certainly aren't
> any 100-pin ones: out of those which have robust metal casework
> already in mass-volume we're stuck with CF, PCMCIA and ExpressCard
> [removable MiniPCI Type III _would_ have been perfect - 124 pins - but
> it never really took off]
> 
> b) once you've quotes duplicated quotes the functionality you are
> FREE.  you are SoC-independent.  you are no longer dependent on one
> manufacturer.  i cannot emphasise enough how critical this is.  the
> vendor lock-in problem - the "vertical market" problem - is *really*
> serious.  we've gone from an x86 PC "any-OS-works-even-microsoft-ones"
> architecture which retailed at between $199 to $1999 to a "fuck you
> jack, we're blatant copyright thieves if you want the GPL source code
> you can suck my dick" situation with a NINETY EIGHT PERCENT gpl
> violations rate... in hardware that retails for between $30 to $
> 


Woah. 


> c) the actual cost of buying two EOMA products that share a single
> CPU Card is *significantly* less than the cost of buying two
> identically-spec'd non-EOMA-compliant products.  i had a non-technical
> guest stay with us for a few days: when i mentioned this to them, as
> well as the e-waste savings issues and the long-term cost savings, and
> they were like "wow!  when can i get one?  ok, actually, when can i
> get two??"
> 
> 
> 
>> but unfortunately, there’s no perfect solution
>> to replicate ALL the functionality of a standard ATX Platform and still
>> maintain an affordable and "profitable" system.
> 
> i do have EOMA-200 for dealing with this scenario.  it's a 200-pin
> interface (duh), is similar to Q-Seven except, like all EOMA
> interfaces, NOTHING is optional.
> 
>> Right now, I’ve done some preliminary calculations and consulting with
>> manufacturers on how much a complete Turn Key system would cost, and if the
>> volume of the EOMA-68 Card can get down to the more competitive levels
>> predicted at the onset of the EOMA-68 project, then I feel I could get this
>> down to a retail cost to the consumer at roughly $70 (That's including the
>> EOMA-68 CPU Card, obviously less if the CPU Card can be had for $15?!).
> 
> don't start :)
> 


Haha!!

>> Adding in $5 for an extra USB hub IC might not seem like much, but it could
>> mean the difference between someone choosing the EOMA Platform vs the
>> cheaper rPI or Panda Board.
> 
> no: i don't believe it would.  you remember that you had *more*
> people buy MEBs than we'd sold EOMA68-A20 samples?  there *are* people
> out there who "get it".  they look at an I/O board and they go "huh.
> i'm going to buy this I/O board as a long-term investment.  over the
> next 10 years i can keep upgrading the CPU Card, i will *not* have to
> throw away the I/O board every time.  i'm going to save myself a
> fortune".
Agreed. Which is why I'm "betting the farm" on EOMA....

> ... that's on one hand. on the other hand: i agree with you.  $5 is a
> hell of a lot for a USB Hub IC.  plus the extra connectors. 

Yeah. 


> 
>> What you lose in USB, you gain in potential
>> gains in exponential CPU advancement (Laws of thermodynamics
>> not-withstanding) and the ability to upgrade, which is not something any
>> current development system on the market can truly boast. Now, if we wanted
>> to go with the full blown Development Kit Version of a fully spec’d system
>> as described by the EOMA-68, on a full size ITX board, that is DEFINITELY an
>> option, but beyond the scope of what I was proposing, which is an
>> affordable, easy to produce, open development/experimentation/consumer-esq
>> device.
> 
> that makes sense.
> 
>>> Some USB ports should be brought out on the conventional 0.1" headers you
>>> see on ATX motherboards (or the USB 3.0 equivalent 20pin connector). This is
>>> especially important if making it ITX case compatible. Cases will have front
>>> facing ports, and not including a header means any user can not use their
>>> case to it's fullest.
>> 
>> 
>> A potential compromise would be to have the ATMEGA32U4 as a jumper
>> select-able option on the board, with the suggested headers available as
>> desired, or maybe consider sacrificing some of the GPIO of the EOMA-68
>> Specification and bring out the 3rd USB Host port of the A20 to the header.
> 
> nope.  too late.  plus, many SoCs simply don't have 3 USBs, they only
> have e.g. one USB-OTG and one USB-Host.  if there was an extra USB on
> EOMA68 you'd be down to 6 GPIO pins (which is not enough), and then
> some CPU Cards would have to sacrifice USB-OTG on the front edge,
> making it not possible to power by USB-OTG as a stand-alone
> computer.... *or* they'd have to put up the price by at least $1.50 by
> putting on a USB Hub IC on the CPU Card.
> 
> general badness all round - been through this already chris, over the
> past 18-24 months :)
> 
>> 
>> 
>> One of the main reasons I chose to locate the holes via the ATX locations
>> was due to the increase in length. I thought, if I was going to be
>> increasing the width/length to the standard ITX I/O Panel, might as well
>> make it mountable in an ITX case, that's not to say it is an ITX computer
>> though.
> 
> you're still going to get people going "awesome!  i want to put this
> in an ITX case!" :)


My thoughts exactly! 

> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think you are spot on in that some sort of power management is required
>> (Luke’s Suggestion of the AXP is a good one), as I had intended parts of the
>> board to be usable even without the EOMA-68 Card inserted.
> 
> the AXP209 is around $1.50 and it saves a loooot of hassle.  but the
> AXP221 is probably a better bet because it can handle more current.
> don't know pricing though.  i can get you the datasheet, if it's not
> around anywhere.
> 

I'll look when I get home...the commute is a killer. 
> 
>> The idea of
>> having a hot-swappable option comes to mind, or programming the ATMEL chip
>> via it's USB Bootloader.
> 
> via it is USB bootloader.  doesn't make sense.  i believe you meant
> to use the relative pronoun, "its" :)

Awwww, can't I have at least one grammatical error? 

Typing in a rush. ;) I promise. I Speke n spel Gud!!

> 
>> I know I'm missing something, but I think that's the gist of it so far.
>> Thank you for your input though, this is exactly the dialogue I was hoping
>> to achieve.
> 
>  please draw people back to this
> http://rhombus-tech.net/community_ideas/carrier_board/ and do please
> keep it up-to-date everyone.

I'll update the specs tonight. 
> 
> l.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk