[Arm-netbook] EOMA-68 Carrier Board Concept

[Christopher Thomas]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Christopher Thomas <
christopher at firemothindustries.com> wrote:

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Scott Sullivan <scott at ss.org> wrote:
>
> > On 08/15/2013 04:56 PM, Christopher Thomas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Scott Sullivan <scott at ss.org
> >> <mailto: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. Most of the
> >> functionality that is being proposed on this board is duplicating
> >> features already present on the A20, 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.
> >>
> >> 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?!). 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. 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.
> >
> > The reason I bring this has to do with a electronics engineer colleague
> of mine. He does a variety for design with his primary buisness these days
> being audio/synthesizers ( http://www.kilpatrickaudio.com/ ).
> >
> > He's expressed to me in a few times how he'd love to include a more
> powerful computer in his products. In ever case though the design of a PCB
> for RAM and SoC outweigh the value. He has considered various ARM dev
> boards over the years, but they share this same common problem. You can't
> connect to a USB port without an awkward cable exiting the case to connect
> to port on the exterior panel.
> >
> > The EOMA-68 cards finally solve this common design limitation. It is now
> well within his the realm to start designing I/O board once the cards hit
> volume. In the meantime, the least I can do is impart this experience that
> it might be of great utility to have a usb port on the inside facing areas
> of the board.
> >
> > I outline a few more options below.
> >
> >>    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.
> >
> > So I wanted to expand on this line of thinking. Having any kind of
> programmable micro (like the ATMEGA32U4) is a great idea. But it does add
> to the cost of the board with out showing an explicit need.
>
>
> Actually the need is there; My primary product, which actually
> prompted the development of the Carrier Board, was an evolution of the
> idea to make a completely integrated, but modular thin
> client/programmable keyboard that is powered by this same chip
> (ATMEGA). Rather than make the cost of the keyboard PCB more expensive
> by having the controller on the PCB, I can integrate the controller
> with the carrier board and allow the user to modify and create their
> own keyboard matrix if they wish. (Some people might want to use
> Cherry MX switches or use a more extended layout (more keys)), but if
>


> the controller is fixed in place on the keyboard, my users and myself
> will be tied to that one keyboard/PCB. Which goes against the idea of
> keeping things modularlopment. Your idea of a separate module plugged
> into an internal port is a valid on,


Damn phone. should have just waited to get home.


> and some consideration would have
> to be given to it. "My" goal was to make the Carrier Board as
> Minimal/Simple as possible and still retain some considerable
> functionality. As I mentioned previously as well, with the
> ATMEGA/Atmel Chips you have the added bonus as being able to cater to
> thousands (if not millions) of Arduino tinkerers/programmers, because
> the ATMEGA32U4 and AT90USB has it's own following, it is known as one
> of the most successful Arduino Dev platforms, and it wasn't even
> initially launched by the official Arduino Dev Team/Company.
>
> By integrating it on the board, you do have the potentially same
> 'pitfall' as the keyboard PCB scenario, but at least here, even if it
> is tied to the carrier board, you can re purpose the MCU how you see
> fit..
>
> Also, keyboard matrices aside, you get the plethora of other things
> the ATMEL/Arduino chips are good for. Zigbee, Bluetooth, PWM, Analog
> data monitoring, GSM/GPS, LCD Touchscreens. All are usable options
> through the ATMEGA.
>
> SCADA is a very likely use for this scenario. In a previous life-time
> I designed a Satellite Communications system for an Oil/Natural Gas
> Services company and it ran a small localized VOIP COM system, as well
> as GSM Reporting of Telemetry/Rig Data. Unfortunately the system we
> used WAS small, but suffered from multiple failures, and was still too
> power hungry to operate at the levels we wanted via our Solar arrays.
> The ARM processors weren't available with this level of
> sophistication/integration/affordability at the time, but now, if I
> had to re-do it, I know exactly what I would use, and it would be MORE
> than adequate.
>
>
>
> > I'm sure there will be some that buy the board just for it being there.
> But there will be an equal number that will have wanted it to be a PIC. And
> then the larger majority won't care or use it.
> >
> > Leaving a header, is more flexible. For those that don't want an MC they
> can leave it off and connect a front panel USB. You could then sell a
> module as an option, or other hackers can add their USB enable MC of
> choice. By leaving it off you increase options while actually reducing the
> base cost. It even gives you the option to sell a USB wifi module as a
> upgrade as well.
>
> Removing it from the PCB is still an option, but I think there's
> something "unique" and of great benefit by having a plethora of GPIO
> included on the board. If anything, I do think having an optional
> jumper would be the cheapest and more diverse allowing you to have the
> best of both, although you wouldn't be able to have both at once.
>
> >
> > Second iption, don't use a header, use an internally facing USB
> receptacle. This doesn't have advantage of putting USB front panel
> connection to it, but it means you can quickly add a host of devices.
> >
> > http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ - RandomNumber source
> > http://www.freetronics.com/products/leostick - An arduino as a USB
> stick.
> > Any USB wifi, bluetooth or 3G modems.
> > Another USB HUB.
>
> To tie in to Luke's suggestion (in addition to yours). After thinking
> about it for awhile, and going over the costs. The idea of using a
> secondary USB2 hub IC would actually be do-able. Total cost looks like
> it comes out to $1.85. I'd just have to think about where to position
> it, and what type of connector. That way the USB Audio and ATMEGA
> aren't utilizing the USB3 interface when they're only USB1.1 and USB2.


Looks like I can get the USB2512BI-AEZG (Microchip USB2 4port) for $1.46 in
the US, Luke, do you have the datasheet or the full part number of the
F.E.11?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20130815/86fee98a/attachment-0001.html>