[Arm-netbook] EOMA-68 Carrier Board Concept

[Christopher Thomas]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Christopher Thomas <
christopher at firemothindustries.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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?
>
>
I feel rather sheepish.....
http://elinux.org/images/e/ee/FE11-datasheet.pdf

-- 
Christopher Thomas
Firemoth Industries, LLC - Owner
christopher at firemothindustries.com
214-458-5990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20130815/d7262eff/attachment.html>