[Arm-netbook] [router] schematics started

[luke.leighton]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Derek LaHousse <dlahouss at mtu.edu> wrote:
> luke.leighton <luke.leighton <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> it does have to be an equivalent,
>> _and_ one that doesn't require an NDA, _and_ is still current, _and_
>> isn't going end-of-life any time soon, _and_ is fully integrated with
>> direct UTP driving  <at>  gigabit speeds without needing one extra PHY IC
>> per interface.
>
> Which of these did the Qualcomm chip I posted fall into?  NDA?

 yes, NDA.  plus it's USA-designed and supplied.  i have deep abiding
concerns about sourcing any SoC that is by a USA-based company,
primarily because the parent company could be pressurised into *not*
supplying sufficient quantity, should the product itself become a huge
mass-volume success.  yes, if you've not been reading slashdot, this
kind of political stupid tit-for-tat (China banning Cisco products,
U.S. banning Huawei products) really does happen.

 the other concern is that we'd not even be able to get _small_
quantities (10k or so) without going through a USA-based supplier.
that requires insane credit references, credit checks, existence
checks, existentialist checks and so on.

 whereas for e.g. that RTL8306 part, it's all over taobao in _huge_
quantities, and has been since 2007.  the supply and use of that IC is
basically massively uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

>  Or because it had too many ports?

 on paper the spec was perfect, which is a pity.

 l.