From paul at boddie.org.uk  Sun May  5 21:58:25 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 22:58:25 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 Computing Devices Update: 2.7.5 Cards Under
	Way, NLnet, and Intel Compute Card
Message-ID: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy>

Hello,

Thanks once again for another update on the progress being made with the 
different boards:

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop/updates/2-7-5-cards-under-way-nlnet-and-intel-compute-card

It must be frustrating to encounter production issues (with the Micro 
Desktop), but I imagine that such things are only avoidable with enough 
experience of the relevant processes. I suppose that the only way to deal with 
them is to take the lesson along for next time, pretty much as is noted in the 
update.

Meanwhile, it sounds like the computer cards are waiting for components before 
being assembled, so we should remain hopeful that their production is more 
straightforward. It will be interesting to read the next update, certainly.

Paul


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Sun May  5 22:02:09 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 22:02:09 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 Computing Devices Update: 2.7.5 Cards
 Under Way, NLnet, and Intel Compute Card
In-Reply-To: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy>
References: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDw0M3sYpX3wqw=uk=2++BRT9a3MVtZcY_qr7qgcz8giMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 9:59 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks once again for another update on the progress being made with the
> different boards:
>
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop/updates/2-7-5-cards-under-way-nlnet-and-intel-compute-card

 gotta love the help from intel... :)

> It must be frustrating to encounter production issues (with the Micro
> Desktop), but I imagine that such things are only avoidable with enough
> experience of the relevant processes. I suppose that the only way to deal with
> them is to take the lesson along for next time, pretty much as is noted in the
> update.

 .... yep :)  the good news is, the dev-process issues are resolved,
production just rolls off the assembly line.


> Meanwhile, it sounds like the computer cards are waiting for components before
> being assembled, so we should remain hopeful that their production is more
> straightforward. It will be interesting to read the next update, certainly.

 hope so.

 btw, i meant to ask you, paul: would you like to be the person that
applies for the NLnet Grant?  (and then subsequently acts as the
coordinator)?

l.


From paul at boddie.org.uk  Sun May  5 23:49:19 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 00:49:19 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 Computing Devices Update: 2.7.5 Cards
	Under Way, NLnet, and Intel Compute Card
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDw0M3sYpX3wqw=uk=2++BRT9a3MVtZcY_qr7qgcz8giMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDw0M3sYpX3wqw=uk=2++BRT9a3MVtZcY_qr7qgcz8giMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3273298.ByaZkDMDC3@jeremy>

On Sunday 5. May 2019 22.02.09 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
>  .... yep :)  the good news is, the dev-process issues are resolved,
> production just rolls off the assembly line.

Great!

[...]

>  btw, i meant to ask you, paul: would you like to be the person that
> applies for the NLnet Grant?  (and then subsequently acts as the
> coordinator)?

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable doing so, not least because I don't think I 
have the skill set for managing something like this, and I also don't have the 
kind of background for working with grants, applications and the accompanying 
paperwork. I have worked with people who have been involved with such things 
in academia, and my impression is that experience with these processes counts 
for a lot.

Maybe there are people you know with more experience with such matters, also 
with project management experience in the hardware domain, who might be worth 
approaching. I also imagine that you would really want someone closer to the 
action than people like me watching the action from several time zones away.

Paul


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Mon May  6 02:56:03 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 02:56:03 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 Computing Devices Update: 2.7.5 Cards
 Under Way, NLnet, and Intel Compute Card
In-Reply-To: <3273298.ByaZkDMDC3@jeremy>
References: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDw0M3sYpX3wqw=uk=2++BRT9a3MVtZcY_qr7qgcz8giMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3273298.ByaZkDMDC3@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDydiH99nFTMUCo3Gn4hn5Ad1Vo+k6jze14xJ-15cbcdGg@mail.gmail.com>

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 11:49 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 5. May 2019 22.02.09 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> >  .... yep :)  the good news is, the dev-process issues are resolved,
> > production just rolls off the assembly line.
>
> Great!
>
> [...]
>
> >  btw, i meant to ask you, paul: would you like to be the person that
> > applies for the NLnet Grant?  (and then subsequently acts as the
> > coordinator)?
>
> I'm not sure I'd be comfortable doing so, not least because I don't think I
> have the skill set for managing something like this, and I also don't have the
> kind of background for working with grants, applications and the accompanying
> paperwork. I have worked with people who have been involved with such things
> in academia, and my impression is that experience with these processes counts
> for a lot.

 not in this case: the application was only rejected because the NLnet
Foundation needed to tick a single box, "you're one person applying
for 2 projects, and we have a 1st-project-1st-application limit of EUR
$50k.  is there a 2nd person, living in the EU, who could be the
front-man, for... um.... EU-bureaucracy-satisfying-political-reasons,
kinda thing?"

> Maybe there are people you know with more experience with such matters, also
> with project management experience in the hardware domain, who might be worth
> approaching. I also imagine that you would really want someone closer to the
> action than people like me watching the action from several time zones away.

 mmm... again.... no, not really :)  and it's more that you're an
advocate for success, and your reputation in the software libre world,
that matters more.

l.


From paul at boddie.org.uk  Mon May  6 18:00:07 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 19:00:07 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 Computing Devices Update: 2.7.5 Cards
	Under Way, NLnet, and Intel Compute Card
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDydiH99nFTMUCo3Gn4hn5Ad1Vo+k6jze14xJ-15cbcdGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy> <3273298.ByaZkDMDC3@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDydiH99nFTMUCo3Gn4hn5Ad1Vo+k6jze14xJ-15cbcdGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2461835.RrZ1JiDPG8@jeremy>

On Monday 6. May 2019 02.56.03 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
>  not in this case: the application was only rejected because the NLnet
> Foundation needed to tick a single box, "you're one person applying
> for 2 projects, and we have a 1st-project-1st-application limit of EUR
> $50k.  is there a 2nd person, living in the EU, who could be the
> front-man, for... um.... EU-bureaucracy-satisfying-political-reasons,
> kinda thing?"

Well, I don't think I would feel comfortable putting my name on an application 
just to enable it to navigate the bureaucracy. Although I am familiar with 
this initiative, I am just like many of the other people on this list who are 
supporters of it, in one way or another. It would feel dishonest for me to act 
as a kind of front figure, especially because that is precisely how I would 
perceive my own involvement.

[...]

>  mmm... again.... no, not really :)  and it's more that you're an
> advocate for success, and your reputation in the software libre world,
> that matters more.

There must be others you have been working with who might satisfy the 
requirements. I might also add that I am living in an EEA country that is not 
in the EU. I doubt that this would make a huge difference, but it is still 
worth noting. Of course, were I living in my country of birth, it would be 
anyone's guess as to how long I and my fellow residents might have left in the 
EU thanks to factors beyond my control, but that is another sordid story.

As far as reputations go, I don't have any notion of what mine is, besides me 
writing a fair amount on a selection of different topics. But I would hope 
that being somewhat independent from particular initiatives might be a part of 
it.

We both have some familiarity with one individual - you more than I, in fact - 
who had a reputation for frequently communicating with their audience, having 
some kind of following and far more influence than I might have. But after 
some unfortunate outcomes with projects, including one which saw $100000 go 
via a crowdfunding platform into a Swiss bank account where it has been 
resting ever since, we don't hear very much from them any more. (Note that I 
don't blame that individual for the continuing inactivity of that sum of 
money, but their reputation has not exactly blossomed as a consequence.)

I do want to see this initiative deliver results because this would empower 
everyone who has been waiting for those results. After all, the initial 
campaign is, and was always going to be, the start of something more 
significant. But my role in this initiative is not significant enough for me 
to act in any official capacity, sad to say.

Paul


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Tue May  7 00:26:21 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 00:26:21 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 Computing Devices Update: 2.7.5 Cards
 Under Way, NLnet, and Intel Compute Card
In-Reply-To: <2461835.RrZ1JiDPG8@jeremy>
References: <10667086.sNdKUrSa4K@jeremy> <3273298.ByaZkDMDC3@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDydiH99nFTMUCo3Gn4hn5Ad1Vo+k6jze14xJ-15cbcdGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2461835.RrZ1JiDPG8@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDxvgHMpXrqPQR47Wbk_apn2JuYCrbQpXovKeS7-aKoLMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:00 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Monday 6. May 2019 02.56.03 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> >  not in this case: the application was only rejected because the NLnet
> > Foundation needed to tick a single box, "you're one person applying
> > for 2 projects, and we have a 1st-project-1st-application limit of EUR
> > $50k.  is there a 2nd person, living in the EU, who could be the
> > front-man, for... um.... EU-bureaucracy-satisfying-political-reasons,
> > kinda thing?"
>
> Well, I don't think I would feel comfortable putting my name on an application
> just to enable it to navigate the bureaucracy. Although I am familiar with
> this initiative, I am just like many of the other people on this list who are
> supporters of it, in one way or another. It would feel dishonest for me to act
> as a kind of front figure, especially because that is precisely how I would
> perceive my own involvement.

 ok.  no problem.

> [...]
>
> >  mmm... again.... no, not really :)  and it's more that you're an
> > advocate for success, and your reputation in the software libre world,
> > that matters more.
>
> There must be others you have been working with who might satisfy the
> requirements.

 this may come as a surprise: i am so focussed on what i do, for such
prolonged periods of time, that i actually know very few people.
plus, olimex ****'d the project's reputation with the sunxi community
(lied to them about the contents of private conversations), setting it
back about 3 years in the process.

> I might also add that I am living in an EEA country that is not
> in the EU. I doubt that this would make a huge difference, but it is still
> worth noting. Of course, were I living in my country of birth, it would be
> anyone's guess as to how long I and my fellow residents might have left in the
> EU thanks to factors beyond my control, but that is another sordid story.

 :)

 i'm based in taiwan, now, however by giving my mum's address, as a UK
citizen this was acceptable :)

> As far as reputations go, I don't have any notion of what mine is, besides me
> writing a fair amount on a selection of different topics. But I would hope
> that being somewhat independent from particular initiatives might be a part of
> it.

 which is precisely why i thought you may be able to help... no worries.

> We both have some familiarity with one individual - you more than I, in fact -
> who had a reputation for frequently communicating with their audience, having
> some kind of following and far more influence than I might have. But after
> some unfortunate outcomes with projects, including one which saw $100000 go
> via a crowdfunding platform into a Swiss bank account where it has been
> resting ever since, we don't hear very much from them any more. (Note that I
> don't blame that individual for the continuing inactivity of that sum of
> money, but their reputation has not exactly blossomed as a consequence.)

 *sigh*... y'know... the people that tend to cross me tend to do so
because they know that i can see right through them.  at one job, one
person who treated me badly, i accidentally ended out shouting "this
person's a thief and a liar!" and the boss had to demand that i
apologise.   two years later he called me up and said, "you were
right: i caught him helping himself to the cash register and the tools
from the shop"....


> I do want to see this initiative deliver results because this would empower
> everyone who has been waiting for those results. After all, the initial
> campaign is, and was always going to be, the start of something more
> significant. But my role in this initiative is not significant enough for me
> to act in any official capacity, sad to say.

 no problem paul.

 i have two long-standing friends from UKUUG days who might be willing
to help, i can ask them.

l.


From arunisaac at systemreboot.net  Sun May 12 00:25:45 2019
From: arunisaac at systemreboot.net (Arun Isaac)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 04:55:45 +0530
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
Message-ID: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>


Hi,

Are the schematic and PCB layout CAD files for the EOMA68 computer card
and the various housings available for download? I'm wondering if I can
fabricate some of the housings on my own using a CNC mill. Hence, my
interest in them.

Sorry I had to ask. I searched very hard through the crowdsupply page
and the rhombus-tech site, but couldn't find them.

Thanks,
Arun.

From lkcl at lkcl.net  Sun May 12 00:51:19 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 00:51:19 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:26 AM Arun Isaac <arunisaac at systemreboot.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Are the schematic and PCB layout CAD files for the EOMA68 computer card
> and the various housings available for download? I'm wondering if I can
> fabricate some of the housings on my own using a CNC mill. Hence, my
> interest in them.
>
> Sorry I had to ask. I searched very hard through the crowdsupply page
> and the rhombus-tech site, but couldn't find them.

 http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/

 which leads to

 http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/kde_tablet/3dcase

 the Card is using an off-the-shelf PCMCIA case, no CAD exists.
having one (to be able to replace it) would be great.

 the micro-desktop case is done using pyopenscad and pydxf.

 the laptop is also pyopenscad.

 no, i'll not be converting 18 months of work over to a GUI-based
system that forces me to use a mouse :)

l.


From arunisaac at systemreboot.net  Thu May 16 20:02:30 2019
From: arunisaac at systemreboot.net (Arun Isaac)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 00:32:30 +0530
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>


>  http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/
>
>  which leads to
>
>  http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/kde_tablet/3dcase

Thanks!

I am not able to open the PCB and schematic files at
http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop/ and
http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/laptop_15in/ . I tried gEDA PCB and
KiCAD. What software should I use?  Are these OrCAD files? Can I open
them using any free software?

>  no, i'll not be converting 18 months of work over to a GUI-based
> system that forces me to use a mouse :)

No problem! I too am happy with text oriented interfaces. :-)

From lkcl at lkcl.net  Fri May 17 06:58:12 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 06:58:12 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:03 PM Arun Isaac <arunisaac at systemreboot.net> wrote:
>
>
> >  http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/
> >
> >  which leads to
> >
> >  http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/kde_tablet/3dcase
>
> Thanks!
>
> I am not able to open the PCB and schematic files at
> http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop/ and
> http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/laptop_15in/ . I tried gEDA PCB and
> KiCAD. What software should I use?

 Mentor PADS 9.6.

>  Are these OrCAD files?

 no - ORCAD is unbelievably badly designed.

> Can I open them using any free software?

 no.  KiCAD and gEDA simply aren't up to the job of dealing with this
type of project.  i dedicated several months making a huge effort to
design a Card in KiCAD, it was... well, it wasn't time wasted: it was
"time discovering that KiCAD is so inadequate that its use would
*ACTIVELY* prevent and prohibit the completion of the entire goal"

> >  no, i'll not be converting 18 months of work over to a GUI-based
> > system that forces me to use a mouse :)
>
> No problem! I too am happy with text oriented interfaces. :-)

 :)

 you'd be the second person - in the entire world - to be using
pyopenscad.  yes, really.  solidpython was abandoned by its author:
fortunately i recognised its potential and rescued it before he went
ahead with a radically different (unsuitable) direction, which i don't
believe he ever completed.  i kept the name "pyopenscad"

the actual code is quite ingenious and very simple: it creates
mirror-objects of openscad objects (which as you know, SCAD is just a
thin wrapper around libCGAL anyway).  when you create a python-based
pyopenscad object by calling the function "cube(5,6,3)", that stores
in-memory sufficient information to, duh, create a cube of dimensions
x=5, y=6, z=3.

however what *actually* happens is, when you call the function that
requests generation of openscad output, the *python object tree* is
recursively walked, and each python object simply outputs *EQUIVALENT
OPENSCAD TEXT* that matches precisely and exactly what the python code
asked for.

i have the following in ~/.vimrc so that i can hit the "comma" key:
map , ^[:w^M:!python %:t^M^M

by setting up 2 xterms on the left side (one for editing, one to view
library routines used *by* that file), and opening openscad on the
laptop_model.scad file mostly full-screen to the right, the above
macro will *automatically* do a file-save followed by *execution* of
that file.

this will get that file (the python program) to execute, generating a
new version of laptop_model.scad....

... openscad will *AUTOMATICALLY* notice that and re-render the model.

now, the only thing is: the laptop model is so absolutely massive that
even a high-end GPU has severe difficulty rendering it.  don't for
god's sake try to view the laptop models without OpenGL having been
set up.  an Intel GPU (950 etc. etc.) is perfectly sufficient.

at the top of the laptop_model file you will see there's a
"part-selection" enum that is used further down to select which parts
to render.

in the riki200 3D printer i made this much more sophisticated, going
with an object-orientated approach, and adding in options to
auto-generate the STL files.

however, laptop_model.py is the earlier precursor and i stuck with a
function-based approach that made a lot of sense due to the reduced
simplicity of the program (the riki200 includes BOM-generation and
much more).

let me know how you get on.

l.


From arunisaac at systemreboot.net  Sat May 18 16:04:48 2019
From: arunisaac at systemreboot.net (Arun Isaac)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 20:34:48 +0530
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>


> KiCAD and gEDA simply aren't up to the job of dealing with this type
> of project.  i dedicated several months making a huge effort to design
> a Card in KiCAD, it was... well, it wasn't time wasted: it was "time
> discovering that KiCAD is so inadequate that its use would *ACTIVELY*
> prevent and prohibit the completion of the entire goal"

That's very disappointing. I was hoping to fabricate the PCBs for at
least the housings. Now, it looks like I have to redo the PCBs in
KiCAD. :-( Will you be providing KiCAD files in the future?  Being able
to use only free software is a highly desirable feature. And, just out
of curiosity, in what way, did you find KiCAD inadequate?

>  you'd be the second person - in the entire world - to be using
> pyopenscad.  yes, really.

No, I don't use pyopenscad per se. But, I am comfortable using text and
programming interfaces. I'm not a big fan of using the mouse. So, I have
no issue with the CAD designs being available only in pyopenscad.

> solidpython was abandoned by its author: fortunately i recognised its
> potential and rescued it before he went ahead with a radically
> different (unsuitable) direction, which i don't believe he ever
> completed.  i kept the name "pyopenscad"
>
> the actual code is quite ingenious and very simple: it creates
> mirror-objects of openscad objects (which as you know, SCAD is just a
> thin wrapper around libCGAL anyway).  when you create a python-based
> pyopenscad object by calling the function "cube(5,6,3)", that stores
> in-memory sufficient information to, duh, create a cube of dimensions
> x=5, y=6, z=3.
>
> however what *actually* happens is, when you call the function that
> requests generation of openscad output, the *python object tree* is
> recursively walked, and each python object simply outputs *EQUIVALENT
> OPENSCAD TEXT* that matches precisely and exactly what the python code
> asked for.
>
> i have the following in ~/.vimrc so that i can hit the "comma" key:
> map , ^[:w^M:!python %:t^M^M
>
> by setting up 2 xterms on the left side (one for editing, one to view
> library routines used *by* that file), and opening openscad on the
> laptop_model.scad file mostly full-screen to the right, the above
> macro will *automatically* do a file-save followed by *execution* of
> that file.
>
> this will get that file (the python program) to execute, generating a
> new version of laptop_model.scad....
>
> ... openscad will *AUTOMATICALLY* notice that and re-render the model.
>
> now, the only thing is: the laptop model is so absolutely massive that
> even a high-end GPU has severe difficulty rendering it.  don't for
> god's sake try to view the laptop models without OpenGL having been
> set up.  an Intel GPU (950 etc. etc.) is perfectly sufficient.
>
> at the top of the laptop_model file you will see there's a
> "part-selection" enum that is used further down to select which parts
> to render.
>
> in the riki200 3D printer i made this much more sophisticated, going
> with an object-orientated approach, and adding in options to
> auto-generate the STL files.
>
> however, laptop_model.py is the earlier precursor and i stuck with a
> function-based approach that made a lot of sense due to the reduced
> simplicity of the program (the riki200 includes BOM-generation and
> much more).
>
> let me know how you get on.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. But, for now, my interest is
primarily in the PCB designs. I'll be trying out the CAD designs only if
I can fabricate the PCB. So, for now, that is a blocker. :-(

From lkcl at lkcl.net  Sat May 18 16:25:13 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 16:25:13 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM Arun Isaac <arunisaac at systemreboot.net> wrote:

> > KiCAD and gEDA simply aren't up to the job of dealing with this type
> > of project.  i dedicated several months making a huge effort to design
> > a Card in KiCAD, it was... well, it wasn't time wasted: it was "time
> > discovering that KiCAD is so inadequate that its use would *ACTIVELY*
> > prevent and prohibit the completion of the entire goal"
>
> That's very disappointing. I was hoping to fabricate the PCBs for at
> least the housings. Now, it looks like I have to redo the PCBs in
> KiCAD. :-( Will you be providing KiCAD files in the future?

 the question needs to be read as, "will someone pay me the
extraordinarily large sum needed to spend vast amounts of time -
estimated somewhere around 7-12 months - just to deal with the
complete utter lack of any kind of professional capabilities that
KiCAD simply and utterly fails to have, which would approximately
triple or quadruple the completion time"

> Being able
> to use only free software is a highly desirable feature. And, just out
> of curiosity, in what way, did you find KiCAD inadequate?

 where the f*** do i even start???

 * corruption of schematics
 * assumptions by the developers that adversely affected understandability
 * violation of "principle of least surprise"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_surprise
 * intransigence on the part of the developers to fix the problems
when reported (despite other people reporting the same)
 * corruption of PCB files (destruction of traces)
 * total lack of DRC
 * total lack of being able to specify track, pad, component, net, net
group, via and other clearances in any kind of meaningful way
 * total lack of matrix interdependent clearances between the same
 * total lack of differential-pair support
 * total lack of any kind of "assisted routing"

 you name it, it's not there.  i'm staggered that anyone who has
worked with *professional* PCB layout software would even remotely
take KiCAD seriously.

 eagle - even the monetarily-zero-cost version, which i used to create
a far better 40V 32-bit-capable version of the RAMPS 1.4 (btw, RAMPS
1.4 is so dangerous it's actually burned peoples' houses to the
ground)  - is better, by miles.

 do take that as a warning that if you are considering using KiCAD,
you'll know what to expect.


> >  you'd be the second person - in the entire world - to be using
> > pyopenscad.  yes, really.
>
> No, I don't use pyopenscad per se. But, I am comfortable using text and
> programming interfaces. I'm not a big fan of using the mouse. So, I have
> no issue with the CAD designs being available only in pyopenscad.

 great.


> > let me know how you get on.
>
> Thank you for the detailed explanation. But, for now, my interest is
> primarily in the PCB designs. I'll be trying out the CAD designs only if
> I can fabricate the PCB. So, for now, that is a blocker. :-(

 i'm absolutely serious: you'd be better off with the
[monetarily-zero-cost] eagle, then, just before production, export /
convert to KiCAD format if you absolutely insist on using it.

 hypothetically you could use both applications, working round the
monetarily-zero-cost limitations (2-layer), importing from one to the
other, 2 layers at a time.

 or just pay for an eagle license.

 yes, really, KiCAD is so bad (and the developers so incapable of
understanding how critical the flaws are in what they've written) that
yes, i'm a software libre advocate, recommending to you, another
software libre developer, to use proprietary PCB CAD software.

l.


From kaklik at mlab.cz  Sat May 18 17:49:32 2019
From: kaklik at mlab.cz (=?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_K=C3=A1kona?=)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 18:49:32 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,
I am unable to withstand this old and out of the objective review of KiCAD.
Therefore I want to write something.
I was more than five years *professional* user of PADS from Mentor
Graphics. And for now, I am using KiCAD.

The troubles which Luke mention disappeared in last years when CERN invest
a large amount of work and money to bring KiCAD on a professional level.

And yes, Arun, unavailability of easily sharable CAD design formats is a
blocker of potential widespread use by the community.  But I personally
hope, there will be enough appeal of open design files that I or someone
else redesign it in KiCAD.
But such redesign is not mandatory on the current stage of the project.
Because of the project idea must be verified first and it could be done
with the design data created in almost anything. The piece which currently
missed is proof of "That really works".

Jakub


so 18. 5. 2019 v 17:25 odesílatel Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <
lkcl at lkcl.net> napsal:

> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM Arun Isaac <arunisaac at systemreboot.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > KiCAD and gEDA simply aren't up to the job of dealing with this type
> > > of project.  i dedicated several months making a huge effort to design
> > > a Card in KiCAD, it was... well, it wasn't time wasted: it was "time
> > > discovering that KiCAD is so inadequate that its use would *ACTIVELY*
> > > prevent and prohibit the completion of the entire goal"
> >
> > That's very disappointing. I was hoping to fabricate the PCBs for at
> > least the housings. Now, it looks like I have to redo the PCBs in
> > KiCAD. :-( Will you be providing KiCAD files in the future?
>
>  the question needs to be read as, "will someone pay me the
> extraordinarily large sum needed to spend vast amounts of time -
> estimated somewhere around 7-12 months - just to deal with the
> complete utter lack of any kind of professional capabilities that
> KiCAD simply and utterly fails to have, which would approximately
> triple or quadruple the completion time"
>
> > Being able
> > to use only free software is a highly desirable feature. And, just out
> > of curiosity, in what way, did you find KiCAD inadequate?
>
>  where the f*** do i even start???
>
>  * corruption of schematics
>  * assumptions by the developers that adversely affected understandability
>  * violation of "principle of least surprise"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_surprise
>  * intransigence on the part of the developers to fix the problems
> when reported (despite other people reporting the same)
>  * corruption of PCB files (destruction of traces)
>  * total lack of DRC
>  * total lack of being able to specify track, pad, component, net, net
> group, via and other clearances in any kind of meaningful way
>  * total lack of matrix interdependent clearances between the same
>  * total lack of differential-pair support
>  * total lack of any kind of "assisted routing"
>
>  you name it, it's not there.  i'm staggered that anyone who has
> worked with *professional* PCB layout software would even remotely
> take KiCAD seriously.
>
>  eagle - even the monetarily-zero-cost version, which i used to create
> a far better 40V 32-bit-capable version of the RAMPS 1.4 (btw, RAMPS
> 1.4 is so dangerous it's actually burned peoples' houses to the
> ground)  - is better, by miles.
>
>  do take that as a warning that if you are considering using KiCAD,
> you'll know what to expect.
>
>
> > >  you'd be the second person - in the entire world - to be using
> > > pyopenscad.  yes, really.
> >
> > No, I don't use pyopenscad per se. But, I am comfortable using text and
> > programming interfaces. I'm not a big fan of using the mouse. So, I have
> > no issue with the CAD designs being available only in pyopenscad.
>
>  great.
>
>
> > > let me know how you get on.
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed explanation. But, for now, my interest is
> > primarily in the PCB designs. I'll be trying out the CAD designs only if
> > I can fabricate the PCB. So, for now, that is a blocker. :-(
>
>  i'm absolutely serious: you'd be better off with the
> [monetarily-zero-cost] eagle, then, just before production, export /
> convert to KiCAD format if you absolutely insist on using it.
>
>  hypothetically you could use both applications, working round the
> monetarily-zero-cost limitations (2-layer), importing from one to the
> other, 2 layers at a time.
>
>  or just pay for an eagle license.
>
>  yes, really, KiCAD is so bad (and the developers so incapable of
> understanding how critical the flaws are in what they've written) that
> yes, i'm a software libre advocate, recommending to you, another
> software libre developer, to use proprietary PCB CAD software.
>
> 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

From lkcl at lkcl.net  Sat May 18 20:33:00 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 20:33:00 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwttN7X8C3wxOwHzkY+VuJe9idG9HoZAVVWKNdFeiTgPA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sunday, May 19, 2019, Jakub Kákona <kaklik at mlab.cz> wrote:

> Hello,
> I am unable to withstand this old and out of the objective review of KiCAD.
> Therefore I want to write something.
> I was more than five years *professional* user of PADS from Mentor
> Graphics.


>
Which means that you have been extremely well trained as an experienced
engineer.

Which in turn means that now you do not strictly need the DRC and editing
assistance that PADS provides.

I started out the other way round. I began with KiCAD and it was s***. I
wasted 6 months.

Then, a few years later (after CERN's improvements I believe) a high
profile project tried to do an A64 layout, including DDR3. It was
successful but absolute hell.


>  And for now, I am using KiCAD.


Great. Does it have

Push and shove

Auto assist routing

Track length DRCs

Group track min and max DRC

Impedance estimation

Clearance DRCs on any to any of VIA Track Net TrackGroup DiffPair Polygon

Does the routing assist feature respect the clearance DRCs above

And have they fixed that damn awful utterly stupid naming where the library
editor uses part and another name then when you actually use them the names
change?

And if you create a multipart does it still destroy pins?

And if you lay out tracks that have not been added to the layer DRC, does
it,still destroy them WITHOUT WARNING?

And has the extremely poor attitude of the developers towards experienced
engineers been fixed?



> The troubles which Luke mention disappeared in last years when CERN invest
> a large amount of work and money to bring KiCAD on a professional level.
>
> And yes, Arun, unavailability of easily sharable CAD design formats is a
> blocker of potential widespread use by the community.  But I personally
> hope, there will be enough appeal of open design files that I or someone
> else redesign it in KiCAD.


Indeed, this would be fantastic.

It would also be fantastic to have, finally, an import and export function
from PADS to KiCAD and vice versa.

I did begin exploring the DCOM interface to PADS, it is inadequate.

But such redesign is not mandatory on the current stage of the project.
> Because of the project idea must be verified first and it could be done
> with the design data created in almost anything. The piece which currently
> missed is proof of "That really works".
>
> Jakub
>
>
> so 18. 5. 2019 v 17:25 odesílatel Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <
> lkcl at lkcl.net> napsal:
>
> > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM Arun Isaac <arunisaac at systemreboot.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > KiCAD and gEDA simply aren't up to the job of dealing with this type
> > > > of project.  i dedicated several months making a huge effort to
> design
> > > > a Card in KiCAD, it was... well, it wasn't time wasted: it was "time
> > > > discovering that KiCAD is so inadequate that its use would *ACTIVELY*
> > > > prevent and prohibit the completion of the entire goal"
> > >
> > > That's very disappointing. I was hoping to fabricate the PCBs for at
> > > least the housings. Now, it looks like I have to redo the PCBs in
> > > KiCAD. :-( Will you be providing KiCAD files in the future?
> >
> >  the question needs to be read as, "will someone pay me the
> > extraordinarily large sum needed to spend vast amounts of time -
> > estimated somewhere around 7-12 months - just to deal with the
> > complete utter lack of any kind of professional capabilities that
> > KiCAD simply and utterly fails to have, which would approximately
> > triple or quadruple the completion time"
> >
> > > Being able
> > > to use only free software is a highly desirable feature. And, just out
> > > of curiosity, in what way, did you find KiCAD inadequate?
> >
> >  where the f*** do i even start???
> >
> >  * corruption of schematics
> >  * assumptions by the developers that adversely affected
> understandability
> >  * violation of "principle of least surprise"
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_surprise
> >  * intransigence on the part of the developers to fix the problems
> > when reported (despite other people reporting the same)
> >  * corruption of PCB files (destruction of traces)
> >  * total lack of DRC
> >  * total lack of being able to specify track, pad, component, net, net
> > group, via and other clearances in any kind of meaningful way
> >  * total lack of matrix interdependent clearances between the same
> >  * total lack of differential-pair support
> >  * total lack of any kind of "assisted routing"
> >
> >  you name it, it's not there.  i'm staggered that anyone who has
> > worked with *professional* PCB layout software would even remotely
> > take KiCAD seriously.
> >
> >  eagle - even the monetarily-zero-cost version, which i used to create
> > a far better 40V 32-bit-capable version of the RAMPS 1.4 (btw, RAMPS
> > 1.4 is so dangerous it's actually burned peoples' houses to the
> > ground)  - is better, by miles.
> >
> >  do take that as a warning that if you are considering using KiCAD,
> > you'll know what to expect.
> >
> >
> > > >  you'd be the second person - in the entire world - to be using
> > > > pyopenscad.  yes, really.
> > >
> > > No, I don't use pyopenscad per se. But, I am comfortable using text and
> > > programming interfaces. I'm not a big fan of using the mouse. So, I
> have
> > > no issue with the CAD designs being available only in pyopenscad.
> >
> >  great.
> >
> >
> > > > let me know how you get on.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the detailed explanation. But, for now, my interest is
> > > primarily in the PCB designs. I'll be trying out the CAD designs only
> if
> > > I can fabricate the PCB. So, for now, that is a blocker. :-(
> >
> >  i'm absolutely serious: you'd be better off with the
> > [monetarily-zero-cost] eagle, then, just before production, export /
> > convert to KiCAD format if you absolutely insist on using it.
> >
> >  hypothetically you could use both applications, working round the
> > monetarily-zero-cost limitations (2-layer), importing from one to the
> > other, 2 layers at a time.
> >
> >  or just pay for an eagle license.
> >
> >  yes, really, KiCAD is so bad (and the developers so incapable of
> > understanding how critical the flaws are in what they've written) that
> > yes, i'm a software libre advocate, recommending to you, another
> > software libre developer, to use proprietary PCB CAD software.
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

From lkcl at lkcl.net  Sun May 19 08:05:46 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 08:05:46 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDwttN7X8C3wxOwHzkY+VuJe9idG9HoZAVVWKNdFeiTgPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPweEDwttN7X8C3wxOwHzkY+VuJe9idG9HoZAVVWKNdFeiTgPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwFaxOq-N-2VzPmNXJicUi4mNzbhSOGevgLBc_qWDJk6w@mail.gmail.com>

btw, arun, jakub: don't get me wrong, i'm *angry* at how KiCAD and
other libre PCB development software is not up to the job, and how its
lack of features makes being an extremely experienced electrical
design engineer an absolutely essential prerequisite for its use.

l.


From paul at boddie.org.uk  Sun May 19 22:08:40 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 23:08:40 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7993044.gyKraKUipv@jeremy>

On Saturday 18. May 2019 18.49.32 Jakub Kákona wrote:
> 
> And yes, Arun, unavailability of easily sharable CAD design formats is a
> blocker of potential widespread use by the community.  But I personally
> hope, there will be enough appeal of open design files that I or someone
> else redesign it in KiCAD.

I guess you, Jakub, must be involved with the following...

https://github.com/MLAB-project/Modules
https://github.com/MLAB-project/kicad-mlab

Does that mean that the SoC modules referenced there are KiCad designs?

On the topic of KiCad and designs related to the EOMA68-A20 cards, it is worth 
noting that the Olimex A64-OLinuXino board schematic and layout is available 
in KiCad format:

https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A64-OLinuXino/A64-OLinuXino_Rev_D

It seems like earlier boards were done with Eagle, but I guess that they made 
the jump to KiCad in the last couple of years. An important aspect of the 
above board is the availability of component/footprint libraries:

https://github.com/OLIMEX/KiCAD

I am not going to argue in favour of KiCad's usability or otherwise, 
particularly since my computer probably doesn't have the performance to make 
it work very well, but it was possible to at least play around with the A64-
OLinuXino design once I had set up some symbolic links to let KiCad find the 
libraries. (Also KiCad 5.0.2+dfsg1-1 was needed - from Debian testing - rather 
than the surprisingly earlier 5.0.0+dfsg1-1 found in Debian unstable.)

So perhaps someone who is better at KiCad might have some fun adapting that 
design. It is open (source) hardware, after all. There were a few people on 
this list a few years ago who might have given this a go, but I don't know 
what happened to them.

Paul


From doark at mail.com  Sun May 19 23:42:12 2019
From: doark at mail.com (David Niklas)
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 18:42:12 -0400
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20190519184212.25a6ea41@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>

On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:25:13 +0100
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Eagle - even the monetarily-zero-cost version, which I used to create
> a far better 40V 32-bit-capable version of the RAMPS 1.4 (btw, RAMPS
> 1.4 is so dangerous it's actually burned peoples' houses to the
> ground) - is better, by miles.
<snip>

I didn't know you were an opensource arsonist. :)

Do you have some KiCAD files of the incendiaries you used? :)

Anonymous


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Mon May 20 04:22:41 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 04:22:41 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <7993044.gyKraKUipv@jeremy>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMG7N7cmmEYKTzzyW+0f4kFgp_Eanj9-L_vLtP77vGM3E7_AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7993044.gyKraKUipv@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDzc94=VGdMrbZhBY3xyKFUFSvgFpvXpiGND-ZsPUH8bLA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

> On the topic of KiCad and designs related to the EOMA68-A20 cards, it is worth
> noting that the Olimex A64-OLinuXino board schematic and layout is available
> in KiCad format:
>
> https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A64-OLinuXino/A64-OLinuXino_Rev_D

 this is the project i was referring to that was a nightmare to
develop.  there's a FOSDEM talk about it.

 btw, just so that people are aware: tsvetan has consistently lied to
a *lot* of people and caused huge problems for the EOMA project.

l.


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Mon May 20 04:29:53 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 04:29:53 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <20190519184212.25a6ea41@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwPmeq8z75+VE5qV+zd+XvhgV608m=Nv4xv8MReuYmb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7y3366x4p.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDxBbwgavU1r7V0OQEHk0x1HDS0mPwPiap-W0gR0BbZNgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cu7r28viz1r.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDwAb+9pWQAApSib4v=iY86_2MgUPj7kEAGqTBzo0eycMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20190519184212.25a6ea41@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDyteCKu2bLOT+ZykMrR1P4HG83BzGYQ-Lc3Hpk1grymng@mail.gmail.com>

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:42 PM David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:25:13 +0100
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Eagle - even the monetarily-zero-cost version, which I used to create
> > a far better 40V 32-bit-capable version of the RAMPS 1.4 (btw, RAMPS
> > 1.4 is so dangerous it's actually burned peoples' houses to the
> > ground) - is better, by miles.
> <snip>
>
> I didn't know you were an opensource arsonist. :)

 :)

 working with eagle a couple years ago i was so shocked by the
unprofessional use of 0.5 amp thermals in RAMPS 1.4 i felt compelled
to document it:

 https://reprap.org/wiki/RAMPS_1.4#WARNING_-_THERMAL-isolation-related_DESIGN_FLAW_IN_Power_handling_capacity_of_PRODUCTION_RAMPS_1.4_boards

 there is not enough space and the 0.5 amp thermals are completely
inadequate anyway, leading to in some cases only something like 2.5 A
maximum safe current capacity when the total load can be as high as
6.0A.  that can result in something like a 25 to 30C temperature rise
above ambient for the rest of the PCB.

 once one of the thermal tracks burns out you get runaway.

 yes i met someone who had imported RAMPS 1.4 into Canada, and sold
them.  yes, one burned someone's apartment down.  yes the FCC fined
the company and prohibited them from selling electronics.


> Do you have some KiCAD files of the incendiaries you used? :)

 very funny :)


From paul at boddie.org.uk  Mon May 20 12:18:14 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 13:18:14 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDzc94=VGdMrbZhBY3xyKFUFSvgFpvXpiGND-ZsPUH8bLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net> <7993044.gyKraKUipv@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDzc94=VGdMrbZhBY3xyKFUFSvgFpvXpiGND-ZsPUH8bLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1679188.RFYxmiNZE8@jeremy>

On Monday 20. May 2019 04.22.41 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > On the topic of KiCad and designs related to the EOMA68-A20 cards, it is
> > worth noting that the Olimex A64-OLinuXino board schematic and layout is
> > available in KiCad format:
> > 
> > https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A64-OLinuXino/A64
> > -OLinuXino_Rev_D
>  this is the project i was referring to that was a nightmare to
> develop.  there's a FOSDEM talk about it.

I'd have to review what has been said about it: there are usually indications 
of problems in the Olimex blog articles, either in the articles themselves or 
in the comments. Right now, I only recall problems with the A64 kernel 
support, as usual, and nothing much about developing the hardware.

Various Olimex talks have covered KiCad, but my impression was that they were 
largely happy about it. This doesn't mean that these projects are necessarily 
collaborative or have people actually looking at the designs. I didn't find 
any discussion in their forums about such things.

One of my motivations for looking closer was to see whether people can 
actually open these files and do things with them. As far as I can tell, these 
files seem to be usable, although one would have to go through the entire 
process to find out whether they genuinely reproduce the same board, of 
course.

Anyway, here are some articles I found about this board and KiCad:

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/we-work-on-a64-olinuxino-the-first-open-source-hardware-64-bit-development-board/

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/a64-olinuxino-update-2/

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/a64-olinuxino-update-schematic-almost-done-now-component-placement-on-the-pcb-is-on-the-way/

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/a64-olinuxino-oshw-linux-computer-is-close-to-complete-routing-github-update-of-kicad-files/

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/a64-olinuxino-routing-completed-but-we-still-have-to-final-touch-this-and-that/

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/a64-olinuxino-64-bit-arm-oshw-designed-completely-with-kicad-is-live/

There isn't really much detail in these articles, but I suppose it gives an 
impression of the timeline.

>  btw, just so that people are aware: tsvetan has consistently lied to
> a *lot* of people and caused huge problems for the EOMA project.

Sure, but I thought that I should at least mention that Olimex have made the 
component/footprint libraries and designs available for KiCad. This might give 
anyone interested a head start on doing something similar, or at least provide 
an indication of how much work is involved.

Maybe the design/libraries effectively use modified versions of the standard 
components/footprints and that it wouldn't be much effort to replicate that 
work independently. But this would only make designs with other SoCs like the 
A20 more feasible and give more confidence to people that it can be done.

Paul

P.S. Note that I wouldn't necessarily recommend the A64 as the basis of a 
product given the apparently ongoing software problems:

https://olimex.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/a64-olinuxinogot-mainline-linux-kernel-5-0-images/

Also, this board is distinct from the Olimex A64-based laptop and SOM board, 
with the latter being completely proprietary, as I understand it.


From paul at boddie.org.uk  Tue May 21 17:43:07 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 18:43:07 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <1679188.RFYxmiNZE8@jeremy>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDzc94=VGdMrbZhBY3xyKFUFSvgFpvXpiGND-ZsPUH8bLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1679188.RFYxmiNZE8@jeremy>
Message-ID: <67760831.2CZgWJO885@jeremy>

On Monday 20. May 2019 13.18.14 Paul Boddie wrote:
> 
> Also, this board is distinct from the Olimex A64-based laptop and SOM board,
> with the latter being completely proprietary, as I understand it.

I thought that I should point out, however, that the laptop board designs 
including the CPU board appear to be freely available:

https://github.com/OLIMEX/DIY-LAPTOP/tree/master/HARDWARE

Again, in case anyone wanted to take a closer look.

Paul


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Tue May 21 21:57:16 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 21:57:16 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <67760831.2CZgWJO885@jeremy>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net>
	<CAPweEDzc94=VGdMrbZhBY3xyKFUFSvgFpvXpiGND-ZsPUH8bLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1679188.RFYxmiNZE8@jeremy> <67760831.2CZgWJO885@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwC=fK3=vpxKDFnt46ihTgXHmqmC47k+-chhWTCMxpXtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 5:43 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

> Again, in case anyone wanted to take a closer look.

 thanks paul.

l.


From doark at mail.com  Fri May 24 02:46:06 2019
From: doark at mail.com (David Niklas)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 21:46:06 -0400
Subject: [Arm-netbook] OT: Trademark abuse of FLOSS project.
Message-ID: <20190523214606.3264523e@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>

They say it only happens to closed source SW (5min read):
https://retropie.org.uk/2018/07/retropie-usa-trademark-resolved/

David


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Fri May 24 07:33:09 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 07:33:09 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] OT: Trademark abuse of FLOSS project.
In-Reply-To: <20190523214606.3264523e@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>
References: <20190523214606.3264523e@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDyw3gZj0GPSrSnD-HRTB7inEYZ9X0_bq8MsJbpcUxo_ZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:46 AM David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:

> They say it only happens to closed source SW (5min read):
> https://retropie.org.uk/2018/07/retropie-usa-trademark-resolved/

 if they had registered a Copyright Registration Certificate they
would have been able to seek damages, even if they were not a US
Citizen.

l.


From doark at mail.com  Fri May 24 17:26:00 2019
From: doark at mail.com (David Niklas)
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:26:00 -0400
Subject: [Arm-netbook] OT: Trademark abuse of FLOSS project.
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDyw3gZj0GPSrSnD-HRTB7inEYZ9X0_bq8MsJbpcUxo_ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190523214606.3264523e@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>
	<CAPweEDyw3gZj0GPSrSnD-HRTB7inEYZ9X0_bq8MsJbpcUxo_ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20190524122600.10606677@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>

On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:33:09 +0100
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:46 AM David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:
>
> > They say it only happens to closed source SW (5min read):
> > https://retropie.org.uk/2018/07/retropie-usa-trademark-resolved/
>
>  if they had registered a Copyright Registration Certificate they
> would have been able to seek damages, even if they were not a US
> Citizen.
>
> l.

I think they were trying to be gentle, perhaps too much so.

David


From david at boddie.org.uk  Sat May 25 01:10:33 2019
From: david at boddie.org.uk (David Boddie)
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 02:10:33 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] OT: Trademark abuse of FLOSS project.
In-Reply-To: <20190523214606.3264523e@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com>
Message-ID: <7089849.biC5f4OJ0T@aurora>

On Fri May 24 02:46:06 BST 2019, David Niklas wrote:

> They say it only happens to closed source SW (5min read):
> https://retropie.org.uk/2018/07/retropie-usa-trademark-resolved/

Open source software is not immune to this kind of thing:

https://opensource.com/law/13/2/python-trademark-dispute

David



From lkcl at lkcl.net  Tue May 28 23:08:30 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 23:08:30 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] please do help upvote libre riscv soc slashdot story
Message-ID: <CAPweEDxAq7KFQHirPVROVN362dXKJQLXM4Nc785DqdCPgB-Qkg@mail.gmail.com>

https://slashdot.org/submission/9750302/nlnet-funds-development-of-a-libre-risc-v-3d-cpu

Please do upvote that story

Update here
https://www.crowdsupply.com/libre-risc-v/m-class/updates/first-nlnet-grant-approved-to-fund-development




-- 
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

From paul at boddie.org.uk  Fri May 31 15:46:22 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:46:22 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDwC=fK3=vpxKDFnt46ihTgXHmqmC47k+-chhWTCMxpXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net> <67760831.2CZgWJO885@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDwC=fK3=vpxKDFnt46ihTgXHmqmC47k+-chhWTCMxpXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2649102.kd0H8futN8@jeremy>

On Tuesday 21. May 2019 21.57.16 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 5:43 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > Again, in case anyone wanted to take a closer look.
> 
>  thanks paul.

No problem! Actually, looking a bit closer at PCB-related topics, I started to 
wonder about a few things. Maybe they are actually covered in the 
specifications or on the wiki, but I didn't manage to find what I was looking 
for.

First of all, investigating the EOMA68 computer card characteristics, I didn't 
find the physical dimensions of such cards other than mentions of their 
thickness. I imagine that the dimensions would be the same as those of the 
different PC Card (PCMCIA) profiles:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080822091349/http://www.pcmcia.org/pccard.htm#03

I did find a PCB size of 85mm x 55mm in diagrams on the Engineering Board 
pages:

https://www.elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68/EngineeringBoard
https://www.elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68/MiniEngineeringBoard

Also, the A10 news page has mentions of these dimensions from several years 
ago:

http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/news/

However, the PC Card documentation indicates that the actual housing of such a 
card is only 54mm wide, so I don't see how existing PC Card housings would 
accommodate such a PCB.

There is also the matter of the length of a PCB. Again, the PC Card housing is 
supposedly 85.6mm, which leaves a board length of 85mm as being plausible. 
Have these measurements been confirmed or maybe subsequently revised?

I do remember that EOMA68 cards (maybe of an earlier generation) were 
produced. Then again, looking at the A10 news page, there is a picture of a 
PCB layout from 2013 with dimensions of 78.1mm x 47.3mm, although it isn't 
completely clear what the screenshot is really showing.

Another thing that I wondered about is the width of the board when 
accommodating a board edge connector like the Amphenol 95622-004LF, which 
seems to be a low-cost and readily-available connector. It seems that the 
board edge needs to be less than 50.8mm across because such connectors enclose 
the contact area on each side.

Is that generally how these connectors work? I see that pictures of EOMA68 
computer card PCBs seem to have a narrower edge connector part, with the rest 
of the board presumably spanning the interior of a PC Card housing.

I am only really asking these questions because I have been looking at making 
some footprints and other resources, and at least the fundamental board 
dimensions should be an obvious thing to discover, but I just didn't see them 
mentioned as prominently as I had thought they would be.

Paul


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Fri May 31 17:06:14 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:06:14 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <2649102.kd0H8futN8@jeremy>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net> <67760831.2CZgWJO885@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDwC=fK3=vpxKDFnt46ihTgXHmqmC47k+-chhWTCMxpXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2649102.kd0H8futN8@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDyiuNHEOWO5eonzjEiF0UpE+inu006QJ2Xp6j=8=aZYFg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:47 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

> Also, the A10 news page has mentions of these dimensions from several years
> ago:
>
> http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/news/
>
> However, the PC Card documentation indicates that the actual housing of such a
> card is only 54mm wide, so I don't see how existing PC Card housings would
> accommodate such a PCB.

 that's what cost USD $15k when the engineer we paid didn't read the
spec properly.  i told him to source one of the caseworks, measure the
INNER dimensions of the area as defined by the plastic, and use those.

 he FAILED to listen, and instead produced a PCB of the OUTER
dimensions that, clearly, wouldn't even fucking well fit inside the
fucking case.

 he also failed to run basic DRC which showed that he'd added a power
track that shorted across a GND pad.


> I do remember that EOMA68 cards (maybe of an earlier generation) were
> produced.

 yes.

> Then again, looking at the A10 news page, there is a picture of a
> PCB layout from 2013 with dimensions of 78.1mm x 47.3mm, although it isn't
> completely clear what the screenshot is really showing.
>
> Another thing that I wondered about is the width of the board when
> accommodating a board edge connector like the Amphenol 95622-004LF, which
> seems to be a low-cost and readily-available connector. It seems that the
> board edge needs to be less than 50.8mm across because such connectors enclose
> the contact area on each side.

https://cdn.amphenol-icc.com/media/wysiwyg/files/drawing/95622.pdf

that's a really weird connector.  it appears to be a socket, however
it is one that fits on the *edge* of a PCB, of a very specific height
(am having difficulty working that out from the diagram).  it's
probably requiring 1.2mm PCB however that is guess-work.

no wait, Cross Section C, it's 1.5mm, and that also tells us it's the
PCMCIA *header*.

btw, 1.5mm is useless because the clearance on TOP components is
nowhere near enough.


> I am only really asking these questions because I have been looking at making
> some footprints and other resources, and at least the fundamental board
> dimensions should be an obvious thing to discover, but I just didn't see them
> mentioned as prominently as I had thought they would be.

 the PCB has to fit inside the casework, and the casework's *external*
dimensions are required to conform to PCMCIA.

 PCMCIA, is, obviously
(https://www.google.com/search?q=PCMCIA+card+dimensions) 5.0 x 85.6 x
54.0 mm

 however the reason why there's no prominent mention of the *inner*
dimensions is because, obviously, they're critically dependent on what
*casework* is chosen, *NOT* repeat *NOT* on a hard spec.

 it is *PCMCIA case size conformance* that is the hard requirement,
*NOT* the actual PCB size.

 example: the PCB size (its length) will also critically depend on the
PCMCIA header dimensions.  if the header is N mm deep, then obviously,
if you make a PCB that is exactly 85.6 mm long, it will stick out the
end of the PCMCIA casework by N mm, won't it?

 so this is why you don't see "PCB dimensions" mentioned as a fixed
quantity anywhere in the EOMA68 specification, because the PCB
dimensions must be *CALCULATED*, based on the PCMCIA *PARTS* that are
selected for use in production.

l.


From paul at boddie.org.uk  Fri May 31 22:12:12 2019
From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 23:12:12 +0200
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDyiuNHEOWO5eonzjEiF0UpE+inu006QJ2Xp6j=8=aZYFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net> <2649102.kd0H8futN8@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDyiuNHEOWO5eonzjEiF0UpE+inu006QJ2Xp6j=8=aZYFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2367927.efysoqg77r@jeremy>

On Friday 31. May 2019 17.06.14 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:47 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > Also, the A10 news page has mentions of these dimensions from several
> > years
> > ago:
> > 
> > http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/news/
> > 
> > However, the PC Card documentation indicates that the actual housing of
> > such a card is only 54mm wide, so I don't see how existing PC Card
> > housings would accommodate such a PCB.
> 
>  that's what cost USD $15k when the engineer we paid didn't read the
> spec properly.  i told him to source one of the caseworks, measure the
> INNER dimensions of the area as defined by the plastic, and use those.

The inner dimensions are actually interesting for practical reasons, which was 
why I was asking about the range of PCB sizes.

[...]

> > I do remember that EOMA68 cards (maybe of an earlier generation) were
> > produced.
> 
>  yes.

There was a run of cards done at one point (or more). Did anyone actually do 
anything with those cards at the time? I seem to remember confusion about 
engineering boards, people having one kind of board and not the other, and so 
on. Did they all end up in people's desk drawers or something?

> > Then again, looking at the A10 news page, there is a picture of a
> > PCB layout from 2013 with dimensions of 78.1mm x 47.3mm, although it isn't
> > completely clear what the screenshot is really showing.

Again, it was interesting to see this with regard to what kind of PCB sizes 
would actually be produced.

> > Another thing that I wondered about is the width of the board when
> > accommodating a board edge connector like the Amphenol 95622-004LF, which
> > seems to be a low-cost and readily-available connector. It seems that the
> > board edge needs to be less than 50.8mm across because such connectors
> > enclose the contact area on each side.
> 
> https://cdn.amphenol-icc.com/media/wysiwyg/files/drawing/95622.pdf
> 
> that's a really weird connector.  it appears to be a socket, however
> it is one that fits on the *edge* of a PCB, of a very specific height
> (am having difficulty working that out from the diagram).  it's
> probably requiring 1.2mm PCB however that is guess-work.
> 
> no wait, Cross Section C, it's 1.5mm, and that also tells us it's the
> PCMCIA *header*.

Yes, my interpretation of Section C-C is that 1.5mm is the minimum board 
thickness, with the usual 2.2mm connector.

> btw, 1.5mm is useless because the clearance on TOP components is
> nowhere near enough.

When you note that 1.5mm is useless, do you mean that within a housing 
(casework), a 1.5mm board takes too much space from, say, 3.3mm (Type I) or 
5.0mm (Type II), and that a thinner board is needed?

Computer card heights/thicknesses mentioned here, by the way:

https://www.elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68/FAQ

I could understand 3.3mm being difficult, with 0.9mm left on each side of the 
board, but 5.0mm should leave 2.6mm (minus casework) on one side. Then again, 
I know the margins can be pretty small with these things.

> > I am only really asking these questions because I have been looking at
> > making some footprints and other resources, and at least the fundamental
> > board dimensions should be an obvious thing to discover, but I just
> > didn't see them mentioned as prominently as I had thought they would be.
> 
>  the PCB has to fit inside the casework, and the casework's *external*
> dimensions are required to conform to PCMCIA.

Yes.

>  PCMCIA, is, obviously
> (https://www.google.com/search?q=PCMCIA+card+dimensions) 5.0 x 85.6 x
> 54.0 mm

This is what I found, but I wondered why it wasn't mentioned on the 
specification pages, or why 55mm appears in the diagrams. I did find two pages 
with the 85mm x 54mm x 5mm dimensions on the Rhombus Tech site, however:

http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner/a31/orders/
http://rhombus-tech.net/freescale/iMX6/orders/

>  however the reason why there's no prominent mention of the *inner*
> dimensions is because, obviously, they're critically dependent on what
> *casework* is chosen, *NOT* repeat *NOT* on a hard spec.
> 
>  it is *PCMCIA case size conformance* that is the hard requirement,
> *NOT* the actual PCB size.

Yes, it was really for an indication of what kind of PCB sizes result from 
these hard requirements that prompted me to ask. That and a need to question 
why there were boards made that were wider than the apparent external width of 
the card housing.

>  example: the PCB size (its length) will also critically depend on the
> PCMCIA header dimensions.  if the header is N mm deep, then obviously,
> if you make a PCB that is exactly 85.6 mm long, it will stick out the
> end of the PCMCIA casework by N mm, won't it?

Yes, so my impression is that a PCB using the Amphenol part referenced above 
would give up 6mm of the total board length budget, yielding a 79.6mm PCB, 
perhaps minus whatever any rear part of the casework might require. Again, not 
having any experience with the casework, it would be interesting to know what 
the margins are, especially if ports would be exposed.

>  so this is why you don't see "PCB dimensions" mentioned as a fixed
> quantity anywhere in the EOMA68 specification, because the PCB
> dimensions must be *CALCULATED*, based on the PCMCIA *PARTS* that are
> selected for use in production.

Yes, so my query was mostly motivated by a lack of familiarity with the 
variables unknown to me, which are mainly related to how bulky the casework 
is.

Paul


From lkcl at lkcl.net  Fri May 31 23:49:57 2019
From: lkcl at lkcl.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 23:49:57 +0100
Subject: [Arm-netbook] Schematic and PCB layout CAD files
In-Reply-To: <2367927.efysoqg77r@jeremy>
References: <cu78svca806.fsf@systemreboot.net> <2649102.kd0H8futN8@jeremy>
	<CAPweEDyiuNHEOWO5eonzjEiF0UpE+inu006QJ2Xp6j=8=aZYFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2367927.efysoqg77r@jeremy>
Message-ID: <CAPweEDxihD=oBQXL7E5iPjBzEfOVWHp8uE5PY-Mo_nC1gMAc=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Saturday, June 1, 2019, Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

> On Friday 31. May 2019 17.06.14 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:47 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Also, the A10 news page has mentions of these dimensions from several
> > > years
> > > ago:
> > >
> > > http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/news/
> > >
> > > However, the PC Card documentation indicates that the actual housing of
> > > such a card is only 54mm wide, so I don't see how existing PC Card
> > > housings would accommodate such a PCB.
> >
> >  that's what cost USD $15k when the engineer we paid didn't read the
> > spec properly.  i told him to source one of the caseworks, measure the
> > INNER dimensions of the area as defined by the plastic, and use those.
>
> The inner dimensions are actually interesting for practical reasons, which
> was
> why I was asking about the range of PCB sizes.


If there is no user facing connector, there is the possibility of a range
of length.

If it is ok to stick the PCB out the end of the Card just like WIFI and Eth
PCMCIA used to do, length is limited only by practicalities.

Otherwise, there is no "range": the casework really does define the PCB
size to around a 0.1 mm tolerance or less.



> [...]
>
> > > I do remember that EOMA68 cards (maybe of an earlier generation) were
> > > produced.
> >
> >  yes.
>
> There was a run of cards done at one point (or more). Did anyone actually
> do
> anything with those cards at the time? I seem to remember confusion about
> engineering boards, people having one kind of board and not the other, and
> so
> on. Did they all end up in people's desk drawers or something?


Pretty much.


>
> > > Then again, looking at the A10 news page, there is a picture of a
> > > PCB layout from 2013 with dimensions of 78.1mm x 47.3mm, although it
> isn't
> > > completely clear what the screenshot is really showing.
>
> Again, it was interesting to see this with regard to what kind of PCB
> sizes
> would actually be produced.



78.1 x 47.3 is what is required for the litkconn casework, and there is no
wiggle room on that.


>
> > > Another thing that I wondered about is the width of the board when
> > > accommodating a board edge connector like the Amphenol 95622-004LF,
> which
> > > seems to be a low-cost and readily-available connector. It seems that
> the
> > > board edge needs to be less than 50.8mm across because such connectors
> > > enclose the contact area on each side.
> >
> > https://cdn.amphenol-icc.com/media/wysiwyg/files/drawing/95622.pdf
> >
> > that's a really weird connector.  it appears to be a socket, however
> > it is one that fits on the *edge* of a PCB, of a very specific height
> > (am having difficulty working that out from the diagram).  it's
> > probably requiring 1.2mm PCB however that is guess-work.
> >
> > no wait, Cross Section C, it's 1.5mm, and that also tells us it's the
> > PCMCIA *header*.
>
> Yes, my interpretation of Section C-C is that 1.5mm is the minimum board
> thickness, with the usual 2.2mm connector.
>
> > btw, 1.5mm is useless because the clearance on TOP components is
> > nowhere near enough.
>
> When you note that 1.5mm is useless, do you mean that within a housing
> (casework), a 1.5mm board takes too much space from, say, 3.3mm (Type I)
> or
> 5.0mm (Type II), and that a thinner board is needed?


Both.


>
> Computer card heights/thicknesses mentioned here, by the way:
>
> https://www.elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68/FAQ
>
> I could understand 3.3mm being difficult, with 0.9mm left on each side of
> the
> board, but 5.0mm should leave 2.6mm (minus casework) on one side. Then
> again,
> I know the margins can be pretty small with these things.


They are. This was described several times on this list and in at least one
update.

The stainless steel is 0.1mm thick.  That leaves 4.8mm.

 The SDMMC sits 1.9mm above the PCB, as does the mid mount USB OTG.

The 2.2uH Inductors were also very very specifically chosen to fit under a
1.9mm threshold, they are 3.2 x 3.2 mm and are quite expensive compared to
cheaper wire wound inductors which come in around the 2.5mm height mark.

Also the SoC is around the same height, plus various large capacitors (1206
10uF) and one large diode have all had to be special item "Low Profile"
orders, all 1.9mm or lower.

So now we are down to 2.9mm.

On the underside the *MID MOUNT* Micro HDMI and USB OTG connectors sit
1.6mm below the PCB.

No components above that height are permitted, it has meant a couple of
redesigns, moving some large 0805 capacitors topside.

These underside capacitors, particularly under the CPU and DRAM, are
absolutely essential for stabilising power during peak loads, and they
clearly cannot go on TOP because they have to be extremely short tracks.
Being NEXT to the SoC would NOT be okay. They HAVE to go underside, as
close to the BGA pin where power is drained as physically possible.

Aside from the Micro HDMI and OTG mid mount connectors there is nothing
over a 1mm height. Still, that is enough.

2.9 minus 1.6 is 1.3mm

That leaves a mere TENTH of a millimetre spare clearance if using a 1.2mm
PCB.

Can you see that for this type of design a 1.5mm PCB would be completely
impractical?

If on the other hand there were no mid mount connectors it MIGHT be
possible.

Anyway this is why Litkconn header and casework were selected because it
has all 68 PCMCIA pins on TOP instead of a twin pair staggered in height.



> > > I am only really asking these questions because I have been looking at
> > > making some footprints and other resources, and at least the
> fundamental
> > > board dimensions should be an obvious thing to discover, but I just
> > > didn't see them mentioned as prominently as I had thought they would
> be.
> >
> >  the PCB has to fit inside the casework, and the casework's *external*
> > dimensions are required to conform to PCMCIA.
>
> Yes.
>
> >  PCMCIA, is, obviously
> > (https://www.google.com/search?q=PCMCIA+card+dimensions) 5.0 x 85.6 x
> > 54.0 mm
>
> This is what I found, but I wondered why it wasn't mentioned on the
> specification pages, or why 55mm appears in the diagrams. I did find two
> pages
> with the 85mm x 54mm x 5mm dimensions on the Rhombus Tech site, however:


If you see any that are wrong please do correct them.


>
> http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner/a31/orders/
> http://rhombus-tech.net/freescale/iMX6/orders/
>
> >  however the reason why there's no prominent mention of the *inner*
> > dimensions is because, obviously, they're critically dependent on what
> > *casework* is chosen, *NOT* repeat *NOT* on a hard spec.
> >
> >  it is *PCMCIA case size conformance* that is the hard requirement,
> > *NOT* the actual PCB size.
>
> Yes, it was really for an indication of what kind of PCB sizes result from
> these hard requirements that prompted me to ask. That and a need to
> question
> why there were boards made that were wider than the apparent external
> width of
> the card housing.


Engineer whom we paid $15k to didn't listen to instructions.

We got access to a Senior Engineer after that, at a massive discount.

That was Mr Xu and he was brilliant. The PCB he did was visually stunningly
beautiful.



>
> >  example: the PCB size (its length) will also critically depend on the
> > PCMCIA header dimensions.  if the header is N mm deep, then obviously,
> > if you make a PCB that is exactly 85.6 mm long, it will stick out the
> > end of the PCMCIA casework by N mm, won't it?
>
> Yes, so my impression is that a PCB using the Amphenol part referenced
> above
> would give up 6mm of the total board length budget, yielding a 79.6mm PCB,
> perhaps minus whatever any rear part of the casework might require.


>
Sonething like that, yes.


>  Again, not
> having any experience with the casework, it would be interesting to know
> what
> the margins are, especially if ports would be exposed.


0.1mm would be an acceptable tolerance.


>
> >  so this is why you don't see "PCB dimensions" mentioned as a fixed
> > quantity anywhere in the EOMA68 specification, because the PCB
> > dimensions must be *CALCULATED*, based on the PCMCIA *PARTS* that are
> > selected for use in production.
>
> Yes, so my query was mostly motivated by a lack of familiarity with the
> variables unknown to me, which are mainly related to how bulky the
> casework
> is.


The case is very very specifically tied to the connector.

It's no good ordering random headers and hoping that the plastic and metal
case will fit it.

The ends of the connector for example may have a different shape from
another manufacturer part.

Bottom line, it is basically absolutely critical to get a matched set of
casework and connector.

The casework forms the basis of fitting in the rails.

No casework, the bare PCB can be misaligned on insertion, not just
horizontally by a couple of pins, it can even be misinserted by an entire
row.

I deliberately overordered litkcon cases and headers, as a just in case.
And the AMP socket and rails, too. Meaning, some can be ordered from Mike
direct, if you really need them.

And overordered somewhat on the JAE mid mount micro HDMI Type D, after
going through FOUR redesigns due to HDMI Connectors going EOL, sigh

L.


> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68