<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Christopher Thomas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:christopher@firemothindustries.com" target="_blank">christopher@firemothindustries.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div><div><br>
On Aug 15, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Scott Sullivan <<a href="mailto:scott@ss.org" target="_blank">scott@ss.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 08/15/2013 04:56 PM, Christopher Thomas wrote:<br>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Scott Sullivan <<a href="mailto:scott@ss.org" target="_blank">scott@ss.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:scott@ss.org" target="_blank">scott@ss.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On 08/15/2013 05:51 AM, Christopher Thomas wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> So, Ejectable PCMCIA, 4 Port USB Hub IC, with 2 available external<br>
>> ports, two ports are being utilized for the ATMEGA32U4, and USB<br>
>> Audio<br>
>> IC.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I'd like to catch this now. It has been a major sin of ARM board<br>
>> manufactures to only provide USB ports with USB connectors. The Via<br>
>> APC boards are particularly bad for this, especial because they have<br>
>> a mini-ITX like form factor (called Neo ATX?)[1].<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We are kind of “hamstrung” by the limitations of the 68pins. Most of the<br>
>> functionality that is being proposed on this board is duplicating<br>
>> features already present on the A20, but unfortunately, there’s no<br>
>> perfect solution to replicate ALL the functionality of a standard ATX<br>
>> Platform and still maintain an affordable and "profitable" system.<br>
>><br>
>> Right now, I’ve done some preliminary calculations and consulting with<br>
>> manufacturers on how much a complete Turn Key system would cost, and if<br>
>> the volume of the EOMA-68 Card can get down to the more competitive<br>
>> levels predicted at the onset of the EOMA-68 project, then I feel I<br>
>> could get this down to a retail cost to the consumer at roughly $70<br>
>> (That's including the EOMA-68 CPU Card, obviously less if the CPU Card<br>
>> can be had for $15?!). Adding in $5 for an extra USB hub IC might not<br>
>> seem like much, but it could mean the difference between someone<br>
>> choosing the EOMA Platform vs the cheaper rPI or Panda Board. What you<br>
>> lose in USB, you gain in potential gains in exponential CPU advancement<br>
>> (Laws of thermodynamics not-withstanding) and the ability to upgrade,<br>
>> which is not something any current development system on the market can<br>
>> truly boast. Now, if we wanted to go with the full blown Development Kit<br>
>> Version of a fully spec’d system as described by the EOMA-68, on a full<br>
>> size ITX board, that is DEFINITELY an option, but beyond the scope of<br>
>> what I was proposing, which is an affordable, easy to produce, open<br>
>> development/experimentation/consumer-esq device.<br>
><br>
> 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 ( <a href="http://www.kilpatrickaudio.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kilpatrickaudio.com/</a> ).<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> I outline a few more options below.<br>
><br>
>> Some USB ports should be brought out on the conventional 0.1"<br>
>> headers you see on ATX motherboards (or the USB 3.0 equivalent 20pin<br>
>> connector). This is especially important if making it ITX case<br>
>> compatible. Cases will have front facing ports, and not including a<br>
>> header means any user can not use their case to it's fullest.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> A potential compromise would be to have the ATMEGA32U4 as a jumper<br>
>> select-able option on the board, with the suggested headers available as<br>
>> desired, or maybe consider sacrificing some of the GPIO of the EOMA-68<br>
>> Specification and bring out the 3rd USB Host port of the A20 to the header.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>Actually the need is there; My primary product, which actually<br>
prompted the development of the Carrier Board, was an evolution of the<br>
idea to make a completely integrated, but modular thin<br>
client/programmable keyboard that is powered by this same chip<br>
(ATMEGA). Rather than make the cost of the keyboard PCB more expensive<br>
by having the controller on the PCB, I can integrate the controller<br>
with the carrier board and allow the user to modify and create their<br>
own keyboard matrix if they wish. (Some people might want to use<br>
Cherry MX switches or use a more extended layout (more keys)), but if<br></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
the controller is fixed in place on the keyboard, my users and myself<br>
will be tied to that one keyboard/PCB. Which goes against the idea of<br>
keeping things modularlopment. Your idea of a separate module plugged<br>
into an internal port is a valid on, </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Damn phone. should have just waited to get home. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
and some consideration would have<br>
to be given to it. "My" goal was to make the Carrier Board as<br>
Minimal/Simple as possible and still retain some considerable<br>
functionality. As I mentioned previously as well, with the<br>
ATMEGA/Atmel Chips you have the added bonus as being able to cater to<br>
thousands (if not millions) of Arduino tinkerers/programmers, because<br>
the ATMEGA32U4 and AT90USB has it's own following, it is known as one<br>
of the most successful Arduino Dev platforms, and it wasn't even<br>
initially launched by the official Arduino Dev Team/Company.<br>
<br>
By integrating it on the board, you do have the potentially same<br>
'pitfall' as the keyboard PCB scenario, but at least here, even if it<br>
is tied to the carrier board, you can re purpose the MCU how you see<br>
fit..<br>
<br>
Also, keyboard matrices aside, you get the plethora of other things<br>
the ATMEL/Arduino chips are good for. Zigbee, Bluetooth, PWM, Analog<br>
data monitoring, GSM/GPS, LCD Touchscreens. All are usable options<br>
through the ATMEGA.<br>
<br>
SCADA is a very likely use for this scenario. In a previous life-time<br>
I designed a Satellite Communications system for an Oil/Natural Gas<br>
Services company and it ran a small localized VOIP COM system, as well<br>
as GSM Reporting of Telemetry/Rig Data. Unfortunately the system we<br>
used WAS small, but suffered from multiple failures, and was still too<br>
power hungry to operate at the levels we wanted via our Solar arrays.<br>
The ARM processors weren't available with this level of<br>
sophistication/integration/affordability at the time, but now, if I<br>
had to re-do it, I know exactly what I would use, and it would be MORE<br>
than adequate.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
</div>Removing it from the PCB is still an option, but I think there's<br>
something "unique" and of great benefit by having a plethora of GPIO<br>
included on the board. If anything, I do think having an optional<br>
jumper would be the cheapest and more diverse allowing you to have the<br>
best of both, although you wouldn't be able to have both at once.<br>
<div><br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.entropykey.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.entropykey.co.uk/</a> - RandomNumber source<br>
> <a href="http://www.freetronics.com/products/leostick" target="_blank">http://www.freetronics.com/products/leostick</a> - An arduino as a USB stick.<br>
> Any USB wifi, bluetooth or 3G modems.<br>
> Another USB HUB.<br>
<br>
</div>To tie in to Luke's suggestion (in addition to yours). After thinking<br>
about it for awhile, and going over the costs. The idea of using a<br>
secondary USB2 hub IC would actually be do-able. Total cost looks like<br>
it comes out to $1.85. I'd just have to think about where to position<br>
it, and what type of connector. That way the USB Audio and ATMEGA<br>
aren't utilizing the USB3 interface when they're only USB1.1 and USB2.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Looks like I can get the <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px">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? </span></div>
<div> </div></div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span title="Call with Google Voice"></span></div>
</div>