<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:47 AM, <a href="mailto:mike.valk@gmail.com" target="_blank">mike.valk@gmail.com</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.valk@gmail.com" target="_blank">mike.valk@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">2013/8/15 Christopher Thomas <<a href="mailto:christopher@firemothindustries.com" target="_blank">christopher@firemothindustries.com</a>>:<br>
<div>> Good Morning everyone,<br>
><br>
> I spoke to a few of you recently and explained a little of what I had in<br>
</div><snip><br>
> the works for our project. open to opinions.<br>
<br>
Great news. This board would also make an excellent base for a multi disk NAS.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>In order for this to really function as a dedicated NAS, different design considerations would have to be considered. Albeit, the footprint is suitable enough to fit the required components into to make it workable, the types and quality of components currently being used/designed with are not what I would really consider reliable NAS grade. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
What I'd like to see added: A SATA multiplier.<br>
As this board is the jump to a desktop PC, One usually wants/needs<br>
multiple SATA devices. A optical drive and a hard-disk. Perhaps a<br>
second hard-disk for backups. An E-Sata port (that's just a cable<br>
away) for hot-swapping.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like this idea, at least in terms of multiple disks, however, the primary emphasis is to provide a very streamlined, minimal, but very functional development platform that can be both a standalone system, or embedded with as few requirements and/or components necessary to make it such. I do have plans for a full-scale desktop class motherboard, but that is after this smaller, more affordable platform can be built. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Also a few pinouts for SATA/Molex power connectors . This would<br>
eliminate the need for a full ATX power supply. And laptop style<br>
adaptors with SATA power connectors are nowhere to be found and need<br>
custom builds and result in two power supplies.<br>
<br>
Add and option to recieve power from a ATX power supply. For those<br>
wanting to convert there old pc's or want a cheap and widely available<br>
power supply.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>While not a bad idea, and worth looking further into, is beyond the initial scope of this project (re: ATX connector). </div><div>I DO have an additional power-input header in the current design spec available on the "interior" of the board. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Rather than include an on-board ATX socket that would require much more design considerations and engineering over-view, we could include instructions, or ship as an option, a very "simple" ATX Dummy Plug that shorts PIN 14 to COM, allowing anyone who DID wish to use an ATX Power supply to use the MOLEX conectors to power the board. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Further perhaps a bigger USB hub: 7ports or more whould be nice. Oh<br>
wait chaining two 4port hubs leaves 7 ports, Doh. I always found 7 to<br>
be such an odd number of ports. Also leave the internal USB as pin<br>
headers. That way standard enclosures(parts) can simply tap into the<br>
pins. And pin to USB-Female are widely avaible. USB-Male to pin header<br>
are not very common.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There will be a total of 6 usable USB Ports, 3-USB 3.0 external, 2 - USB 2.0 Headers Internally, unpopulated, 1 - USB-OTG on the EOMA-68 Card. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Personnaly I'd stick to the STM32x for board I/O.<br>
1. Hacker community is already gearing up to those ARM.<br>
2. You can reuse code from the flying squirrel<br>
3. The EOMA68 (b/h)ackers already have info/knowledge on the STM32x<br>
from the flying squirrel.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree actually, after looking at the current "next generation" of Hacker Devices, and with Luke's suggestions of both the STM32x and the McHck (MK20DX32VLF5), they look very appealing. </div>
<div><br></div><div>price = sessionStorage.getItem('price');</div><div>MK20 = "MK20DX32VLF5"; //need to spend more time comparing, but this so far is the cheapest, albeit less GPIO than the <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">STM32F103RBT6</span>.</div>
<div>STM32x = "<span style="line-height:19px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">STM32F103RBT6";</span></div><div>MCU = null;</div>
<div><br></div><div> if( price <= "1.40") { </div><div> MCU = MK20;</div><div>}</div><div> else{ </div><div> MCU = STM32x;</div><div> //if someone can link me to a source (off-list) for under $1.80, I would appreciate it. </div>
<div> //Cheapest I could find was $2.12 in Qty 1000.</div><div> }</div><div><br></div><div>In looking at the ARM Options, and comparing the price/performance of the M3 vs M4, I think the M4 (notably the Freescale chips) would be the best option at the moment if anything because I can get them here in the US for less than $1.60 in Qty 1000. I've got 5 - MK20DX128VLF5 enroute for delivery Friday. That said the STM32f series has a very mature community with loads of documentation. I'd love to hear more input from everyone else, pro and cons of both.</div>
<div><br></div><div> I initially chose the ATMEGA32U4 for ease of integration into the Arduino community, and I had already had schematics drawn up for it. However, with devices like the Freedom Board, Udoo, and MapleBoard, I have seen the error of my ways. </div>
<div><br></div><div>That said, it should be noted, I was able to find the ATMEGA32U4 for sub $1, but for an extra 60-80 cents and not very much increase on BoM requirements, both the STM32F and MK20D would be worthwhile improvement.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Good luck<br>
<div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
arm-netbook mailing list <a href="mailto:arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk" target="_blank">arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook" target="_blank">http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook</a><br>
Send large attachments to <a href="mailto:arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk" target="_blank">arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Christopher Thomas</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Firemoth Industries, LLC - Owner</div>
<div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><a href="mailto:christopher@firemothindustries.com" target="_blank">christopher@firemothindustries.com</a></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><a href="tel:214-458-5990" value="+12144585990" target="_blank">214-458-5990</a></span></div>
</div>