--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:40 PM, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
On 05/01/17 18:50, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
Why would they want to cripple their product by restricting themselves to the set of interfaces Luke has chosen.
?? peter!!
Intel operates under a totally different set of constraints from Luke. If Luke wants to make a successor to his compute cards he needs to find a new SoC that has the right set of interfaces. If Intel wants to make a successor to their compute cards they can ensure that one of their upcoming SoCs has the right set of interfaces.
which are, in your opinion, the "right set of interfaces"? serious question. if you're going to make such comments, you'd better be prepared to back them up and be prepared to justify them with a *REALLY* thorough analysis.
If you look through the history of this list you will find the evolution of EOMA68 is a battle to find a compromise between
- Interfaces that are useful.
- Interfaces that are ubiquitous on SoCs today
- Interfaces that are likely to be ubiquitous on SoCs tomorrow.
- Interfaces that fit within the pins of a pre-existing economical
connector.
sounds like a reasonable set of requirements. keep going. you've started so you're going to have to go through with a full evaluation.
If I was in their place I would be including PCIe, SATA and Ethernet (likely in some kind of MII form so the card isn't burdened with the cost of a transceiver).
ok so those are the set you're going with? what about video, sound, GPIO, low-speed peripherals and sensors?
i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's interfaces are "crippled", peter.
l.