[Arm-netbook] Regarding Improv, EOMA68, Free Software and Open Hardware.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Henrik Nordström
<henrik at henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
> tor 2014-06-26 klockan 21:47 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>
>>  and you know what? i'm actually relieved, because this is supposed to
>> be a decade-long standard.  if we'd had the funding, we would have
>> gone ahead, the EOMA68 standard would have SATA and it would have
>> about one SoC available per two years *or less*.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>  the changes i've made since it started open it up to 23or more SoCs
>> *per year*.  i am also considering - reluctantly - reserving the 5.0mm
>> card height for 1280x800 capable SoCs and the 3.3mm card height for
>> 1920x1080 SoCs (over the 24-pin RGB/TTL that is)
>
> Why? I don't get it.
>
> For 1920x1080+ LVDS / DSI / eDP is much better suited interfaces imho.

 .. for which there exist conversion ICs.  if however you try to get
anything *other* than an RGB/TTL-to-{INSERT-INTERFACE-HERE} IC you run
into huge costs and licensing issues.


> No. But RGB/TTL is likely fading quickly as display density increases.

 ... for which there exist conversion ICs.

>>  with over 2,000 active LCD panels on panellook.com do you see RGB/TTL
>> being retired in the next 10 years?
>
> Outside the low-end product spectrum yes, obviously.

 and above that low-end product spectrum there exist conversion ICs.

>>  ... except doesn't take a stand on GPL violations, and distributes
>> illegal copyright-violating product, but _apart_ from that they
>> "believe in OSHW", yes.
>
> It's a hardware company, not a software company. Their software
> development resources are very limited, and do take these infringements
> seriously.

 not seriously enough.  you know the law.  if you cannot comply, you
must cease and desist distribution.

 or you operate as a criminal cartel.



>>  no i am fully aware that the CPU Cards have "less interfaces" quotes.
>> that is entirely deliberate, as the interfaces had to be:
>
> And I was not critizing EOMA there.
>
>>  in this way we can ensure that even the lowliest SoC (for example the
>> IC1T which is barely struggling to meet the absolute minimum of EOMA68
>> requirements) stands a chance.
>
> Is that at all a desireable goal?
>
> Timewarp two years, would such device have any reuse value at all by
> then?

 as a lower-spec'd reusable board for someone else? yes, absolutely.
that's the whole point: down-stream the hardware.

> Same applies to the other half of EOMA, the base-board (or perhaps
> better named base-device). The EOMA idea only makes sense if pieces are
> up to a level that reuse and upgrade makes sense.
>
> Or in other words, any EOMA device designed today need to be designed
> with the goal of being valuable to reuse in at least 2-3 years time.
>
> Any device manufactured at the lower range of todays standard is very
> unlikely to have any meaningful value in two to three years in the same
> consumer group.

 i expect the 2nd-hand market on ebay to take care of that.

>>  if we had put e.g. CSI or TS on, or eDP or MIPI, then only the
>> absolute absolute top-end SoCs could be included,
>
> today yes, unless you accept to throw in a converted chip, which is hard
> doe to the extreme tight space requirements in the EOMA standards.

 .... exactly, which is why that problem is moved to the base-board.

 it's the base-board where you put the converter ICs.

 take a look on chrontel's web site.

 tell me how many DVI-to-{INSERTINTERFACE} converter ICs there are.

 tell me how many eDP-to-{INSERTINTERFACE} converter ICs there are.

 _now_ compare that to how many RGB/TTL-to-{INSERTINTERFACE} converter
ICs there are.

 ok.  too much time being spent.  gotta go.