Prev: make opencv to work with sensoray2255
Next: ARM Cortex-M3 (Stellaris LM3S811) soft float problem (GCC/QEMU)
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 14 Dec 2009 10:17
I am involved in some internal discussions on how the future development
kits for high end ARM products should look like.

Have some ideas, but I would be interested in feedback from any users
on the current crop of kits. AT91SAM926xEK etc. General comments on
this are also welcome.
Remember that the SAM9 products are mostly microprocessors (non-flash)
intended to run things like Linux/WinCE etc.


Feel free to comment on anything.

* What do you like?
* What don't you like?
* Single board computer vs tool based on CPU module?
* Memory size
* Too hard to use because of <...>
* I like the following feature (please keep it): <...>
* What connectors should be available. Location of connector
* What physical format?
* On board JTAG vs connector for JTAG?
* Additional peripherals wanted?
* Developed by Atmel vs outsourcing to board vendor
* Difficult to get components, if you want to copy the design
* Easy to connect to external I/O functionality (or not)?

etc.


--
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
These are my own personal opinions, which may
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
From: D Yuniskis on 16 Dec 2009 16:20
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> I am involved in some internal discussions on how the future development
> kits for high end ARM products should look like.
>
> Have some ideas, but I would be interested in feedback from any users
> on the current crop of kits. AT91SAM926xEK etc. General comments on
> this are also welcome.
> Remember that the SAM9 products are mostly microprocessors (non-flash)
> intended to run things like Linux/WinCE etc.
>
> Feel free to comment on anything.
>
> * What do you like?

Small, inexpensive, extensible. I doubt anyone would
have problems hanging their own IO off a daughter card
(that *they* create) so why try to be all things to all
people? A CPU with a bunch of RAM that can be loaded
with an "I/O-less" application and a driver (UN*X/WindBlows)
that can talk to it.

> * What don't you like?
> * Single board computer vs tool based on CPU module?

CPU module. Chances are I will *not* be using any of the I/Os
you are going to waste time, money and real estate implementing.
Make an OPTIONAL cheap passive backplane into which the module
can plug so folks can use PCI cards for the I/Os they might
want (purchased off the shelf from commodity vendors instead
of a low volume "specialty" manufacturer like atmel).

Port some open source drivers (preferably NOT GPL'ed) for
a few industry standard cards to this "motherboard+module"
so folks can see how they can merge those hardware features
into their designs.

> * Memory size

DIMMs. Let the customer provide his own. *OR*, sell industry
standard DIMMs to the customer AT VOLUME PRICES despite the one-off
quantities.

> * Too hard to use because of <...>
> * I like the following feature (please keep it): <...>
> * What connectors should be available. Location of connector
> * What physical format?

CPU module. Something that makes it easy for folks to
prototype around (i.e., no BGAs).

> * On board JTAG vs connector for JTAG?

If it's a uP and not a uC, then why the JTAG?

> * Additional peripherals wanted?

None. Move them onto daughtercard(s) or motherboard.

> * Developed by Atmel vs outsourcing to board vendor

I doubt folks would care too much -- it depends on how
atmel treats it in terms of pricing. I.e., if it becomes
a cost center that has to pay for itself, then it will be
far too pricey. OTOH, if atmel considers it a loss leader
and sells it for "the price of the components" (using
big volume pricing) then you'll find people more willing
to "give it a try".

From comments in other thread here, it seems like this
might be anathema to atmel. If *smaples* are so hard to
come by, I suspect an *inexpensive* development kit
would be likewise.

Think about the folks that are likely to be buying this:

For large corporate users (possibly with deep pockets),
there is often a lot of bureaucracy in the way to making
a purchase. The last set of development tools I purchased
in such an environment took three months to run the paperwork:
"And *why* do we need this...?"

For smaller corporate users (possibly also with deep pockets
but SHORT ARMS) there is often a lot of *resistance* to
spending. "And why can't you just use the LAST toolkit
you bought...?"

For garage shops and hobbyists, there's often very little
desire to throw money after something that might not pan out.
After all, they will be investing time, too, and having to
part with that *and* a bit of cash just adds insult to
injury (folks seem to think differently when it is *their*
time and money vs. The Boss's)

In any case, cheap wins. In big corporations, you can do
an end-run around the paperwork just by purchasing out of
petty cash. If a manager can't find a way to move $100
out for "office supplies" then he really isn't the sort of
guy you want running a "new technology" business.

The same holds true for smaller companies. Though here any
expense might be more visible (i.e., family owned companies)
so you can't just hide it. But, you can rationalize it as
minimal: "Sure, it's $100. But, if we pay Joe to research
this, after an hour or two we'll have spent more *thinking*
about it than if we had just *tried* it!"

And, for one-man-shops where every dollar comes out of
*their* pocket, showing that you (your company) *cares*
about *their* welfare/profitability goes a long way to
winning a design.

I'm not fond of Microchip parts. It seems like we're
still living in the days of GI! :< But, they *do* seem to
have the right idea when it comes to development tools
and kits. Consider the cost of designing, building, selling
and supporting those tools just "part of the cost of
doing business" (i.e. SWALLOW IT!) and you'll probably
win more designs in the long run.

After all, isn't *that* what you REALLY want??

> * Difficult to get components, if you want to copy the design
> * Easy to connect to external I/O functionality (or not)?

Of course! Unless you are going to offer me a development
board with a six axis 20A microstepping drive controller
built in, why do I want to buy *any* I/Os from you? What
makes you think I need a "video display"? Or a USB port?
Or a disk controller? Or...
From: Frank-Christian Krügel on 16 Dec 2009 17:18
Am 16.12.2009 22:20, schrieb D Yuniskis:
> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> I am involved in some internal discussions on how the future
>> development kits for high end ARM products should look like.
>>
>> Have some ideas, but I would be interested in feedback from any users
>> on the current crop of kits. AT91SAM926xEK etc. General comments on
>> this are also welcome.
>> Remember that the SAM9 products are mostly microprocessors (non-flash)
>> intended to run things like Linux/WinCE etc.
>>
>> Feel free to comment on anything.
>>
>> * What do you like?
>
> Small, inexpensive, extensible. I doubt anyone would
> have problems hanging their own IO off a daughter card
> (that *they* create) so why try to be all things to all
> people? A CPU with a bunch of RAM that can be loaded
> with an "I/O-less" application and a driver (UN*X/WindBlows)
> that can talk to it.

I agree.

>> * What don't you like?
>> * Single board computer vs tool based on CPU module?
>
> CPU module. Chances are I will *not* be using any of the I/Os
> you are going to waste time, money and real estate implementing.
> Make an OPTIONAL cheap passive backplane into which the module
> can plug so folks can use PCI cards for the I/Os they might
> want (purchased off the shelf from commodity vendors instead
> of a low volume "specialty" manufacturer like atmel).

Well, if it comes to things like USB or Ethernet I'd like to see them on
the module. It's no fun to add these things on a breadboard.

>> * On board JTAG vs connector for JTAG?

JTAG. Period. Otherwise I'll end up with missing drivers for my favorite
compiler.

You could sell some cheap FTDI2232-based USB JTAG adapter as an addon.

>> * Additional peripherals wanted?
>
> None. Move them onto daughtercard(s) or motherboard.

I agree.

>> * Developed by Atmel vs outsourcing to board vendor

I don't care.

--
Mit freundlichen Gr��en

Frank-Christian Kr�gel

From: Ulf Samuelsson on 16 Dec 2009 19:25
D Yuniskis skrev 2009-12-16 22:20:
> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> I am involved in some internal discussions on how the future
>> development kits for high end ARM products should look like.
>>
>> Have some ideas, but I would be interested in feedback from any
>> users on the current crop of kits. AT91SAM926xEK etc. General
>> comments on this are also welcome.
>> Remember that the SAM9 products are mostly microprocessors
>> (non-flash) intended to run things like Linux/WinCE etc.
>>
>> Feel free to comment on anything.
>>
>> * What do you like?
>
> Small, inexpensive, extensible. I doubt anyone would
> have problems hanging their own IO off a daughter card
> (that *they* create) so why try to be all things to all
> people? A CPU with a bunch of RAM that can be loaded
> with an "I/O-less" application and a driver (UN*X/WindBlows)
> that can talk to it.

Sounds fine with me. Thats not how it is done today.

>> * What don't you like?
>> * Single board computer vs tool based on CPU module?
>
> CPU module. Chances are I will *not* be using any of the I/Os
> you are going to waste time, money and real estate implementing.
> Make an OPTIONAL cheap passive backplane into which the module
> can plug so folks can use PCI cards for the I/Os they might
> want (purchased off the shelf from commodity vendors instead
> of a low volume "specialty" manufacturer like atmel).

The current crop of Evaluation Kits are just that.
They are not Development Kits, allowing you to run your own application
before you have your own hardware. A weakness, in my opinion.

PCI connectors have crossed my mind.
Not with a real PCI bus, since the AT91 processors don't have that,
but rather a mix of serial peripherals like UART, SPI , I2C, SSC etc
made available on multiple connectors using the same connectors as the
PCI bus.

I think that I have seen 1 customer out of maybe 400 Atmel ARM9 customers
which has put a PCI bus in their own design, so this is not something
people will find useful.
I do think personally it would make sense to have AT91's with PCI or PCI
Express,
and then of course a development board should allow connections to
standard cards.
I think especially WLAN would be nice to add this way,.

In the end, I think there is a better solution, which will provide
the pins to standardized connectors, instead of committing them to
different kind of physical interfaces like RS232, EEPROM etc.

It is a twist of the old 10 pin header available on the STK500.
Instead of putting just the I/O ports out on each header,
I would like to standardize the use of the header.
I:E: UART.TXD is ALWAYS on pin 0 of a header.
UART.RXD is ALWAYS on pin 1 of a header.
I2C.SDA is ALWAYS on pin 7 of a header etc.

When multiplexing allows it, you may have several functions per header,
otherwise you could have a backplace with 5 UART headers, 4 SPI headers
and 2 I2C headers etc.

> Port some open source drivers (preferably NOT GPL'ed) for
> a few industry standard cards to this "motherboard+module"
> so folks can see how they can merge those hardware features
> into their designs.

Until there is a real PCI bus, there won't be any industry standard cards.

>
>> * Memory size
>
> DIMMs. Let the customer provide his own. *OR*, sell industry
> standard DIMMs to the customer AT VOLUME PRICES despite the one-off
> quantities.

DIMMs are driven by the PC market and they are usually 64 bit or wider.
A 64 bit DIMM would waste half the memory.
With DDR-2, the AT91 interface is 16 bit, so you then waste 75%
(I don't know, but I assume DDR2 DIMMs are still 64 bit).

An old style DIMM connector optimized for 32 bit and custom memory
module, would allow the user to build a prototype using their own
preferred memory vendor.

I don't think it makes sense to use DIMM if you have a CPU module.


>
>> * Too hard to use because of <...>
>> * I like the following feature (please keep it): <...>
>> * What connectors should be available. Location of connector
>> * What physical format?
>
> CPU module. Something that makes it easy for folks to
> prototype around (i.e., no BGAs).

There are some chips which are available in TQFP208.
These packages are very large compared to BGA.

I think it may make sense to deliver a CPU module with
large amounts of SDRAM, and a small dataflash,
with empty pads for adding large parallel NOR
as well as the NAND flash of your choice
in TSOP so that they can be handsoldered to the module.


>> * On board JTAG vs connector for JTAG?
>
> If it's a uP and not a uC, then why the JTAG?

You can debug embedded applications which are so large that you
have to use uP with external memory.
I have seen some motor controllers using > 2 MByte of flash.

>> * Additional peripherals wanted?
>
> None. Move them onto daughtercard(s) or motherboard.
I see a CPU module containing
* CPU,
* SDRAM,
* Flash,
* Power Management
* Ethernet PHY.
* Possible a tiny 8 bit controller doing systems control
* Battery
* Optional Micro-SD card connector.


>> * Developed by Atmel vs outsourcing to board vendor
>
> I doubt folks would care too much -- it depends on how
> atmel treats it in terms of pricing. I.e., if it becomes
> a cost center that has to pay for itself, then it will be
> far too pricey. OTOH, if atmel considers it a loss leader
> and sells it for "the price of the components" (using
> big volume pricing) then you'll find people more willing
> to "give it a try".
>
> From comments in other thread here, it seems like this
> might be anathema to atmel. If *smaples* are so hard to
> come by, I suspect an *inexpensive* development kit
> would be likewise.

Low cost development kits has generally been the AVR realm
and usually there are no problems getting hold of these kits
at low cost or as giveaways.

Theoretically there should not be a problem getting hold of these kits.
Atmel like most electronics companies outsource to CEMs,
sometimes you are at the mercy of their whims.


> Think about the folks that are likely to be buying this:
>
> For large corporate users (possibly with deep pockets),
> there is often a lot of bureaucracy in the way to making
> a purchase. The last set of development tools I purchased
> in such an environment took three months to run the paperwork:
> "And *why* do we need this...?"
Yes, people are aware of this.
Ideally, you should only have to ask your personal manager for approval.
If it has to go 2-3 levels up, there is a lot of resistance in the system,
which does not gain the vendor, nor the engineer.

All things sold on TV-Shop is normally so cheap that you can buy
without asking your spouse. Peg Bundy not counted.

> For smaller corporate users (possibly also with deep pockets
> but SHORT ARMS) there is often a lot of *resistance* to
> spending. "And why can't you just use the LAST toolkit
> you bought...?"
>
> For garage shops and hobbyists, there's often very little
> desire to throw money after something that might not pan out.
> After all, they will be investing time, too, and having to
> part with that *and* a bit of cash just adds insult to
> injury (folks seem to think differently when it is *their*
> time and money vs. The Boss's)

> In any case, cheap wins. In big corporations, you can do
> an end-run around the paperwork just by purchasing out of
> petty cash. If a manager can't find a way to move $100
> out for "office supplies" then he really isn't the sort of
> guy you want running a "new technology" business.
>
> The same holds true for smaller companies. Though here any
> expense might be more visible (i.e., family owned companies)
> so you can't just hide it. But, you can rationalize it as
> minimal: "Sure, it's $100. But, if we pay Joe to research
> this, after an hour or two we'll have spent more *thinking*
> about it than if we had just *tried* it!"

Things should be as cheap as possible, but not cheaper.

> And, for one-man-shops where every dollar comes out of
> *their* pocket, showing that you (your company) *cares*
> about *their* welfare/profitability goes a long way to
> winning a design.
>
> I'm not fond of Microchip parts. It seems like we're
> still living in the days of GI! :< But, they *do* seem to
> have the right idea when it comes to development tools
> and kits. Consider the cost of designing, building, selling
> and supporting those tools just "part of the cost of
> doing business" (i.e. SWALLOW IT!) and you'll probably
> win more designs in the long run.

That's the AVR strategy.
For ARM, there is a lot of third parties so there is not a lot of S/W
tools development
for OS/Compilers etc. Only programming S/W and drivers.
..
The typical simpler boards are like $500-800, which is one level
above your typical first level manager signoff,
but that seems to be low enough, for this not to be a problem.

It is fairly easy to borrow boards, and sales guys tend to
give away to major customer anyway.
I think that if the boards could be brought down to below $300
it would be good, but you also would like to have a lower price point.

The ATNGW100 with an AP7000 (AVR32) processor sells for less
than $100 and has 32 MB of SDRAM and 16 MB of Flash and runs Linux.

The big difference here, I think, is that the guys working on the 32 bit
AVRs deciced for low price in the beginning, and ordered
in volumes high enough, that allowed them to get price breaks.
If you order 100 boards here, 100 boards there, the price of
components (non-Atmel) becomes signifiant.

I've seen Freescale sell their iMX25 development kit for $1500,
and that is of course much worse.

> After all, isn't *that* what you REALLY want??

There is always someone at the top that rather take the money.

>
>> * Difficult to get components, if you want to copy the design
>> * Easy to connect to external I/O functionality (or not)?
>
> Of course! Unless you are going to offer me a development
> board with a six axis 20A microstepping drive controller
> built in, why do I want to buy *any* I/Os from you? What
> makes you think I need a "video display"? Or a USB port?
> Or a disk controller? Or...

Anyone buying an AT91SAM9261 instead of an AT91SAM9260
is bound to want a display, otherwise he would have bought the 9260.
For an evaluation kit, it is OK to deliver a display IMHO.
For a development kit, even if people want a display, they are likely
to want to use a different display anyway.


--
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
These are my own personal opinions, which may
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

From: Ulf Samuelsson on 16 Dec 2009 19:32
Frank-Christian Kr�gel skrev 2009-12-16 23:18:
> Am 16.12.2009 22:20, schrieb D Yuniskis:
>> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>> I am involved in some internal discussions on how the future
>>> development kits for high end ARM products should look like.
>>>
>>> Have some ideas, but I would be interested in feedback from any users
>>> on the current crop of kits. AT91SAM926xEK etc. General comments on
>>> this are also welcome.
>>> Remember that the SAM9 products are mostly microprocessors (non-flash)
>>> intended to run things like Linux/WinCE etc.
>>>
>>> Feel free to comment on anything.
>>>
>>> * What do you like?
>>
>> Small, inexpensive, extensible. I doubt anyone would
>> have problems hanging their own IO off a daughter card
>> (that *they* create) so why try to be all things to all
>> people? A CPU with a bunch of RAM that can be loaded
>> with an "I/O-less" application and a driver (UN*X/WindBlows)
>> that can talk to it.
>
> I agree.
>
>>> * What don't you like?
>>> * Single board computer vs tool based on CPU module?
>>
>> CPU module. Chances are I will *not* be using any of the I/Os
>> you are going to waste time, money and real estate implementing.
>> Make an OPTIONAL cheap passive backplane into which the module
>> can plug so folks can use PCI cards for the I/Os they might
>> want (purchased off the shelf from commodity vendors instead
>> of a low volume "specialty" manufacturer like atmel).
>
> Well, if it comes to things like USB or Ethernet I'd like to see them
> on the module. It's no fun to add these things on a breadboard.

USB is difficult.
Some people making PC CPU modules (ETX) which are stacked
on top of the motherboard, discovered that the connector
can have a big impact on the USB bus.

They are using a HiRose connector, and this can only be a few mm high
or the USB bus will suffer. It will still work, but the cable length can
be reduced from the 5 meters in the specs to 10s of cm.


>
>>> * On board JTAG vs connector for JTAG?
>
> JTAG. Period. Otherwise I'll end up with missing drivers for my
> favorite compiler.
>
> You could sell some cheap FTDI2232-based USB JTAG adapter as an addon.

Atmel already sells the SAM-ICE which is based on the AT91SAM7S.
Personally, I would like to have the JTAG integrated on a motherboard.

>>> * Additional peripherals wanted?
>>
>> None. Move them onto daughtercard(s) or motherboard.
>
> I agree.
>
>>> * Developed by Atmel vs outsourcing to board vendor
>
> I don't care.
>


--
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
These are my own personal opinions, which may
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: make opencv to work with sensoray2255
Next: ARM Cortex-M3 (Stellaris LM3S811) soft float problem (GCC/QEMU)