USB programmable Open Source Hardware
in [FPGA]
|
From: Antti.Lukats on 23 Sep 2009 12:24 On Sep 23, 7:17 pm, n...(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: > nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Looking for interest in an Open Source Hardware USB programmable FPGA, > >XC3S250E. I have been having some difficulty getting the right people > >exposed to this project. If you have any interest in this project > >would like to hear from you. It is headed into an Open Source Hardware > >agreement therefore their is no proprietary information about the > >design. > > >Here is an image of the board. > >http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=yhjjddznzmx&thumb=5 > > What is the purpose of the board? What needs to be done? > > I see an FTDI chip. Can it be programmed through OpenOCD / serial port > JTAG? > > -- > Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply > indicates you are not using the right tools... > "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!" > -------------------------------------------------------------- NO you need a JTAG cable to program the CPLD then you can download the FPGA much same idea as the ondemand thing there is no "bootstrap" option that would allow the board to be flashd with empty CPLD and flash soldered === BAD design Antti
From: rickman on 23 Sep 2009 12:38 On Sep 23, 11:58 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Antti, > > I enjoy your responses they are to the bone, but valid. The right > people are engineers who wish to pick this project up for their > benefit, yes antti as well as mine. The engineer would be some one > willing to pay a bit extra for one of four boards available with all > the design file associated with the boards. These files are the meat > of the work and would allow an engineer to make changes from the > current form to one more suitable to their needs, if necessary. Open > Source license also allows anyone willing to manufacture this product > for sale and profit of their own, royalty free. Development and > testing is a huge cost and has been paid for in this project. Yes, > antti schematics are available for many of the development boards but > firmware and how things are implemented are not. Digilent for example > produced a project that only required a usb to miniB connection to the > board to program utilizing Xilinx's impact program, how did they do > that? They will not tell me, I understand, but it was worth asking. Yes, there are vendors who do not make all of their design files available for FPGA development boards. But for the most part, the FPGA makers provide development boards and make all of their design files available. I think they do this to reduce the amount of support required. If you have all of the design files, you don't need to ask so many questions, you can just look it up yourself. So in that sense, there are a number of open source FPGA development boards. Just not with the freedom to make your own copies although I can't imagine an FPGA vendor would object since you would be putting their parts on it! > If the 4 layer printed circuit board was manufactured for $6 is that > to expensive? No one can have a board manufactured for $6. You might be able to get 100 for $600 or possibly even 10 for $60, but not 1 for $6. That is one of the problems with open source hardware. It is "hard" and often difficult to make on your own. But that does not need to be a problem. The most successful open source hardware (OSH) project I have seen is the Beagle Board which can only be made in pretty advanced factories. It uses a Package on Package mounting technique for the processor memory as the OMAP CPU used is intended for use in PDAs and cell phone like applications. So clearly, the fact that you might have to sell some part or even all of the board would not doom the project as Antti might think. (Not trying to put words in your mouth Antti, just making a point). In fact, I am thinking about an open source GPS receiver project which would require not only the electronic hardware, but also a mechanical design be done. Now *that* can be a problem for open source I think. > My point: is placing all of this projects work in an open source > license to be easily duplicated at a reasonable cost one board under > $50.00 for someone in need of well behaved electronic signals, maybe > an engineer, a student, a hobbyist, and the like. Antti, you are so > preceptive, Yes, I would like to be able to accept notes of > appreciation for this body of work, because someone finds it helpful. > Being able to discuss this body of work and let it go out to those who > would find it useful makes me smile. Open Source Hardware licensing > just prevents anyone from strangling the work and making it theirs, > plagiarism. This body of work is not quite original but is not a rip > off, or a copy of another work. Yes, their are similar projects out > there and I have asked for help on this project from those similar > project, but understandably I got go away, I did. > I have spent my resource on this project and I need more to continue > on or even try something different. Have you defined your goals for this project? If you are going to succeed, you need to know what you are trying to do, *clearly*. Others can give feedback on the goals and you can modify them to include as many others as possible. Then you will get as much support as possible. Rick
From: Antti.Lukats on 23 Sep 2009 12:57 On Sep 23, 7:38 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 11:58 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Antti, > > > I enjoy your responses they are to the bone, but valid. The right > > people are engineers who wish to pick this project up for their > > benefit, yes antti as well as mine. The engineer would be some one > > willing to pay a bit extra for one of four boards available with all > > the design file associated with the boards. These files are the meat > > of the work and would allow an engineer to make changes from the > > current form to one more suitable to their needs, if necessary. Open > > Source license also allows anyone willing to manufacture this product > > for sale and profit of their own, royalty free. Development and > > testing is a huge cost and has been paid for in this project. Yes, > > antti schematics are available for many of the development boards but > > firmware and how things are implemented are not. Digilent for example > > produced a project that only required a usb to miniB connection to the > > board to program utilizing Xilinx's impact program, how did they do > > that? They will not tell me, I understand, but it was worth asking. > > Yes, there are vendors who do not make all of their design files > available for FPGA development boards. But for the most part, the > FPGA makers provide development boards and make all of their design > files available. I think they do this to reduce the amount of support > required. If you have all of the design files, you don't need to ask > so many questions, you can just look it up yourself. So in that > sense, there are a number of open source FPGA development boards. > Just not with the freedom to make your own copies although I can't > imagine an FPGA vendor would object since you would be putting their > parts on it! > > > If the 4 layer printed circuit board was manufactured for $6 is that > > to expensive? > > No one can have a board manufactured for $6. You might be able to get > 100 for $600 or possibly even 10 for $60, but not 1 for $6. That is > one of the problems with open source hardware. It is "hard" and often > difficult to make on your own. But that does not need to be a > problem. The most successful open source hardware (OSH) project I > have seen is the Beagle Board which can only be made in pretty > advanced factories. It uses a Package on Package mounting technique > for the processor memory as the OMAP CPU used is intended for use in > PDAs and cell phone like applications. So clearly, the fact that you > might have to sell some part or even all of the board would not doom > the project as Antti might think. (Not trying to put words in your > mouth Antti, just making a point). > > In fact, I am thinking about an open source GPS receiver project which > would require not only the electronic hardware, but also a mechanical > design be done. Now *that* can be a problem for open source I > think. > > > My point: is placing all of this projects work in an open source > > license to be easily duplicated at a reasonable cost one board under > > $50.00 for someone in need of well behaved electronic signals, maybe > > an engineer, a student, a hobbyist, and the like. Antti, you are so > > preceptive, Yes, I would like to be able to accept notes of > > appreciation for this body of work, because someone finds it helpful. > > Being able to discuss this body of work and let it go out to those who > > would find it useful makes me smile. Open Source Hardware licensing > > just prevents anyone from strangling the work and making it theirs, > > plagiarism. This body of work is not quite original but is not a rip > > off, or a copy of another work. Yes, their are similar projects out > > there and I have asked for help on this project from those similar > > project, but understandably I got go away, I did. > > I have spent my resource on this project and I need more to continue > > on or even try something different. > > Have you defined your goals for this project? If you are going to > succeed, you need to know what you are trying to do, *clearly*. > Others can give feedback on the goals and you can modify them to > include as many others as possible. Then you will get as much support > as possible. > > Rick Rick, beagle is: 1) backed up by TI 2) uses (used) newest components Cy's design: 1) uses OBSOLETED and NFND components see the difference? Cy: doing something different is an option And as before i am failing to see what you expect to find? I can only sayd that no "open source" developer will be ordering and assembling those boards for personal use and no company is interested to produce them either so if somebody makes the boards its only you, and then you have boards with 2 generation too old FPGA that nobody is interested in, and that you can not sell even for break even Antti
From: nobody on 23 Sep 2009 15:41 Antti, You have it all figured dont ya, Nobody, nothing, no company, no interest. Well, seems as if two others have joined in to express some interest. I agree the mating components, 4 connectors, used on the board for stacking the boards are expensive and therefore need to rethink that. There is an SPI flash in the lower right hand of that picture, which I have used to boot load, yes it was programmed with the Xilinx platform Cable USB II and the impact software. I do believe that the hardware is in place to allow a file to be copied into the flash through the USB, CPLD, FPGA. Add power from a walwart and the FPGA is up and running. I am not all together convinced that this can not become a multiboot system, however it is not spoken about in either XAPP951 or XAPP974. Rick, I did not see the problem for your electrical and mechanical designs of the GPS receiver. When the design is done and all is working clients merely order the mechanical component order the electrical component put it together. If there is need for something different all design file are available for the next design, who ever it may be. Clear goals: Yes, agreed. I have met my initial goals: an operable usb powered and programmable fpga with a couple of addition for usability. Now what? Well as antti has so strongly points out no one wants this thing. Well, i have it, I am in need of it, and I do not want to purchase any of antti products, or anyone elses, for any of my contracted work, not that I have alot. I need some help in putting together something a bit more robust and engineering friendly, friendly to me and future work. I do not want to put something together that does everything just gets far enough along that I can work on the customers specifics. I can not be the only one in this situation, therefore I want to work with a group of like minded engineers to establish a good off the shelf component for future use. Now, I'm not selfish I would like to share and make all of it available, I like what happened to audrino it is a nice little 16 bit processor. FPGA's do not suffer this identity crisis, 8 bit 32 bit processors or whatever the hardware can be reconfigured to be. I need it and want it. This board is only to say that I have the ability is anyone else interested, well, the internet is good enough to house a loose collection of engineers for a small project. Nico, What yet needs to be done, that's easy just look over Antti posts and wherever he says no, not, cant, doesnt, neight just solve those problems. Just because antti says no, not, cant, doesnt, neight does not make it so. Anyways- thanks for taking time to post and give me some ideas. Cy Drollinger
From: Antti.Lukats on 23 Sep 2009 15:47
On Sep 23, 10:41 pm, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Antti, > > You have it all figured dont ya, Nobody, nothing, no company, no > interest. Well, seems as if two others have joined in to express some > interest. > > I agree the mating components, 4 connectors, used on the board for > stacking the boards are expensive and therefore need to rethink > that. > > There is an SPI flash in the lower right hand of that picture, which I > have used to boot load, yes it was programmed with the Xilinx platform > Cable USB II and the impact software. I do believe that the hardware > is in place to allow a file to be copied into the flash through the > USB, CPLD, FPGA. Add power from a walwart and the FPGA is up and > running. I am not all together convinced that this can not become a > multiboot system, however it is not spoken about in either XAPP951 or > XAPP974. > > Rick, > > I did not see the problem for your electrical and mechanical designs > of the GPS receiver. When the design is done and all is working > clients merely order the mechanical component order the electrical > component put it together. If there is need for something different > all design file are available for the next design, who ever it may be. > Clear goals: Yes, agreed. I have met my initial goals: an operable usb > powered and programmable fpga with a couple of addition for usability. > Now what? Well as antti has so strongly points out no one wants this > thing. Well, i have it, I am in need of it, and I do not want to > purchase any of antti products, or anyone elses, for any of my > contracted work, not that I have alot. I need some help in putting > together something a bit more robust and engineering friendly, > friendly to me and future work. I do not want to put something > together that does everything just gets far enough along that I can > work on the customers specifics. I can not be the only one in this > situation, therefore I want to work with a group of like minded > engineers to establish a good off the shelf component for future use. > Now, I'm not selfish I would like to share and make all of it > available, I like what happened to audrino it is a nice little 16 bit > processor. FPGA's do not suffer this identity crisis, 8 bit 32 bit > processors or whatever the hardware can be reconfigured to be. I need > it and want it. This board is only to say that I have the ability is > anyone else interested, well, the internet is good enough to house a > loose collection of engineers for a small project. > > Nico, > What yet needs to be done, that's easy just look over Antti posts and > wherever he says no, not, cant, doesnt, neight just solve those > problems. Just because antti says no, not, cant, doesnt, neight does > not make it so. > > Anyways- thanks for taking time to post and give me some ideas. > > Cy Drollinger there is no failsafe multiboot in S3E just another reason never use something as old as S3E Antti PS I am not as negative just trying to help you, and yes i have pretty much figured out |