USB programmable Open Source Hardware
in [FPGA]
|
From: Antti.Lukats on 30 Sep 2009 13:42 On Sep 30, 8:19 pm, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Antti, > > You seem to need to slam my stuff as if it is incorrect, that's a > difference between you and I. My project as it stands is what it is > and suits my purpose, however others may find use of such a project > and am trying to make it available. Other boards and projects > mentioned on this forum are what they are and suit their purpose. But > when an individual makes remarks about obsolete, not useful, not > necessary and the like explanation is necessary. As engineers we are > to take the body of knowledge we have been allotted and use it, break > it, expand it and make a contribution. If younger engineers read our > comments for their enhancement they should be unbiased and factual as > possible. If one were to read over these post they might think that > there is no need for a four layer board and as you commented that is > just not true. I take offense with your comment about a "real board" > needing 6 - 10 layers, well, taken in jest, nope, not funny. Let us > try and keep our communication at as high technical level as possible. > > My points about this post's origination: 1. I have completed a project > that is affordable and can be built by a hobbyist. 2. Is there any > need for an open source project with these mentioned > capabilities? > > I appreciate all the comments on this post and has been very > educational. > > Cy Drollinger i did not say YOUR board is obsoleted. but that S3E should be considered "obsolete, NFND.." relax, you did what you needed, used IC what you had. do it 4, do 2 or 10, its place for everything.. boards of the complexity of your board "might be done" on two layers, not always possible, but some have succeeded in that. It "costs" more to design a two layer board then a 4 layer board (6 layer). not useful? you say it? You havent published anything real, that would make your board more useful then others, its not the board, it the supplementary things: documentation, software, examples, and support. if you do those very well, you can succeed in selling your product as well. sorry if you feel like threated unfair with my commentary, I tried to say what may help you make things better, but you go saying i am too hard in the comments, yes i am, and better so, you go stronger, and make it better next time, where it can be done better, i hope. sorry, if i see you put a CPLD onto low cost board without ANY reason for it, then its wasting resources..adding cost to the end user. sorry i did point it out. eh, keep on, smile. cheer up! The S3E "Sample Pack" board that Digilent did for Xilinx, is a REAL bad design, bad to the bones, much bad, really, and that was done for Xilinx by their official partner. your board is better if that makes you feel any better. Antti PS I just found two of those S3E sample pack boards, probably the best thing todo with them is to trash them giving them away is not a good idea, hm, maybe Altera would say me a nice word if i give them away? (because the xilinx s3e sample boards are anti-ads for Xilinx) PPS I had a 24 hour battle with Xilinx BMM error.. so please excuse my wording, you too Cy..
From: Antti.Lukats on 30 Sep 2009 13:47
On Sep 30, 8:32 pm, Andy Peters <goo...(a)latke.net> wrote: > On Sep 30, 9:02 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The chip may be obsolete but my four > > layer board design is not and will support a bga chip and GT > > resources. > > You do realize that most chip families are not pinout-compatible with > one another? IOW, a Spartan6 in 256BGA is not going to work on a board > designed for a Spartan3AN? > > And as I tried to get you to understand on the Xilinx PicoBlaze forum > -- there's no such thing as a "standardized FPGA platform" (as much as > Xilinx would have you believe otherwise). An audio-processing design > has very little in common with a video-processing system. > > You choose an FPGA and design a board to meet the product > requirements. You don't try to make your product requirements fit any > random board you might already have built. > > -a he probably refers to those small white connectors but what does the design has todo with MGT's is a bit mystery to me too Antti |