USB programmable Open Source Hardware
in [FPGA]
|
From: Mike Ng on 25 Sep 2009 13:33 On Sep 24, 7:30 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rick, > > You were right, I can not refute you at this time it is $6.10 per > board so it stands no one can do it for $6 a board. Yes, they do a > minimum of $50.00. Still that seems good, no that seems great! > > Cy Care to share who these people are? I've never seen 4-layer pricing this low, for such small quantities. Cy, while your broad-brush concept is commendable, the execution leaves a little to be desired. The Arduino is successful because it's a 80MB download with a free software toolchain, with a great deal of abstraction that removes the need to go through the uC setting registers. If the Arduino had been just a hardware design, it would not have been successful. For your board one needs to download Xilinx's immense webpack and learn the vagaries of HDL. And you're relying on Xilinx's software for synthesis and so on, so while the hardware design may be open, the software toolchain sure ain't. That makes it a good deal less "Free". - Mike
From: rickman on 26 Sep 2009 11:38 On Sep 24, 10:30 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rick, > > You were right, I can not refute you at this time it is $6.10 per > board so it stands no one can do it for $6 a board. Yes, they do a > minimum of $50.00. Still that seems good, no that seems great! > > Cy But I am afraid that your math is very poor. If they have a minimum order amount of $50, then the price is $50 per board for qty 1. Qty 2 is $25 per board and so on until you reach the floor price of $6.10 at qty 9. However, if they are anything like other PCB houses, the price will continue to drop as the volume goes up and may well drop below $6.10 per board, I can't say for sure though. In reality, I would bet the $6.10 figure is for qty 100 or something similar. It is just too much labor to set up a PCB run to do *any* number of boards for $50, but they may be combining your boards with some others to achieve a lower unit cost. Rick
From: rickman on 26 Sep 2009 13:39 On Sep 23, 12:57 pm, "Antti.Luk...(a)googlemail.com" <antti.luk...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > 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 I'm not sure what your point is. I am sure there are any number of differences between nobody's project and the beagleboard. So? Why do you think the XC3S250E is an obsolete chip? Heck, every chip will be off the cutting edge in six months. Personally, I prefer to use parts that are not brand new designs, especially with Xilinx. They have a reputation for making their products widely available only a long time after initial shipments to favored customers. Do you have any of the new parts? As to the beagleboard being "backed up" by TI, that really doesn't make much of a difference. I have not seen any indication that the people making them are financially supported by TI. The fact that the board can only be made by rather advanced technology assemblers means you pretty much *have* to buy these boards rather than making your own. I will say that at $150 there is not much incentive to build your own, even if you want 100's. A much smaller board that I am building and selling in qty 100's, with cheaper parts costs me $100 to build. I expect the beagleboard costs close to the selling price, so maybe TI *is* supporting the project in some way. My only problem with the beagleboard is that the power consumption is too high, and that it has no FPGA ;^) I would like something along these lines with an ARM9 processor and memory capable of running Linux, all designed for lowest power so it can run from batteries. Like a PDA I guess, but more than 6 hours of run time, more like 20 hours with a PDA sized display. I wish this was not the FPGA forum. I don't feel I should carry on with this discussion here. There are some display technologies I would like to discuss. Maybe I'll go over to c.a.e and post there... Rick
From: Nico Coesel on 27 Sep 2009 11:55 "Antti.Lukats(a)googlemail.com" <antti.lukats(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On Sep 23, 10:47=A0pm, "Antti.Luk...(a)googlemail.com" ><antti.luk...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 23, 10:41=A0pm, 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. >> >> > =A0I agree the mating components, 4 connectors, used on the board for >> > stacking the boards are expensive and therefore need to rethink >> Antti >> PS I am not as negative just trying to help you, >> and yes i have pretty much figured out > >i must correct myself > >s3e: no failsafe multiboot in SPI flash without external circuitry Whats the problem with that? The only limitation of this board is that you need an external JTAG interface to program it. It would be nicer to have JTAG thru the FTDI chip. That way you'll always have a fallback. -- 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!" --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Antti.Lukats on 27 Sep 2009 12:42
On Sep 26, 8:39 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 12:57 pm, "Antti.Luk...(a)googlemail.com" > > > > <antti.luk...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > I'm not sure what your point is. I am sure there are any number of > differences between nobody's project and the beagleboard. So? > > Why do you think the XC3S250E is an obsolete chip? Heck, every chip > will be off the cutting edge in six months. Personally, I prefer to > use parts that are not brand new designs, especially with Xilinx. > They have a reputation for making their products widely available only > a long time after initial shipments to favored customers. Do you have > any of the new parts? > > As to the beagleboard being "backed up" by TI, that really doesn't > make much of a difference. I have not seen any indication that the > people making them are financially supported by TI. The fact that the > board can only be made by rather advanced technology assemblers means > you pretty much *have* to buy these boards rather than making your > own. I will say that at $150 there is not much incentive to build > your own, even if you want 100's. A much smaller board that I am > building and selling in qty 100's, with cheaper parts costs me $100 to > build. I expect the beagleboard costs close to the selling price, so > maybe TI *is* supporting the project in some way. > > My only problem with the beagleboard is that the power consumption is > too high, and that it has no FPGA ;^) I would like something along > these lines with an ARM9 processor and memory capable of running > Linux, all designed for lowest power so it can run from batteries. > Like a PDA I guess, but more than 6 hours of run time, more like 20 > hours with a PDA sized display. > > I wish this was not the FPGA forum. I don't feel I should carry on > with this discussion here. There are some display technologies I > would like to discuss. Maybe I'll go over to c.a.e and post there... > > Rick Rick, when did you last look for information for S3E based boards made by Xilinx at Xilinx website? if you have done it recently, go and do some search. This should answer the issue why S3e should not be used any more. It's not that bad chip, but S3A is available at digikey already for some time now, so there is no reason not to use S3A S3A S3AN S3ADSP S6 are all newer than S3E, and i have strong belive that Xilinx really wants everyone to use S3A and newer chips for any new designs. Correct me if i am wrong about this. I also feel there is no reason to use something as old as S3E for new designs (unless there are special reasons todo so) Cy's designs uses 1 FT245 2 CPLD 3 S3E 4 Oscillator 5 spi flash need 4 layer PCB and requires external JTAG to bootstrap Anttis design would use 1 FT232R (also used for CLOCK!) 2 S3E or S3A 3 spi flash and would bootstrap with empty components, and could be done with 2 layer PCB see the difference? if you make a design for open source it doesnt mean you should not make it as good as you can, this is what i think, and what i have tried to say as well. Antti |