USB programmable Open Source Hardware
in [FPGA]
|
From: nobody on 28 Sep 2009 18:35 Mike NG: I was only vaguely aware of the adruino toolchain being open and its ease of use, having such a large following and many are hobbyists. Much work needs to be done on this front, but is not a show stopper. I did a quick search for VHDL compilers and found some open license programs, not sure how they work? OpenCores.org maybe a source for looking into. It does seem that the ability of Xilinx toolset is useful and not altogether useless in this particular endeavor. I like the way it has been utilized in other projects as calls to particular programming to put together a bin or bit or xsvf or other files of need within a dos type command window and utilizing batch files to do it all. I think this would be an easy transition for a Linux, or unix user. The board house that put these together is overseasales(a)qdcircuits.net. Nico, I think the suggestion by you and others is valid and requires some time and energy to make the JTAG chain within the USB communication a reality, FT2232R. Antti, Still harping on the antiquated chip thing, dang. I mentioned that this revolution of the design was for ease of build I had some S3E's and wanted to use them in some design, I did they are consumed. The thing about it is I can see that much of the support circuitry is up and running putting an S6, with multiboot, in here would be possible and would come up the first time I built it, support circuitry, programming, power, and communication, is working. In fact trying to get some less than 10 chips of the newly offered S6 with giga transceivers. I really appreciate the CPLD and will try and get it into the jtag chain with the FT2232. I like the bus like ability of driving I/O into or out of any pin on the FPGA, build a mux. So much of the I/O is hung on the CPLD, this is akin to the muxes building many peripheries buses with only the available I/O's on small MCUs. Sending out a programmed CPLD for a project is also possible, therefore a programmable out of the box board solution. Like the CPLD. Just add power and it is doing the processing I have programmed in it. Nothing is set in stone, in fact it is all ones and zeros, the ability to change anything is possible and likely. Uwe Bonnes, I am not sure of the difficulty of the 2.5V vref on the jtag, but would sure like to hear about the details. I am utilizing a ltc3455 four voltage output switching regulator which requires astonishingly little support circuitry for a 1.2V, 1.8V, 2.5V and 3.3V at the usb rating of ~ 2.5W. JG You asked the question of cheap communication for both programmming and runtime information at an acceptable bandwidth not to mention the power over usb. FTDI has been successful in this design and will be looking at the FT2232 for all its communication protocols, jtag being one of the most useful in this design. Another affordable option is Ethernet and power over ethernet, which I have a design, but requires about twice the funds to run prototype testing. Ethernet is a grand solution with so much hanging on the internet, oh the possibilities. All, I thank you for your rich comments and ideas all have been more than my expectations. I will be looking at many of them for another run at at a better solution to my problem, because nothing is set in stone and a change only requires some time, some thought, and some more of my bad calculations. As for the discussion on the four layer board its ability in many ways is worth the effort and cost. The complexity of the design of the four layer board is hardly passed onto any subsequent users, parts are still soldered onto the top or bottom not on on the inner layers. Antti, you are still correct nobody still is interested in this board so I think for now I will make it whisper BT for some marketing and fun. Sincerely, Cy Drollinger Electronic Realization L.L.C. cy(a)montana.net PH: 406-586-5502 www.elec-real.com
From: -jg on 28 Sep 2009 18:57 On Sep 29, 10:35 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > JG > > You asked the question of cheap communication for both programmming > and runtime information at an acceptable bandwidth not to mention the > power over usb. FTDI has been successful in this design and will be > looking at the FT2232 for all its communication protocols, jtag being > one of the most useful in this design. Just to clarify, I was talking of their new FT2232H, which has high speed USB. There was a thread some weeks ago on cae, about the sustainable data rate (no breaks/fixed tick-rate) on a 2232H, and I'm not sure what the final answer was. 2232H has larger buffers, and higher peak speeds, so the sustainable number has to be higher ? -jg
From: Antti.Lukats on 28 Sep 2009 19:27 On Sep 29, 1:57 am, -jg <jim.granvi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 29, 10:35 am, nobody <cydrollin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > JG > > > You asked the question of cheap communication for both programmming > > and runtime information at an acceptable bandwidth not to mention the > > power over usb. FTDI has been successful in this design and will be > > looking at the FT2232 for all its communication protocols, jtag being > > one of the most useful in this design. > > Just to clarify, I was talking of their new FT2232H, which has > high speed USB. > There was a thread some weeks ago on cae, about the sustainable > data rate (no breaks/fixed tick-rate) on a 2232H, and I'm not sure > what the final answer was. 2232H has larger buffers, and higher peak > speeds, so the sustainable number has to be higher ? > > -jg FTDI has claimed so 20MByte this is more then 2 times less than with cypress FX2 Antti
From: emeb on 28 Sep 2009 20:05 On Sep 28, 10:00 am, Andy Peters <goo...(a)latke.net> wrote: > Another thing is that S3E appears to be available in more packages > than S3A so you might be able to find a better fit for a particular > design. That's my principle objection to the S3A family. I buy my parts from Digi-Key, and the only non-BGA packages for S3A are the 50K devices. I have fairly limited assembly resources so BGA / QFN parts aren't possible, but I want larger devices. What to do? Eric
From: Antti.Lukats on 29 Sep 2009 01:13
On Sep 29, 3:05 am, emeb <ebromba...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 10:00 am, Andy Peters <goo...(a)latke.net> wrote: > > > Another thing is that S3E appears to be available in more packages > > than S3A so you might be able to find a better fit for a particular > > design. > > That's my principle objection to the S3A family. I buy my parts from > Digi-Key, and the only non-BGA packages for S3A are the 50K devices. I > have fairly limited assembly resources so BGA / QFN parts aren't > possible, but I want larger devices. What to do? > > Eric Altera has MUCH larger selection of non-BGA packages so you can use the latest devices and HUGE ones if you need, all in TQFP packages I totally agree that S3A is BAD as of package selection but Xilinx is doing many things bad/wrong/too late S3 - good as of LARGE parts XC3S5000 !!! S3E - not as good any more, large parts dropped, but larger part in nonBGA as in S3A S3A - good configuration options (multiboot) bad package options S3AN - even worse package options S3ADSP - large and better than S3A, but only 2 devices S6 - better in some terms, but again limited package options so there is never a best, its compromise so or so S3A has multiboot, and need one power supply less than S3E but you are pretty much limited to S3A(N) 50 if talking non BGA while S3E gives 500 part in TQFP100 yes, actually if thinking S3E or S3A then winner is: Cyclone III :) Cy@ dont give up ;) there is rule of thumb: it takes 6+ month from initial product launch til you may hope some interest (sales) your 6 months isnt past yet S3E multiboot can be implemented using 0.49$ MCU adding and expensive CPLD (bad $/feature ratio) to the board give no benefits to the user, it makes the PCB and documentation more expensive, yes you always have to consider documentation as cost item, you spend time (or you pay$$ for someone todo it) Antti |