By the way, Happy 4th to all you 'Merican's' of which I am one too ;) On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:36 PM, William Hermans <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not second guessing. We're (to me) looking at different design >> goals. I'm willing to pay more to have a feature if I want it. Price >> point is simply that, 5 more dollars and who knows how many customers >> you lose? >> >> Because I design *my* stuff (to my own price points....) it's a matter >> of divergent design goals. Not right or wrong, just different. >> > > Ah, ok, I get that. > > > > Ah, now that is a different product. Different design goals > > Absolutely. The BBW for us would have worked fine, but many of the cool > features like onboard JTAG simply was not needed for our design goals, but > seemed to have added a lot of costs that we would have preferred not to > pay. So for us, in this context, Gerald was bang on with his designed > goals. But was it perfect ? Probably not, but how many here would profess > to "looking a gift horse in the eye" ? Also, many of use could look at > these so called design flaws as an opportunity. I'm already making money > from one such "flaw", that is actually not a flaw. But a design / cost > decision. > > From my experience, perhaps a factor of 2 IF the board could be routed > properly. With added layers, there's a factor that makes the board > more stable, gives better performance (due to transmission line > effects and signal isolation), and is often easier to route in a > particular size. The physical cost is that the board can cost twice > as much (at least). > > > > Well my own comments here were rather . . . yeah I do not know what. I'm > not an EE, with experience in design layout. But I do have some > understanding of the process, as one of my long time friends is very good > with orcad, and design layout. So, I'm sure there is more than dimensions > to consider in this design. For instance, I know that the DDR traces have > to be very exact. A two layer design would surely have an impact on that, > if not more . . . > > I think that the BBB has transitioned from a somewhat specialized > product supported by hobbyists to a commodity. Commodities are bought > by appliance users (a term borrowed from the amateur radio community). > The mindset is quite different. The expectations of the consumer are > also quite different. > > If you think the BBB is bad, I think we should both consider the > Arduino world.... > > I do not know much about the Arduino world. I prefer not to think about > Arduino's period. My buddy here who is a very good EE, and has been an EE > for 35+ years tells me he thinks the Arduino is awesome. Because it puts > hardware in the hands of novices, and give them the ability to "make". My > take on this is quite the opposite actually . . . > > But here is the thing, 3.5+ year ago I entered into the world of Beagle > knowing nothing. So I can understand the frustration of not knowing how to > deal with a given situation. I have even once or twice "bitten someones > head off" because I was frustrated. The thing is, my inability to > understand something is not someone elses problem, or responsibility. > Which I realized even as I complained silently to myself . . .so I forced > myself to learn, instead of blaming someone else for my inabilities. Now, I > understand more about this hardware, and perhaps a good bit more about > embedded Linux. But *ONLY* because I put effort into it. Well, others have > helped some too, but no one did anything for me. Others helped as I helped > myself to learn enough to ask a smart question. > > Honestly I think I can count the "real" questions I've asked on these > groups on one hand. I've asked Robert many questions in relation to other > posts he replied to from others. But questions I started myself . . . very > few. So why is this important ? It's important because 99% of the time it's > best to go out and find the answer for yourself, and make sure you get the > correct answer. Versus getting the wrong answer right away from someone > else. There are of course exceptions, such as asking Robert specific > questions about things in his domain. Not only that, but going out and > finding your own answers sets you up as a problem solver. Someone who can > think their own way out of things, versus being a hindrance on the > community. > > Anyway, this all ties to people making false assumptions on these groups > and getting huffy / puffy, and claiming that x.y.z platform is better > because of a.b.c. But guess what ? Beagle hardware has no direct comparison > out there. So if peopel in this situation do as they claim, they're only > hurting themselves. Most of these people though , , I tend to view as dim > witted want-to-be's. People who want to run a media player app/ shell / > whatever, and nothing else WHICH, in this persons humble opinion is not > where this hardware shines . . .anyway, I'm starting to rant. Perhaps I > should call it quites for now. > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Harvey White <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:41:47 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >HI Harvey, >> > >> >I'd personally disagree. Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and >> >does what you design it to do. I, for one, am willing to pay more for >> >more capability, within reason. Not your typical consumer, >> >though..... >> > >> >Id disagree with you. Only because we can second guess each other until >> the >> >end of time. But the point here that this was part of the reasoning for >> the >> >design behind the BBB, and without it we would not be where we are. >> >> It's not second guessing. We're (to me) looking at different design >> goals. I'm willing to pay more to have a feature if I want it. Price >> point is simply that, 5 more dollars and who knows how many customers >> you lose? >> >> Because I design *my* stuff (to my own price points....) it's a matter >> of divergent design goals. Not right or wrong, just different. >> >> >> > >> >I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars. I might >> >not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I" >> >however, am not "they".... but there are a lot more of "them" than >> >there are of me.... >> > >> > >> >The initial design discussed here is the BBW I believe. By the time my >> >biddy and I priced the BBW actually, the cost was $99. >> >> Ah, now that is a different product. Different design goals. >> >> > >> > >> >If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it >> >> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I >> >> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have >> >> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise. >> >> >> >> The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what, >> >> but that's a simple economic decision. Then there's the engineering >> >> decision. >> >> >> > >> >Problem is, if this design was only a 2 layer design. the actual board >> >dimensions probably would have increased 5x or more. >> >> From my experience, perhaps a factor of 2 IF the board could be routed >> properly. With added layers, there's a factor that makes the board >> more stable, gives better performance (due to transmission line >> effects and signal isolation), and is often easier to route in a >> particular size. The physical cost is that the board can cost twice >> as much (at least). >> >> > >> >>But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and >> will >> >>stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the >> BBB >> >>and why does my my GPIO does not work.. >> > >> >Can't help you with that... >> > >> > >> >If you want my take on this situation . . . it's because the I.Q. of the >> >average person posting on theses forums seems to have diminished in the >> >last couple of years. These people can not understand that the software >> >people on this project are not paid and offer their service for free to >> the >> >community. As well as software upgrades are not the responsibility of the >> >community, nor are these upgrade required for the software that third >> >parties have written to work properly. Nor, do these third parties take >> >responsibility for doing so . . . I could go on all day . . . >> >> I think that the BBB has transitioned from a somewhat specialized >> product supported by hobbyists to a commodity. Commodities are bought >> by appliance users (a term borrowed from the amateur radio community). >> The mindset is quite different. The expectations of the consumer are >> also quite different. >> >> If you think the BBB is bad, I think we should both consider the >> Arduino world.... >> >> Harvey >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Harvey White <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:02:13 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions >> to >> >> >get the cost down. >> >> > >> >> >1) As few components as possible. >> >> granted, no problem with that. >> >> >> >> >2) Limit the application. Only one application, >> >> do we know what the application is? Apparently people tend to think >> >> that this can do anything. >> >> >3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply. >> >> hmmm, then that says you have not as much control over the power >> >> supply as you might want. Certainly not as much as you may like. >> >> >> >> >4) Lowest cost components. >> >> no problem. >> >> >5) Limit the features. >> >> no problem. It does what it does. >> >> >> >> >6) Cut the profit. >> >> diminishing returns. >> >> > >> >> >Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of >> these >> >> no >> >> >one has even identified. >> >> Perhaps it might be interesting to know what they were... Not >> >> criticizing, but to know design alternatives might be nice. >> >> >> >> >But if I had, you would not have bought it because >> >> >it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. >> >> >> >> I'd personally disagree. Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and >> >> does what you design it to do. I, for one, am willing to pay more for >> >> more capability, within reason. Not your typical consumer, >> >> though..... >> >> >> >> >> >> >That is where >> >> >the value is, in the price. Not the value.. >> >> >> >> Then you're designing to a price point, and that's a different thing >> >> entirely. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up >> and >> >> >complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for >> $49. >> >> >> >> I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars. I might >> >> not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I" >> >> however, am not "they".... but there are a lot more of "them" than >> >> there are of me.... >> >> >> >> Not practical for you to put too many blank pads on a board and expect >> >> the user to solder parts in. I do, because I can build the boards. >> >> Your average hobby type... not likely I suspect. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it >> >> more >> >> >robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell >> it, by >> >> >all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the >> >> >hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it. >> >> >> >> If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it >> >> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I >> >> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have >> >> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise. >> >> >> >> The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what, >> >> but that's a simple economic decision. Then there's the engineering >> >> decision. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and >> >> will >> >> >stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in >> the BBB >> >> >and why does my my GPIO does not work.. >> >> >> >> Can't help you with that.... >> >> >> >> >> >> Harvey >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree >> >> with >> >> >> anything you said. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald >> has >> >> >> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your >> >> >> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course, >> >> >> > vary): >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so >> that >> >> it >> >> >> does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you >> >> wish to >> >> >> change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a >> 4A >> >> >> power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may >> damage >> >> >> the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In >> addition, a >> >> >> power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees >> a 4A >> >> >> load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power >> supply is >> >> >> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a >> power >> >> >> > supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not >> >> >> > have mattered. Using a power supply with a maximum current >> rating to >> >> >> > avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution. >> If, >> >> >> > because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then >> it is >> >> >> > imperative of the designer to put this information specifically >> in the >> >> >> > power supply recommendations. Not doing this leads to damage, >> doing >> >> >> > this puts the responsibility on the user. Is this a "before the >> >> >> > design/after the design"? I don't know, and I don't remember >> (either >> >> >> > way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements. >> >> >> > Hindsight is 20/20, of course. If it's that important, then >> perhaps >> >> >> > the documentation needs to be changed. Decision not up to me. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 2) The TI spec for the TPS65217C is a general recommendation as >> they >> >> >> are unaware of how you are going to use the part. The BBB SYS_5V >> powers >> >> >> several subsystems, including HDMI, I/O (VDD_3V3B) and USB. Clearly >> you >> >> >> could move the 100uF to the other side of the TPS2051, but then you >> >> need an >> >> >> additional capacitor on the SYS_5V which increases the cost and >> doesn’t >> >> >> provide any clear benefit, if you choose the correct power supply. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "correct power supply" bothers me. I'm familiar with minimum >> current >> >> >> > capacity, voltage limits, short circuit current limits >> (infrequently >> >> >> > applied). Again, "a 4 amp power supply will allow the board to >> damage >> >> >> > itself, so we depend on a 2 amp maximum supply to avoid damage." >> This >> >> >> > could be discussed a bit.... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 3) As Gerald has pointed out, the BBB is just a reference >> design. It >> >> >> was designed as a low cost solution which meant that tradeoffs were >> >> >> required to keep the price low. Clearly things could have been done >> >> >> differently, but then the BBB price would have been much higher and >> the >> >> >> board larger. Given that most users would probably not need these >> extra >> >> >> features, they were not incorporated into the current design. There >> are >> >> >> several spinoffs of the BBB, some with wifi, some with more RAM, >> etc, >> >> but >> >> >> none have been as successful as the BBB. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hmmm, well, perhaps (although not required) it might be nice to >> know >> >> >> > what the engineering limitations are of the design. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I've seen 1) the ones I know about, and 2) the ones I haven't >> found >> >> >> > out yet... and 3) the ones people are going to have to tell me >> >> >> > about... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > and I do like paranoid designs..... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Harvey >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 4) While I have provided Gerald input into both the BBB and >> >> >> BeagleBoard-x15 designs, I ultimately defer to his judgement >> because he >> >> has >> >> >> the track record or having designed several products that are very >> >> >> successful. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From my prospective, the BBB design is good, but your input was >> none >> >> >> the less valuable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Hermans <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> kzsoltkzsolt, >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* >> person >> >> >> who designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas >> >> Instruments >> >> >> at some point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free >> of >> >> >> charge to the public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in >> these >> >> >> post that you're free to change and use for your own personal use. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of >> >> making >> >> >> yourself looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". >> e.g. >> >> it >> >> >> doesn't make you look good. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well >> aware of >> >> >> what you're trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for >> >> various >> >> >> reasons. Reason, that you, I, or the next person do not need to >> >> understand. >> >> >> Because we can change to designs to our own liking if we so wish. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Gerald Coley < >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thank you for your feedback. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Gerald >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM, <[email protected] >> <mailto: >> >> >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is >> irresponsible, >> >> so >> >> >> I never request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in >> design. For >> >> >> example it is help to make workaround. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> "TI did not write that specification" >> >> >> >>> No, but use it in all reference design. See TI TPS20x1 PDS >> >> application >> >> >> information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> "If you put the CAP after the switch then ..." >> >> >> >>> Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS in all TI application >> information? >> >> >> >>> Because PDS has soft start feature which prevent overload IN >> (BBB >> >> SYS >> >> >> power rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 and 8. >> >> >> >>> Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit >> charge >> >> of >> >> >> 100uF to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current >> limit, >> >> >> therefore no dip on IN. >> >> >> >>> This is one main function of PDS. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> "I did not design the board for your application" >> >> >> >>> It is not required. But during research work to specify our >> problem >> >> I >> >> >> found many topic where users discover mysterious problems with power >> >> >> supply, and try to found a right one for BBB. This can be originated >> >> from >> >> >> startup current peak. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >> >>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss < >> >> >> http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >> >> >> >>> --- >> >> >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >> >> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> >> send >> >> >> an email to [email protected]<mailto: >> >> >> [email protected]>. >> >> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com >> >> >> < >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> >> >> >. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout < >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >> >>> Gerald >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> http://beagleboard.org/ <http://beagleboard.org/> >> >> >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >> >>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss < >> >> >> http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >> >> >> >>> --- >> >> >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >> >> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> >> send >> >> >> an email to [email protected]<mailto: >> >> >> [email protected]>. >> >> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHK_S%2BcAH_U%3DVtJmLq62wrVPmRg8%2Bn27YjWM_oeorZezSTKorQ%40mail.gmail.com >> >> >> < >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHK_S%2BcAH_U%3DVtJmLq62wrVPmRg8%2Bn27YjWM_oeorZezSTKorQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> >> >> >. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout < >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >> >>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss < >> >> >> http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >> >> >> >>> --- >> >> >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >> >> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> >> send >> >> >> an email to [email protected]<mailto: >> >> >> [email protected]>. >> >> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORo-TL2x_vUEni%2B-daiSEQXxLUU_N5p%2BEh%2Bt6tzpuuPT0g%40mail.gmail.com >> >> >> < >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORo-TL2x_vUEni%2B-daiSEQXxLUU_N5p%2BEh%2Bt6tzpuuPT0g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> >> >> >. >> >> >> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout < >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> >> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >> >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send >> >> >> an email to [email protected]. >> >> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/cjolnb1s1bddugkd1v6c4jeqm1a0mhmvhh%404ax.com >> >> >> . >> >> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> >> >> --- >> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> Groups >> >> >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send >> >> an >> >> >> email to [email protected]. >> >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/70E6C922-DEB1-451D-A72C-AC4C2EA2DF06%40gmail.com >> >> >> . >> >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Gerald >> >> > >> >> >[email protected] >> >> >http://beagleboard.org/ >> >> >[email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> >> --- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an >> >> email to [email protected]. >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/rarlnbptmkkr2fs2hjqudj543mckujfv0r%404ax.com >> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> -- >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/64ulnb1nt32osthndtd0o39cg5bh6vdvfv%404ax.com >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORoH8zBHQTHvTQ-fkX%3D0TrUT7j0XYYitqVcJB5o4aSR%2BLg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
