On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:04:29 -0500, Andr� Pouliot > > To me it seem a possible options but I do see one or 2 potential > problem. One of them is the card estate that you work on. We already > have a FPGA, a serial eprom, eeprom for the card bios, 4 memory chip, > the power supply section and now your talking to add potentially 3 more > chip? Sorry but I can't see how it will all fit in. Also during > production each additional chip add the probability of a defect and a > additinal cost. Myself I would like to a single chip solution for the > display if possible. I know the connexant is a closed part but if it can > reduce the card necesary estate and free some space on the FPGA, because > each extra chip will add some, well it is a needed evil. And nobody said > that this chip can't be reverse enginnered. :)
Ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you to gaze upon the visage of one who has a mega-clue about what it's like to manufacture a card. In other words, you are so spot-on about this, it's painful. :) Thank you for explaining this so succinctly. My opinion is that we should just keep looking. Surely, Conexant isn't the only company that produces a single-chip solution to our specifications. I also don't think it's necessarily a good idea for Tech Source to engage in something that might be construed as an IP violation. If they don't want our business, let it be their loss. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
