A consensus seems to be emerging on several points. I'll try to
summarize.
1. There should be one trade name to encompass the ASIC and all the boards
that carry it. There may be a different name for the FPGA development
boards, which don't contain the ASIC.
2. Clarity has gained some support as a name for the ASIC and its board
products. Unity also has some support. Names containing Graf and OS as
word components have more opposition than support. I'll assume for the rest
of this message that it's Clarity, though that could still change.
3. The idea of setting up a separate part number structure for each product
family has considerable support. The ASIC itself is one part number family
(variations for package, temperature grade, etc. define the individual parts
within the family). Boards using the ASIC are a second family, with a
different part number structure. FPGA development boards are a third
product family, with its own part number structure. Board designs aren't
far enough along to say exactly what factory options they'll have, so the
details of dash number structure and coding must be postponed until that
clears up.
4. There is some support, but not a full consensus, for the idea that each
product family's part number structure should encode its standard options in
a simple, mnemonic way, so that a customer can easily construct the proper
number for the desired item. A lot of commercial and industrial parts have
part numbers constructed in that manner.
5. I'm asked to find out how to reserve an IC part number that won't
conflict with other companies' part numbers. (I have some ideas on how to
go about this, based on National Semiconductor and Linear Technology analog
IC part numbers.) I assume it's OK to identify myself as an OGP member, but
not as a representative of Traversal.
6. Use of the ASIC trade name would be licensed to companies that assemble
the chip into their products.
With those points tentatively settled, we can move on to discussing
a number of secondary agenda items.
A. A product can be fully identified for the customer by specifying several
items of information:
Brand (Who made it?)
Product family trade name (What kind of product is it?)
Part number (Exactly which configuration is it?)
In addition, it can be useful on ads and product data sheets to call out
the specification or standard its ABI conforms to.
Standards (What's it compatible with?)
For instance, OGP might decide to identify the major documents it issues
under revision control as the OGP series (similar to the way the IETF issues
its documents as numbered RFCs.) So, if for argument's sake, the document
controlling the ABI for the ASIC were issued as OGP-1 Revision A, a PCI
board in the family might be described something like:
Traversal Clarity Series
PCI Graphics Board CLG1P-128C
With standard driver interface per Open Graphics Project specification OGP-1A
A name alone is not going to cut it for board products. The
competition's attempt to do this is confusing and frustrating. An
option-coded part number system is necessary so that the exact configuration
can be called out and recognized without ambiguity. The name shows what
product family the part number belongs to. To borrow terminology from
formal logic, the name identifies the set, while the part number identifies
the exact member of the set.
B. We haven't put much discussion into a trade name for the FPGA
development board family. One possibility is to pick something different
from the ASIC family name, but related to it in a way that has some
recognition value. If the ASIC and graphics board family is called
Clarity, some similar or related names might be:
Clarifier
Clearfield or Clear Field
Clearvision or Clear Vision
Enclair
C. I'd argue strongly for a part number structure within each product
family that's as mnemonic as possible, and has a distinct field of at least
one character for each different standard factory option. To keep the
format rules simple, the family root number should be the same for all
members of the family, and all the option fields should be present in every
part number in the family. Some fields might be variable-length, but they
should always appear in the same order. All of this makes it relatively
easy for people who don't order these boards every day to construct the
right part number for the exact set of features they want.
(I'd allow for custom modification numbers by placing them at the end,
after the standard-option fields. If a part number were to contain more
than one custom modification, they should appear in alphanumeric order.)
Also, it helps if the family root number has some obvious relationship
to either the product's function, or the family trade name, or both. That's
why I suggested starting with CL for Clarity products, and tacking on G for
Graphics to distinguish it from Comlinear products that start with CL. The
1 means that this is built around the first Clarity ASIC design, and makes
it easy to maintain the same general part number structure in later product
families. I'd encode the bus type within the root number, because that
completes the identification of the bare board, which is what sets most of
the constraints on what factory options are possible.
Using the same sort of reasoning, the FPGA development boards might have
part numbers that begin with CLF1, suggesting Clarifier FPGA, and clearly
associating it with the Clarity family. So an AGP development board number
could start off CLF1A- followed by a character string to specify the
installed options.
The data sheet for each product family should explain the part number
structure and the coding for each field in the part number. I could find
plenty of examples of part number structures in my catalog library, and fax
a few.
D. Product labeling:
Board products should probably have both the Traversal brand name
and the Clarity product family name shown prominently in silkscreen, in
different typefaces. The exact assembly part number would go on an adhesive
label, along with the serial number (assuming the boards are serialized.
They probably would be, for warranty purposes.)
ICs have limited space for marking, even big ASICs. The absolute
minimum needed is the exact part number and date code. The Traversal logo
should be there, if there isn't room for the full name. The Clarity name is
desirable; if that's not possible, there could be a Clarity logo used on the
chip and its literature. Maybe a C in Eurostile Light, enclosed in a 16:9
rectangle with rounded outside corners.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
