#milkymist IRC log for Tuesday, 2012-01-10

wolfspraul6 precious samples, at that time seriously precious00:00
wolfsprauland then the grinding-down started, and one by one we lost them due to exposure to unqualified processes, people00:00
wpwrakwell, we contributed a few lines back into mainline linux. at least they got a small token of appreciation ;-)00:00
wolfspraulno point00:00
wpwrak;-)))00:00
wolfspraulthe first one or two of the 6 were roasted by a wrong temperature profile, I think00:01
wolfsprauland so the story continued00:01
wolfspraulnothing was gained for anybody00:01
wpwraka tragic fate00:01
wpwrakbut yes. "bleeding edge" on the component side isn't our game.00:02
wolfspraulyes00:02
wpwraktoo expensive (since it's exclusive). too unreliable (due to bugs awaiting the early adopters). too unpredictable (for long-term support)00:03
wpwrakthe bleeding edge is for those who have more (financial) muscle than brains :)00:04
wolfspraulwe can prepare our files and processes for upgrades, then adopt chips when they become generally available, but then quickly00:05
wpwrakeither because they can't innovate on anything else, or because they've painted themselves in a corner and absolutely need those few extra percent of performance to survive00:05
wpwrakexactly00:05
wolfspraulthat seems to be better tailored towards our strengths00:05
wolfspraulI can easily imagine that that may overtake a competitor who focuses on the samples/chips first, and then figures out process and testing/qa00:05
wolfspraulI do want to be first with the most high-end stuff, just how...00:06
wolfspraulnot so easy :-)00:06
wolfspraulI think testing is the key, quality testing. that's where time is sunk.00:06
wolfspraulprocess and testing/verification00:07
wpwrakwe can beat them on other fronts. e.g., with an fpga, we could implement protocols or accelerators quickly00:07
wpwrakand we can continuously upgrade the existing product this way, if we want (and if it makes sense)00:07
wpwraktesting is a little weak on our end00:08
wolfspraulI think it's not bad on m100:09
wolfsprauland in every round we made improvements00:09
wpwrakwhat i mean is continuous QA00:09
wolfspraulmaybe some effort to document the flow better would be nice, though Adam may already have something in the wiki00:09
wpwrakboring as hell, of course ...00:09
wolfspraulyou mean temperature cycles, for example?00:10
wolfspraulsure we are beginners in some areas00:10
wpwraknaw, feature/regression testing. also including software00:10
wolfspraulah yes00:10
wpwraktemperature testing ... hmm. i could leave the air conditioning off. than my M1 would be roasted at ~40 C. that could get interesting ;-)00:11
wolfspraulinteresting, I'm just reading that (in higher volume) you can buy fpgas from xilinx and lattice that were tested only to run your design, giving up reprogrammability00:41
wolfsprauldiscounts for such chips can be 50-80% of standard pricing00:41
wolfspraulhttp://www.eejournal.com/archives/articles/20080805_easy/00:41
wpwraktheir yield must be horrible00:41
wolfspraul(article is about some structured ASIC company, but it's mentioned inside)00:42
wolfspraulI can't wait until Milkymist technology matures to the point that we can move to more basic manufacturing like structured asic or asic, to make some really powerful product :-)00:43
wpwrakhmm. i kinda like the idea of being able to play with the logic. but maybe s/move/branch/00:45
wolfspraulfor now, yes of course00:45
wpwrakthen you can make an ultra-cheap non-upgradeable M1-classic :)00:45
wolfspraulbut later on if our tech is really great (the free part), then the big and expensive fpga chip will be a drag00:46
wolfspraulnot now00:46
wpwrakdunno. they can also be a feature.00:46
wolfspraulnow, definitely00:46
wolfspraulof course it's a feature00:46
wolfspraulcladamw: hi good morning!00:49
wolfspraulsorry I'm too tired again to chat about rc4 priorities thinking right now, let's move it until after my sleep00:49
cladamwwolfspraul, hi good morning00:49
cladamwokay00:50
wolfspraulhowever, I have been discussing with Werner already, so if Werner has time he can also tell you our joint thinking00:50
cladamwor later I back to see backlog00:50
wolfspraulno rush on any of this, I know you still have a lot of work00:50
wolfspraulwell for something this important and specific, I rather have you read it 'live' and ask questions right away if something is not clear00:50
wpwrakyeah, let's wait until wolfgang is awake again00:51
cladamwokay...00:52
wpwrakthe good news: there's nothing we haven't talked about yet :)00:53
wolfspraulsure, just priorities, so when there are conflicts it's easier to decide how to proceed00:53
wolfspraulk later then, n800:54
cladamwn800:56
wpwraksweet dreams, untroubled by kicad's class hierarchy :)00:56
wolfspraulcladamw: alright, back07:51
wolfspraulrc4 priorities, let's get it on07:51
wolfspraulfirst of all after several discussions here on the channel, it's clear that nobody sees much value in DVI-I dual-link07:52
wolfspraulso let's forget about dual-link. let's focus on single-link and making that work well, and all the other things. but we don't want dual-link.07:52
wolfspraulthat one is out07:52
wolfspraulbut what is in?07:52
wolfspraul#1 reset-circuit, USB power switch07:53
wolfspraul#2 adv7181c07:54
wolfspraul#3 sourcing with boom, and probably it makes sense to combine schematics in kicad with that07:55
wolfspraul#4 dvi-i single-link07:56
wolfspraul#5 better expansion header system07:56
cladamw#5 ~ adding another same pins of J21 to make a "U"-shaped07:56
wolfspraulyes07:57
wolfsprauland also I still think removing J3 to make space and focus on what's important07:57
wolfspraulthe positioning of the old and new (second) expansion headers is very important, as they function 'together' and we want to keep them like that as long as possible07:57
wolfspraullet's just talk *priorities* now07:57
wolfspraul#6 more USB, possibly make space by removing buttons07:58
wolfspraul#7 leds for ports07:59
wolfspraulthat's it07:59
wolfspraulthings like 'layout in kicad' are not really on the radar right now, just a technical possibility but nothing we feel should actually be done urgently/soon08:00
wolfspraulWerner and I roughly agree on the said priorities (#1-#7), I think for the most part Sebastien is in agreement as well08:01
cladamwfor #3 is Werner to use KiCad to draw schematic first then generate *.lst file for boom?08:01
wolfspraulhe was not so enthused yesterday about removing buttons to make space for USB connectors, but let's work on the higher priority ones first anyway08:01
wolfspraulwe were hoping you would want some KiCad editing as well?08:02
wolfspraulyou and Werner have to be smart about the boom+schematics collaboration08:02
wolfspraulI don't know08:02
wolfspraulthe devil is in the details, as always08:02
wolfspraullet's first talk about the priorities though08:03
wolfsprauldo you understand those 7 items?08:03
wolfsprauldo you agree with the priorities?08:03
cladamwunderstood items: #1, 2, 4, 508:04
cladamwuncleared items: #3, 6, 708:04
wolfspraul#5 needs some real thinking08:05
wolfspraul#7 is the new leds, it's already written up in the wiki08:05
wolfspraulbut we feel it's relatively low priority, let's work on all the other stuff first08:05
wolfspraulbut I think #7 should be clear, no?08:05
cladamwfor me, priorities is actually not the problems. Problems on my site is to understand what parts to add in schematic.08:06
wolfspraulwhat is your current Altium workflow?08:07
cladamwi all knew above ideas, so when drawing schematic, just put all needed parts in relevant schematic sheet.08:07
wolfspraulare you editing the Altium schematics yourself, then go to layout house which is updating the layout in those same files?08:07
wolfspraulor is the layout house doing both schematic & layout update?08:07
cladamwi edit schematic firstly then let house to import & placement08:08
wolfspraulin which software are you editing the schematic?08:08
cladamwAltium Designer08:09
cladamwNo KiCad now08:09
wolfspraulsure08:09
cladamwthe *.lst came from KiCad's schematic to achieve #3, but not now.08:10
wolfspraulok, maybe we break the work into different streams08:10
cladamwbut if you wanted rc4 to source from boom system then two seperate ways i have to work08:10
wolfspraulfirst we do the Altium path as before08:10
cladamwexactly08:11
wolfspraullet's work on the Altium rc4 schematics08:11
wolfsprauland review them as PDF etc. as before08:11
wolfspraulbut we don't want to make schematic changes that then become impractical on the layout side08:12
wolfspraultrue?08:12
wolfspraulhow do we avoid that?08:12
cladamwfalse08:13
cladamwwhen we change schematic( adding, removing ) will _later_ directly import to PCB files(which needs libraries links, works, etc). Just don't need to modify PCB design files only.08:15
wolfspraulyes08:15
wolfspraulbut we can make schematic changes and then later find out that things don't fit08:15
cladamwso we can just _review_ schematic sides once I done, then we let house to _placement_ to see if the place is good.08:15
cladamwif considering those placements are okay, then start to route.08:16
wolfspraulmaybe nothing we can do but use common sense now, and then try in layout08:16
wolfspraulalright08:16
cladamwhouse is 'passive' group, they would only accepts schematics(parts changes) then get the money they want.08:17
wolfspraulsure08:17
wolfspraulso maybe you start on 1, 2, 4 first?08:18
wolfsprauland 508:18
wolfspraulas of today, are they already entered and finalized in Altium?08:18
cladamwno, i'd like to know 3, 6, 7 at the same time.08:18
wolfspraulgood08:19
wolfspraul:-)08:19
cladamwnot yet.08:19
wolfspraulwhat is not clear about #7 ?08:19
wolfspraulthe only thing not clear to me about it is whether we want it at all08:19
wolfspraulbut I am not against it either and if Werner is excited about the leds and nobody sees a big problem, let's just do it08:20
wolfspraulWerner is planning some tests on what looks good08:20
wolfspraulcladamw: what is not clear about #7 ?08:20
cladamwso does #7 is meant that to add a led to each relative connector?08:21
cladamwtotal of 14 new leds proposed: 2*dmx, 2*midi, 3*video-in, power, 2*usb, ir, dvi-i, ethernet, memcard08:21
wolfspraulyes08:23
wolfspraulall green for now, same as the leds we already haev08:23
wolfspraulhave08:23
cladamwwpwrak, so I just add 14 leds with 14 limited resistors in series for #7 ? and then _placement_ each led to close to connector when we're placementing. ?08:23
wolfspraulsounds about right to me ;-)08:24
wolfspraulas I said, Werner was planning some experiments to find out what looks good08:24
wolfspraulthe leds are driven by Werner, he will give final input on this08:24
wolfsprauland if he doesn't, no leds :-)08:24
cladamwwpwrak, this means that I pulls out fpga's another un-used 14pins to connect.? I think that using all them as "Pull high resistors" is good then directly driving led.08:25
cladamwwolfspraul, no, we can still wait for wpwrak's experiments about luminance of leds. meanwhile I just add 14 leds and related pull up resistors.08:27
wolfspraulyes08:27
cladamwfo #6, do we now make final to use 1*2 usb connector plus one usb connector? or 2 * 2 usb connectors?08:28
wolfspraulno final yet08:28
wolfspraulwe have to be very careful to pick a connector that is common, reasonable price, etc.08:29
cladamwif 2 *2 is final, then I'll draw schematics to http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/690-008-621-013/151-1085-ND/80618408:29
wolfspraulwait, checking08:29
cladamwusd 1.18 @ 100pcs08:32
wolfspraulhe. the one we have on rc3 is listed as 'obsolete item' in digikey08:32
wolfspraulhttp://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?x=0&y=0&lang=en&site=us&KeyWords=WM17532-ND08:32
cladamwTo know if we really need to remove buttons depends on I need to draw all parts-in then cowork with house to know how many space we can get or remove.08:33
cladamwhttp://octopart.com/parts/search?q=%0948204-000108:34
wolfspraulI need a little time to review USB connectors on digikey08:35
wolfspraulthe 151-1085-ND one (*2) on digikey looks interesting, but;08:35
wolfspraul:08:36
wolfspraul1) is EDAC Inc. a good manufacturer?08:36
wolfspraul2) do we need to test this first?08:36
wolfspraulI'd rather go with a quality manufacturer on connectors (maybe EDAC Inc. is, don't know)08:37
cladamwwell...maybe this part 2*2 I check myself, I hope Molex have it.08:38
cladamwwell. so for #1 ~ #7, except #3 i skip it. then others I understood now.08:39
cladamwfor #7, when I am done, just post then to see if wpwrak have problems.08:40
cladamwpicker is came. moments.08:41
wolfspraulhere is one from Molex http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/67298-4090/WM17130-ND/85913908:50
wolfspraulI think 2*stacked is quite common, definitely more common than the vertical standing one we have right now08:50
wolfspraulso yes, personally I think we can go to 2*2 = 4 USB connectors08:50
wolfspraulif space is needed, remove buttons08:51
wolfspraulthere are *a lot* of 2-stacked usb-a connectors on digikey08:51
wolfspraulhere's another one http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/72309-8034BLF/609-1040-ND/100135408:54
cladamwgreat. you found. 1.12 ea@ 100pcs08:55
wolfspraulnot sure. strangely the molex one doesn't specify usb 1.1/2.0/3.0 etc.08:56
wolfspraulit's just empty08:56
wolfspraulalthough I don't know what the difference would be in the connector, if any08:57
wolfspraulmolex datasheet also doesn't mention 1.1/2.008:57
wolfspraulcladamw: but it's sure that a 2*stacked type is a very common type08:58
wolfspraulthere are at least 5-10 different manufacturers in stock at digikey08:58
wolfspraulso that looks good08:58
wolfspraulsome have 4 pins, some 808:58
cladamwyeah...and also cheaper then 1 usb type.08:58
wolfspraulhttp://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/AU-Y1008-R/AE9926-ND/82168008:59
wolfspraulthis one says "USB 1.1" for example08:59
wolfspraulthis one could also be good http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/72309-8034BLF/609-1040-ND/100135408:59
wolfspraulFCI09:00
wolfspraulmaybe too close to FIC? :-)09:00
cladamwforget FIC.09:03
cladamwalright, for usb 2*2 connectors, I'd like molex since its four fixed pins is more stronger then FCI. :)09:04
wolfspraulyes but we need to find out whether the molex one maybe is 'only' usb 1.1 ?09:05
wolfsprauland what that means09:05
wolfspraulthe field is empty there09:06
wolfsprauland the connector is strangely cheap09:06
cladamwyes, i saw it. don't know EDAC Inc. , but needs to know more.09:06
wolfspraulmolex is good, just need to find out that 'empty field' story09:07
wolfspraulit's very cheap though, that is suspicious I think09:08
wolfspraulmaybe usb 1.1 ? does that matter to us?09:08
wolfspraulor is this in fact irrelevant for that connector and if our chips could do it (which they don't today), one could also drive USB 2.0 high-speed over the molex connector? I don't know...09:09
wolfspraulsuch a cool datasheet for the molex one... http://www.molex.com/pdm_docs/ps/PS-67298-001.pdf09:17
wolfspraulwe can learn something in stress testing there :-)09:17
wolfspraulunfortunately also no answer about USB 1.1/2.009:18
cladamwmmm... you seems got link from here: http://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0672984090_IO_CONNECTORS.xml09:21
wolfspraulwow, arrow has that same molex connector for 74 cents09:21
wolfspraulat larger quantity though and 9 weeks lead09:21
wolfspraulthe only thing unclear to me right now is usb 1.1/2.0, for that connector09:22
wolfspraulbut i have a feeling it may not be relevant, especially not to us on m109:22
wolfspraulother than that this connector seems to be quite common one, and molex quality has never been disappointing09:22
wolfspraultrue?09:22
cladamwyes, I'd like directly to use it. :-) even we can't find if it's 1.1 or 2.0.09:24
cladamwif you see its "Mating Products" column, the part is usb2.0 (plug). :-)09:27
cladamwhttp://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/48037-0001/WM17117-ND/85760309:29
cladamwhttp://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0480370001_IO_CONNECTORS.xml09:30
cladamwhttp://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0672984090_IO_CONNECTORS.xml09:31
cladamwfrom molex site, compared 48037 and 67298 series, there's no specific 'usb2.0' mentioned. :)09:32
wolfspraulyes09:33
wolfspraulcladamw: unless you can find a big problem with 67298, I think that one looks good09:38
wolfsprauland I think 2 of them09:38
wolfspraul2*209:38
wolfspraulI definitely don't want two different USB connectors on m109:38
cladamwyes, 67298, I'll take an eye on that part/drawing again.09:43
cladamwwolfspraul, alright, i think that later when I am done on schematic, then generate pdf file to review.09:49
cladamwwolfspraul, about #5, werner told me that before, so I'll direct add related un-used fpga pins to those two headers.10:04
wolfspraulhmm10:04
cladamwthe U-shaped idea is definitely greatful.10:05
wolfspraulthe current J21 needs to stay as it is, I think10:05
wolfspraulso we have backward compatibility with existing boards10:05
wolfsprauland the pins of the new one need to be chosen carefully, there are different types of pins (banks, voltages, etc)10:05
wolfspraulhas that been clarified already?10:05
wolfsprauland then mechanically, we should choose the position of the two in such a way that it can really last for a while (=years)10:06
wolfspraulI also think we should completely remove J3, but before the result was to only DNP J310:06
wolfspraulI think removing J3 will cause some work, but I think it should go.10:06
wolfspraulI just fail to see the value of J3.10:07
cladamwthe original idea of J3 is to reserve the option for audio application, but now it seems no worthy.10:09
wolfspraulwe already decided to DNP J3 in rc410:10
wolfspraulthat's the current decision10:10
wolfspraulbut I still think we should go one step further and completely remove it10:10
wolfspraulespecially if we implement the new 2-part U-shape expansion idea10:10
wolfspraullet's just cleanup that area and remove J3 then10:10
cladamwinstead of implementing U-shaped, I think we need to remove completely J3.10:11
wolfspraulthat's my opinion10:11
wolfspraulnot 'instead'10:11
wolfspraulthey are unrelated10:11
wolfspraulJ3 'can' be removed10:11
wolfspraulI would do that first, and then add the second expansion header, the U-shape idea10:11
wolfspraulJ3 and J21/expansion are unrelated, other than for space and cleanup reasons10:12
wolfspraulI think we should remove J3 and focus on J21 and the new J21+10:12
wolfspraullet's see what Werner says10:13
wolfspraulSebastien preferred to keep J3 DNP, but not strongly I think. just because removing it creates work.10:13
wolfspraulI like cleanup work ;-010:13
wolfspraul:-)10:14
cladamwto implement new J21+, a whole 18 wires to be added in J21+, so remove J3 is just indeed to get route space not clean up reasons.10:14
wolfspraulsure10:14
wolfspraulout with it :-)10:14
wolfspraulwe already agreed on DNP'ing J3, so the next step of removing it should not be a big deal10:14
wolfspraulthe main reason Sebastien favored DNP'ing was the removal workload10:14
wolfspraulcladamw: there may be a few twists in removing J3, don't know. maybe something we can do wrong?10:15
cladamwwolfspraul, twists?10:16
cladamwdon't understand about twists.10:17
cladamwdo you have rc3 board on hand now?10:18
wolfspraulyes10:19
wolfspraulwith 'twists' I mean that Sebastien said removing J3 is work10:19
cladamwthere's many DNPs parts at audo codec's right side: C25, C23, R26, C26, R27, C27, they are not needed in rc4, so the new J21+ will be at that place.10:19
wolfspraulso there may be a few pullups/pulldowns or whatever needed if we remove J310:20
wolfspraulI guess10:20
wolfspraulit's not just "rip it out"10:20
wolfspraulthe audio codec still has to work after removing J3 ;-)10:20
cladamwsure, in rc3, they are Useless already. ;-)10:21
wolfsprauli can just say that I support the removal of J3, even if it creates work - it feels like good work to me to free space10:21
cladamwyeah. :)10:21
cladamweven I think that  IR receiver can be placed more close to fixed hole corner, so J21+ can be much close to board edge to get more daughter board's size.10:23
cladamwwolfspraul, one thing forgot to ask, the expansion header should be receptacle type not male header, ho do you think?10:27
wolfspraulcladamw: you mean both? or just the new one?10:31
wolfspraulmost expansion headers seem to be male types10:31
wolfspraulbut it's a good question10:31
wolfspraulwe definitely want to keep the existing J21 as-is10:32
cladamwboth, U-shaped would be a female/receptacle one for better?10:32
wolfsprauland to reduce the number of parts - can the new header be the same as J21 ?10:32
wolfspraul(the number of different parts)10:32
wolfspraulboth definitely not10:32
wolfspraulbecause that would break compatibility with the current J2110:32
wolfspraulwhat's the advantage of a female type in your opinion?10:33
cladamwthey must be the same to strengthen mechanical structure when a daughter board hooked up with U-shaped.10:33
wolfspraulcladamw: I'm looking at my board, and I don't understand how moving the IR helps10:45
wolfspraulbut... if the IR can be moved into the corner more - great10:45
cladamwlike this but just need to find 2*9 pins: http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/0901512116/WM4241-ND/242165710:45
wolfspraulwell like I said:10:46
wolfspraul1) most expansion headers I remember are male10:46
wolfsprauli don't know why but that is what I remember10:46
wolfspraulyou think female is better? why?10:46
wolfspraul2) the current J21 is male, and we need to keep compatibility. we should, I think.10:47
wolfsprauland I don't think we want to mix one male and one female10:47
cladamwsure, can't be one male and the other one is female, the J21 and J21+ can be liked WM4241-ND type.10:48
wolfspraulno10:48
wolfspraulcannot10:48
wolfspraulI think10:48
wolfspraulbecause that breaks compatibility with existing boards10:48
wolfspraulwe should not do that, unless we have a VERY GOOD REASON10:48
wolfspraulwhich I don't see10:49
wpwrakwhoa. catching up ...10:49
wolfspraulit doesn't matter that we have no existing users of expansion boards, keeping compatibility is a good exercise and necessary to kick this alive at some point10:49
wolfspraulwpwrak: good morning! :-)10:49
cladamwcompatibility with existing boards?10:49
wolfspraullots of chat :-)10:49
wolfspraulcladamw: yes10:49
cladamwno10:49
wolfspraulthat means, if someone makes an expansion board in the future, it should be easy to make that in such a way that it can also fit into rc3 or rc210:50
wolfspraulcladamw: now werner is back, give him a little time to catch up10:50
cladamwa header with conductive pins is worse than a receptacle one with holes to let user do application.10:50
cladamwsure sure.10:50
wolfspraulok, so you say a closed connector is safer?10:51
cladamwsee pictures carefully10:51
wolfspraulbecause one cannot accidentally short it?10:51
wolfspraulI just try to understand your argument, we are exchanging arguments here10:51
wolfspraulif we switch to female type, we break compatibility10:52
cladamwwhen user is doing somethings electrical experiments or exercises on U-shaped bridge.10:52
cladamwif using header like current J21 is worse than using a receptacle one like WM4241-ND.10:52
wolfspraulthat's a serious setback for anybody who is ever willing to actually make an expansion board10:52
wolfsprauland if we say "nobody has one anyway", then maybe it will also stay like that and we are better off removing the whole thing :-) (just kidding, I try to make a point about the value of backward compatibility)10:53
cladamwhttp://www.smartprojects.it/ like this, the receptacle female socket is better than using male headers. :-)10:55
cladamwi don't think rc4 needs to let m1 to be backward compatibility at all.10:56
wpwrak(#5) we can then also fully specify the expansion system, e.g., pin assignment (without having to look at the M1 schematics), space between headers, guaranteed clear space for the pcb, distance to the sidewall and position there (also in case a connector/conduit is desired), electrical characteristics (minimum assured current and such, ...10:56
cladamwwpwrak, good points.10:57
wolfspraulbreaking backward compatibility is a very risky move10:57
wolfspraulwe have zero users of the expansion boards right now10:57
wolfsprauland very few m1 users10:58
wolfspraulbut that is our breeding ground!10:58
wolfspraulif we break compatibility, it's like trampling over the small sees we have in place now10:58
wolfspraulvery risky10:58
wolfspraulseeds10:58
wolfspraulwpwrak: yes! fully specify expansion system, definitely10:59
wolfsprauldo you think all that greatness allows us to kick rc2/rc3 owners in the butt?10:59
wpwrak(#7, leds) we still need to specify a number of things, such as color and placement. also, we need to see if the whole concept actually looks right. among all the items we have, this is the least clearly defined one.10:59
cladamwfor far now, there's no one using J21, unless wener/christien paul / else? also the J21 can be moved to get more space.10:59
wolfspraulwait wait11:00
wolfspraulwerner is right11:00
wolfspraulwe need to specify something, and then people know those things won't change11:00
wolfspraulI wish we can keep those specs rc2/rc3 compatible11:00
wolfspraulbut maybe not?11:00
cladamwwith receptacle socket, user can easily insert through hole led directly into it to write codes for quick test/debugs, if using header which is not. :)11:06
wolfspraulyes I can see your point, let's see what Werner thinks11:06
wolfspraulI am just worried about compatibility11:07
wolfspraulis it possible to have some sort of female-female plug one can stick onto the current J21 to convert it to female?11:07
lekernelthere are exactly zero expansion boards atm, so screw compatibility11:07
wolfspraulthat's a sure way to guarantee that there will never be any11:08
wolfspraulthen we can also remove it entirely :-)11:09
lekernelthere are no expansion boards atm because the M1 popularity is abysmal, not because we broke compatibility or anything like that11:09
wolfspraulhow is that related? we discuss rc4 now11:11
lekernelso if you have a good reason to break expansion board compability, just do it. it's always going to be better than the current situation.11:12
wolfspraulnah. I protect the community we have now. if you want to start from zero because you think that's what will achieve 'popularity', you can try...11:13
wolfspraulif someone makes an expansion board one day, they will want it to be usable by the community we have now, no matter how small11:14
wolfspraulthat's how it can grow in fact11:14
wolfspraulcladamw: are you aware of female-female connectors one could plug into J21 to make it a receptable?11:14
wolfspraulmight become a little high then :-)11:15
wolfspraulI will wait for Werner's wisdoms11:15
wpwrak(J3 removal) i could see a point in keeping an access open (= DNP header) for audio signals. e.g., AUX and HP. don't need to keep all of J3, though11:19
wolfspraulyou mean just a few of the pads?11:19
wolfspraulwhich ones?11:20
wolfspraullekernel: btw, good news. we just sold 4 m1 to the US! :-)11:20
cladamwwolfspraul, sure, there's female receptacles on daughter board can be inserted to J21 male one.11:21
wpwrak(DNP header) or DNP headers. doesn't have to be combined. and i'd pick whatever space is the most convenient. e.g., close to the codec11:21
wolfsprauldon't understand11:21
wolfspraulyes, close to the codec. but do we need all the space for a 2*9 header?11:23
wolfspraulor much smaller/less pads?11:23
cladamwwolfspraul, but try to imagine one fact thing: an insertion work, if user put a dughter board with male pins to hook J21(receptacle) easy or a daughter board with female to hook J21(male) easy and not insert pins wrong. ;-)11:23
cladamwmaybe Werner can give more info & idea. ;-)11:24
wpwrak(J21 m/f) interesting idea. male headers should be quite a bit cheaper than female headers. that's a consideration for making boards. i.e., if the expensive part is on the M1, then the cost of making boards drops. also, it's easier to get a fitting male header (they come in cut-off strips) than a fitting female header (you need to buy one of about the right size)11:26
cladamwwpwrak, good point but trying to think one fact thing: if Arduino putted theirs with male type at the begining, the wider broadcast application maybe not so fast. ;-)11:30
cladamwwell, you got right points, cost problems. ;-)11:30
wpwraklekernel: you really need to learn to be more self-centered and more arrogant ;-) "popularity is abysmal". bah. we like it. YOU like it. you should be perfectly happy with that. all the people who matter like it. all objectives achieved ;-) the rest are just stupid. it's their loss :)11:31
wpwrak(current J21 users) adam and me, i guess. but just for experimental / ad hoc wiring, no real boards.11:33
wpwrak(j3 remnants) AUX* and HP* perhaps. plus ground. so that would be 2 pieces 1x3 or one piece 1x5 1x6, or 2x311:35
wpwrakcladamw: (J21 m/f) my cost argument goes in favour of equipping m1 with a female header :)11:37
cladamwwpwrak, ;-)11:38
cladamwwpwrak, so you prefer to downsize the pin numbers of J3 rather than DNP and remove?11:42
cladamwwpwrak, of course can be DNP J3 even rc4? is that your point?11:43
wpwrak(J3) downsize and DNP, maybe split, maybe move11:43
wpwrakso in case we want some board with audio or such, we could add connect to audio in or out with a 1x3 cable (after soldering a suitable header)11:45
cladamwwpwrak, got your points: so for examples: 2*3pins(downsize) ==> one CD L/R audio input, maybe the other is AUX L/R audio inputs if user still want.11:48
cladamwwolfspraul, did you get werner's J3 downsize idea?11:49
wpwraki'd make it audio in (e.g., CD or AUX) and out (HP). that is, provided these things still work that way. i remember that there was some quirk, but i'm not exactly sure what it was. (HP missing ?)11:49
wpwrakafk for a few minutes11:49
wolfspraulback11:49
cladamwthere's no HP out from wm970711:50
wolfspraullekernel: yesterday you mentioned a capacitive sensor button. do you have one in mind? url?11:50
cladamwwpwrak, so i think no need HP.11:50
wolfspraulI indeed would be very interested in something that can work through the acrylic, if it's robust/stable/cheap. one of my goals for rc4 is cost reduction...11:50
cladamwwpwrak, total three audio inputs(e.g., CD, AUX, Video) in rc3.11:52
wolfsprauldownsize *and* dnp j3 -> great11:54
wolfspraulyes, please only cut down to relevant pins11:54
wolfspraulswitch expansion headers to female -> I can accept that if Sebastien and Werner both have no problem with that or want it11:54
wolfspraulI will suck it up on the compatibility :-)11:55
wolfsprauland yes - wpwrak - I love m1, that's why i work on it every day. we stand here saying m1 and milkymist are technologies worth investing into, and more people will join for sure.11:55
wolfspraulcladamw: so go ahead, female11:57
wolfspraulmaybe Werner can write up the specs of the expansion system? seems only Werner can do that, or nobody11:57
wolfspraulbut from then on we *do* have to keep compatibility with that system11:58
cladamwwolfspraul, sure, I'll sum up or update this results here to known issue wiki pages.11:58
wolfspraulplease cut down J3 as much as possible11:59
wolfspraulgood idea11:59
wolfsprauland DNP11:59
cladamwyeah..let's DNP in rc4. ;-)11:59
wolfspraul*and* cut down to only the relevant pins11:59
cladamwyeah11:59
wolfspraulthat's a great idea, I like it12:00
wolfspraulbetter than removing the whole J312:00
cladamwyes12:00
whitequarkwhat's DNP?12:01
cladamwwhitequark, do not place the part. or do not mount but keep footprint in pcb12:02
whitequark(as per the capacitor buttons. I do not really know the issues which may arise in mass production, but these aren't hard to do with just an appropriately clocked atmega, some timing measurements, and a copper rectangle)12:03
wolfspraulscary, I definitely don't want to get into making such buttons myself now12:06
wolfspraulI want to buy them for 1 USD12:06
wolfspraulor if that's not possible - keep our current mechanical switches12:06
wpwraki suspect that you won't be able to find a "cap button" part. there may be some integrated ones (with electronics), but $$$ ...12:14
wpwrakthe mechanical button works quite well. all we need to solve is making the cap. clearly, a laser cutter is not the ideal tool for that.12:15
wolfspraulok then not12:15
wpwrakbut a cnc mill will do it with a a yawn :)12:15
wolfspraulI try to cost-down rc4, not cost-up12:15
wolfspraulso what have we decided on J3/J21 now12:16
wolfspraulJ3: reduce to just the necessary pins (seems 3 or so?), *and* DNP, *and* move closer to codec12:17
wolfspraulare the pins final?12:17
wpwrak(j3) move wherever it's most convenient for us.12:17
wolfspraulyes, sure12:17
wolfspraulcan we finalize the pins?12:17
wpwrak(pins) dunno which make sense. there are three groups: AUX, CD, "video". not sure how they differ internally12:18
wolfspraulyeah well12:20
wolfspraulwhy so many inputs? can there be outputs as well?12:28
wolfspraulI mean audio12:28
cladamwyes, the wm9707 equiped with those inputs plus two MICs, PCBEEP, PHONE, LINE-INs, LINE-OUT, MONO out, SPDIF out.12:31
cladamwthe original J3 in before is to keep them. :-)12:31
wolfspraulnone of which will ever be used, imho12:32
cladamwnow no need. ;-)12:32
cladamwyeah..but who knows. Since also we don't have U-shaped great idea to broadcast to extra-application. :)12:33
wolfspraulwpwrak: so we have 2 ways - find out which pins make sense, or remove J3 entirely12:35
wpwraki would keep some access12:37
wolfspraulnow we just need to decide which, then we can do it12:39
cladamwi can imagine like Werner can do daughter board  to access J3 & J21s to make great/or incredible cascade audio-in/out platform if he have time. ;-)12:40
cladamwwolfspraul, :-) sure decide now is hard though. ;-)12:41
wolfspraulif werner cannot decide, then I can decide12:41
cladamwhehe...:)12:42
wolfspraulindeed we are under no rush to decide now, actually12:42
wolfspraulbut if the reality is that nobody cares enough about J3 to actually look into which pins it should have, then we are all better off removing it12:43
wolfspraulI mean this in a positive way. there are many more interesting, Milkymist-related things on the board we can and should focus on.12:43
wolfspraulcladamw: I think you have enough input on schematic changes already, things that are clear & decided today, correct?12:44
wolfsprauland on J3 and J21, we will get some clarity soon, I feel we are close12:44
cladamwwolfspraul, l'll start to work on sch side.12:44
wpwraki was hoping that someone who already examined those chips would have an opinion. the codec seems to have a history, e.g., the evolution of that HP output. so i wonder what makes sense in the context of the full story.12:44
wolfspraulthat's the thing. I don't think anybody cares :-)12:44
wolfspraulso we are going in circles just keeping that thing in because of all the 'greatness', but nobody is even motivated to look into the greatnes12:45
wolfspraulthat's my feeling12:45
wolfspraulI certainly am not motivated.12:45
wolfspraul(to look into J3)12:45
wolfspraulI am only motivated to rip it out, unless the real owners step forward.12:46
wolfspraulhowever, we are close now. It's now DNP & cut down & move to convenient place.12:46
wolfspraul*almost*12:46
wolfspraulnow we only need to find out 'cut down to what?', and then we are done12:47
wpwrakmy minimum context pick would be to connect "AUX". that sounds nice and safe :)12:47
wolfspraulthat's just 1 pin? or 2?12:48
wpwrakone problem i have is also that i don't quite understand that floating ground of the CD group. is it meant to decouple grounds, which may be a good idea. or is there more to it ?12:48
wpwrakall choices are 3 pins. left, right, ground.12:49
cladamwwpwrak, why you mentioned HP? Since rc2 equiped with LM4550B then we changed to wm9707 in rc3 to get better low noise but no HP more.12:49
cladamw(j3) AUX_R/AUX_L/AUDIO_GND, done. ;-)12:50
cladamwso 1*3 2.54mm footprint. :)12:50
cladamwAre we done in J3: 2.54mm footprint with 1x3 pins ?12:51
wpwrakyeah, 100 mil sounds good12:51
cladamwyeah...more popular.12:52
wpwrak(HP) but the codec does seen to have an output. not sure what "line level" means12:54
wpwrak(HP output) so if that output does something useful, we should also make it available. can be on a separate connector12:55
cladamwyou meant LNLVLOUT(L & R).12:55
wpwrakyup12:57
wolfspraul5 pins now?12:58
wolfspraulaux (3 in) + lnlvout (2, or 3?)12:58
wpwrak(5 pins) depends. if they're on the same connector, then 5 pins will do. if they're separate (AUX and LNLVL are on opposite sides of the chip), each gets its own ground pin.13:00
wolfspraulsure we can do two 1*3 pads13:00
wolfspraulDNP13:00
cladamwwpwrak, if keep LNLVLs, the rest parts of C23 to C27 and R26/R27 still keep?13:03
cladamwwpwrak, or you want to directly route wires only to 1*3 pins?13:04
cladamw(two 1*3pins) there're seperate.13:07
wpwrakannoying. the 9707 seems to be the only wolfson chip with "line level" outputs. and they're not usefully documented.13:17
wpwrakdo we have a support channel ?13:17
cladamwcheck here to know the floating ground of CD inputs: http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Milkymist_One_Layout_Criteria#Audio_Codec13:25
wpwrakhmm. why would precision resistors be needed ?13:27
cladamwyour question on this was also my question before, so I surfed a bit then recorded there. but copied from somewhere? I think that I forgot. ;-)13:28
wpwrak;-)13:29
wpwraklet's try to catch joerg this evening. he may understand what they mean13:29
cladamwwpwrak, at that time I didn't dig into. Since at that moments , just tried to collect all layout criteria from web.13:30
cladamwyeah...he maybe know the reasons. ;-)13:30
GitHub118[migen] sbourdeauducq pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/milkymist/migen/commit/a6e5f3e76680f619b89aa47aaef77209ccb63aaa14:59
GitHub118[migen/master] flow: simplify actor fragment interface - Sebastien Bourdeauducq14:59
GitHub136[migen] sbourdeauducq pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/milkymist/migen/compare/a6e5f3e...077fd9f16:15
GitHub136[migen/master] record: return offset - Sebastien Bourdeauducq16:15
GitHub136[migen/master] actorlib: Wishbone DMA read master (WIP) - Sebastien Bourdeauducq16:15
--- Wed Jan 11 201200:00

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.9.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!