Tag Archives: TI

Beagle-Not-Board

Posted on by

I wandered over to the TI booth at the Embedded Systems Conference to check out the Beaglebone and the MSP430 Launchpad. We haven’t built any Beaglebones yet, but a few years back we took the Open source Beagleboard files and built up a couple to show our package-on-package (PoP) workmanship. The Beaglebone doesn’t use PoP, but it is open source. As are the “Capes.” They call their expansion cards capes. I get a vision of Underdog when I hear that name.

What caught my eye was their selection of Capes available now.
0328121210
All of those are open source. They provide functionality such as displays, battery power, CAN, prototyping and more.

The other product I looked at was the MSP430 Launchpad. I’ve been getting to know the launchpad myself and wanted to see what’s new with it. 0328121213The unit shown here has a DSP and a little display driven by the MSP430. It’s a MP3 player with the purpose of introducing the DSP and MSP430 / DSP combination.

TI is doing an amazing job of making evaluation of its chips easy and inexpensive. I’ve seen a few other companies providing more complete and less expensive than traditional dev boards as well. NXP with their LPC series to name one. It’s a good idea and a good trend as far as I’m concerned.

Duane Benson
Robots good. Neurotic thermonuclear devices bad.

http://blog.screamingcircuits.com/

 

Open Source: What Is It Good For?

Posted on by

I’ve written about open source hardware (OSHW) a few times before. Like this and this. I’ve understood open source software for quite some time and over the past few years have been starting to get what open source hardware is all about. It is different than open source software.

With software, your tangible product is essentially intangible. Your acquisition and distribution of an open source project can be virtually free. Not so with hardware. Someone has to physically build something, which costs time and money in parts and labor. Really though, all that means is the proliferation of an open source hardware product just takes a little longer. If you look at it as the design being open source more than the actual product, then it gets to be more and more similar to software.

While open source software has moved into real business, hardware is still more closely associated with the hobbyist community. That is changing though. TI’s Beagleboard is serious stuff from a serious company. Some of the hobbyist catering OSHW companies are growing to or have grown to the point of being serious businesses (Adafruit, Sparkfun).

This all begs the question: “What is open source hardware good for?” Let’s divide and conquer. Or, at least, divide and explain.

  • What does it do for innovation?

History is rife with stories of great inventions that were not commercially successful because the inventor was a good inventor but was a lousy business person, didn’t have access to funding or just didn’t have the drive to build, promote and sell the product.

With OSHW, companies that do have the drive, funding and know-how can pick up an open source project from a developer that doesn’t.  There are none of the IP concerns that sometimes keep big companies from taking on product from independent inventors. Great products that otherwise would stay hidden can make it out in the world.

Some OSHW companies, like Adafruit, compensate the designers whose product they sell. No marketing or selling expense for the designer and yet money comes in to them. Much reduced design expense for the seller, yet they can build a business.

  • What does it do for small companies?

It’s another way to jump-start design or production of products that will fund the small business. It can reduce the barriers to entry. People who are good at designing but not so good at selling can still earn money. People who are not so good at designing but good at selling can earn a living. People who are good at both designing and selling — they have the best of both worlds and can earn a living. Products that would otherwise stay in obscurity can more easily make it to the world.

  • What can it do for big companies?

The answer to this question has been the longest in coming, but there are more and more answers showing up. Take the Beagleboard from Texas Instruments. It got a new processor (the OMAP) out into the hands of their customers quickly. It was a great promotional tool. The software side of an organization could get started with the processor without having to wait for the hardware folks to design, layout and build the hardware. The hardware folks could see how the part and its accessories work in real life.

OMAP users could get a jump-start on complex tasks like escape routing. The manufacturing folks could get some insight and practice into assembling the package on package processor / memory combination. design cycles are short enough as it is. Companies that want to use the TI processor get professionally designed short-cuts. TI gets to sell more processors quicker. Everyone wins.

Duane Benson
It doesn’t mean destruction

http://blog.screamingcircuits.com/

Who’s Right?

Posted on by

Jack commented on my prior post, An Unanswered Question. His point was that instead of just saying “check with the manufacturer’s datasheet”, like I so often suggest when talking about land patterns, I should give more credit to the IPC and understand that many datasheets are the result of less-than-thorough study. That’s a very good point.

The challenge is that some manufacturers do a great job of figuring out how to use their packages, such as TI with its Package-on-Package (PoP) OMAP, or Freescale with some of its ZiBee chips. u-blox has done a good job of documenting paste mask requirement for its castellated mounting configuration, too. On the other hand, some other manufacturers seem to have cut-and-paste part of an old datasheet without even giving it a once-over. As Jack mentioned, with some of the newer packages, IPC doesn’t always have the data yet. I didn’t see that IPC-7351B covers 0.4mm pitch BGAs yet. It does do a good job of covering the need to segment the solder paste stencil over a QFN center pad, which I also have written about more than a few times.

I guess my thinking is that the part manufacturer should be the best equipped to tell us how to use their components. To Jack’s point though, that would be in an ideal world. But, reality rarely holds up to the ideal. Some manufacturers do quite well and some seem to virtually forget that they even made the part once it’s out of the development labs. IPC does a very good job but isn’t necessarily the most current. Then, of course, some manufacturers don’t follow IPC guidelines. Board fab houses and stencil makers have a lot of good data too, but also aren’t always up to date (nor are assembly houses).

I suspect that I get a little cynical on this subject in general because we see so many diversions from standard come through our shop. The designers, by and large, would much prefer to lay out their boards for greatest manufacturing success, but so many of them have a very difficult time finding the necessary data.

In some ways, I think the environment is getting better. More people seem aware of the need for good standards and to follow those standards. IPC seems to be pretty quick in adding in newer packages. The IPC land pattern generator is a big help. But the proliferation of new parts in new form-factors negates a lot of that gain.

Duane Benson
I’m not convinced that in net, this post has any actual content.

http://blog.screamingcircuits.com/

A Sad Cure for Inventory Glut?

Posted on by

If there is a silver lining from last week’s devastating earthquake in Japan, it could be that component inventories will be dwindled, thus relieving the industry of a possible oversupply problem.

Many chipmakers and others are saying the quake will hurt their ability to produce and supply parts for one to two quarters. TI, Freescale and Toshiba are among those who have closed or reduced production at their Japanese factories.

Research firm iSuppli of late has been warning of possible overinventory situation, and no one needs reminding of the pain involved to drain an oversupply glut. As of Dec. 31, semiconductor suppliers held 83.6 days worth of inventory (DOI), up 5.5 days sequentially. The last time the DOI was this high was June 30, 2008, or just before the last semiconductor downturn, iSuppli says.

It’s just possible, however, that the forced shutdowns could ease some pricing pressure and concerns for a correction as assemblers burn through existing inventories.

This much is clear: spot prices for memory and certain other parts are bound to rise in the near-term. If Japan can’t bring its factories back online soon, they may even stay there.