SHARC development -- VisualDSP++ is pretty much the only game in town, right?

Thanks Al, that's (another) very useful post!

The USB/FT2232H bootloader approach you guys used on some of the modules looks 
like a really good idea.

Are there any pictures on the web site of the smaller production modules? --  
The ones at, e.g., 
http://www.danvillesignal.com/dspblok/dspblok-21469usb-analog-devices-adsp-21469-sharc-dsp-module.html 
are the full-sized ones AFAICT.

---Joel

"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9ROHp.19283$GN5.15382@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com: 

> Thanks Al, that's (another) very useful post!
> 
> The USB/FT2232H bootloader approach you guys used on some of the modules
> looks like a really good idea.
> 
> Are there any pictures on the web site of the smaller production
> modules? --  The ones at, e.g., 
> http://www.danvillesignal.com/dspblok/dspblok-21469usb-analog-devices-ads
> p-21469-sharc-dsp-module.html are the full-sized ones AFAICT.
> 
> ---Joel
> 
> 

The debugger versions are 60mm x 140mm, the production versions are 60mm x 
60mm. They are pin compatible (although obviously the debugger module takes 
more space).

The pictures on the page show each type.

In some cases, it would have been possible to make even a smaller module. The 
catch is that we try to make our modules largely pin compatible. Since some 
have FPGAs or MCUs or larger FSP packages, the 60mm x 60mm size is practical.

We also opted for 2mm headers so that the companion boards can be less 
expensive and easier to layout. The DSP boards require more layers and finer 
pitch. We also have addressed some of the trickier design problems such as 
DDR2 routing.

Al Clark
www.danvillesignal.com