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
SHARC development -- VisualDSP++ is pretty much the only game in town, right?
Started by ●June 3, 2011
Reply by ●June 8, 20112011-06-08
Reply by ●June 9, 20112011-06-09
"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