good day guys, do you know if some company just sells the dsp board of the ti's EZ-DSP STARTER KIT FOR F2812? thank you.
ti's EZ-DSP STARTER KIT FOR F2812 -> just the board
Started by ●May 29, 2008
Reply by ●May 29, 20082008-05-29
On May 29, 8:53 am, "kathlyn_uy" <kcharma...@gmail.com> wrote:> do you know if some company just sells the dsp board of the ti's EZ-DSP > STARTER KIT FOR F2812? thank you.What are you trying to avoid paying for, the power supply? I think one of the reasons these boards are expensive is that there's a 510 pod on the board. It's actually cheaper than a 510 pod stand alone, but they still want money for that capability. (And incidentally, if you really want to, you can adapt the board into a 510 pod workable with a comparable chip on your own board)
Reply by ●May 29, 20082008-05-29
cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:> >>do you know if some company just sells the dsp board of the ti's EZ-DSP >>STARTER KIT FOR F2812? thank you. > > > What are you trying to avoid paying for, the power supply?The professional amateurs use the eval boards to control hardware instead of designing a board of their own. This is what they call "system integration". It is not so fun when it comes to production. :)))))> I think one of the reasons these boards are expensive is that there's > a 510 pod on the board. It's actually cheaper than a 510 pod stand > alone, but they still want money for that capability. > (And incidentally, if you really want to, you can adapt the board into > a 510 pod workable with a comparable chip on your own board)Why do you need a 510 pod? Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●May 30, 20082008-05-30
On May 29, 12:28 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky> The professional amateurs use the eval boards to control hardware > instead of designing a board of their own. This is what they call > "system integration". It is not so fun when it comes to production.That's true. I suppose there might be a market for a board with just the CPU. We always have enough other stuff we need that we go ahead and make one, though prototyping using the board from the previous product is common...> Why do you need a 510 pod?To take advantage of all the nice in-circuit jtag-based debug capability TI built into the chip? Because that's the easiest way to program the on chip flash during development? Sure, you can get code into them other ways. And you can find other ways to debug, including proving your program correct before it ever hits hardware. But in the real world, the capability is there, might as well put the necessary header on the board unless you are extremely space constrained and can't even fit the signals on a miniaturized version.
Reply by ●May 30, 20082008-05-30
cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:> On May 29, 12:28 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky > >>The professional amateurs use the eval boards to control hardware >>instead of designing a board of their own. This is what they call >>"system integration". It is not so fun when it comes to production. > > That's true. I suppose there might be a market for a board with just > the CPU.This is a dead end. Trying to make a sellable product as a pile of evaluation boards, reference designs and the googled opensource junk reflects the insufficient resources and the general lack of talent and experience.> We always have enough other stuff we need that we go ahead > and make one, though prototyping using the board from the previous > product is common...Building a hardware is not much of a problem, compared to the other parts of the development.> >>Why do you need a 510 pod? > > To take advantage of all the nice in-circuit jtag-based debug > capability TI built into the chip? Because that's the easiest way to > program the on chip flash during development?For F28xx, the easiest way to program the flash is by the RS232 bootloader. BTW, for some reason the flash programming is amazingly slow on those chips.> Sure, you can get code into them other ways. And you can find other > ways to debug, including proving your program correct before it ever > hits hardware.I prefer the old style debug by the printouts to a terminal, toggling LEDs and output the waveforms.> But in the real world, the capability is there, might > as well put the necessary header on the board unless you are extremely > space constrained and can't even fit the signals on a miniaturized > version.My motto is "eliminate the unnecessary" Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●May 30, 20082008-05-30
On May 30, 10:25 am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:> This is a dead end. Trying to make a sellable product as a pile of > evaluation boards, reference designs and the googled opensource junk > reflects the insufficient resources and the general lack of talent and > experience.If you are headed for high volume production, then you need an optimized solution. If you are making 5-10 of something (and there are high value, fast schedule orders like that out there), then you need something that is fully capable of doing the job, and you need to spend your time writing software and telling the techs how to connect the wiring harnesses, not shepherding a board layout and waiting on a board house. Yes, you can get a new board in your hands from concept inside a week, but it's often a stressful week that you really need to spend working on something else. And half that time, the area around the micro/DSP is a cut and paste from the reference design anyway. So if there's something suitable available - especially if it's something you already manufacture - then it's often good to use that rather than start over.
