The BB is still a very cool powerful and low-power device and I intend
to work it into my (robotics/wearable) projects as soon as I’m able.
Thinking of robotics, it’d be nice is a variant were available in which all large pitch, high clearance connectors were shipped with the device, but not stuffed (S-Video, JTAG, Power, RS232, USB Host, and possible others depending on their clearance). I think this has already been mentioned, I’d just like to second it.
What would you pay for such a configuration built in small qauntities?
Gerald
I’d probably be willing to pay an extra $20 to avoid the hassle and risk of desoldering connectors to get a lower overall clearance. My hope was that these components were not placed by the pick and place machine and were placed manually.
While this is true, it is then a separate board to be tracked. Plus, the test program that is used will need to be changed to not test the parts depopulated. Unfortunately, the RS232 port is the main port used for the test. That means a test jig would need to be created to allow for the connection to the serial port. Then if you decided that there may be chance that these could be populated later by the user, then the jig would need to be created to support these unpopulated devices.
Unless we were able to sell a lot of these to cover the additional NRE required. it would be tough to justify. I would think that if we could sell say 500+ of these per year, it might make sense to offer this, but Idon’t think DigiKey would be interested in taking this on. I may have another company that might do it, if the qauntities were there.
Gerald
Can you designate a group of connectors / components as not required
for deeply embedded systems, then locate them on part of the PCB that
can be broken away, but also leave the pads for two mating connectors
so they can be reconnected late by adding the connectors. Much like
Raisonance did with their RKit / JTag boards ? That way, one board,
not much extra cost and we could detach some hardware that may not
be used in a project like robotics / wearable computers.
I would like to see the raw USB signals on the expansion header. I am
thinking if I need to level convert GPIO pins, I might as well just make
it an expansion board with a 5v tolerant processor.. Much like the
Beagle Bot project.. Once I am there the most efficient board to
board interface would probably be USB... Being able to snap two
boards together would be cleaner than having them tied together
with a USB cable..
John Gentilin
Gerald Coley wrote:
John Gentilin wrote:
Can you designate a group of connectors / components as not required
for deeply embedded systems,
can you?
Sure. But will it fit everybody’s needs? Most likely not. We have no plans to turn Beagle into a custom platform for dozens of groups with different needs. It makes no business sense and it will be expensive. Please keep in mind that Beagle is a volunteer effort. All of us at TI have full time jobs and we do the Beagle stuff on the side. We do not have a full time staff to manage and make all of these different products for people.
All of the information to build a Beagle like board is provided for free and is totally open source. Anybody can build the Beagle like board. You cannot use the Beagle logo is the only limitation we place on the design.
Gerald
We could, but why? Who pays for the NRE to make this new board? Beagle is a volunteer effort. There is no company behind Beagle Board. TI is sponsor in that they sell us TI parts at a discount to help the effort and it is a BIG help. But we have no budeget for spinning a bunch of different boards. Why do we not have abudget? Because we make no money off the sell of the Beagle boards. They are sold to D/K at our cost.
Gerald
Hi Gerald,
Sorry about that I was just tossing out ideas based on other suggestions
out there.. doing what I can to participate in the community effort. The
effort that TI and you are putting into the Beagle Board is greatly
appreciated.
There seems to be some discussion around reducing power and some
components. I was just thinking that on the next rev, separate the
components into two segments core / peripheral where the peripheral
section can be "broken away" from the core section.. It's still one board,
there may be some additional PCB manufacturing costs, but no additional
component / assembly / test costs. Now the discussion of what is core vs
peripheral is a whole other can of worms.. 
The USB suggestion was just a matter of convenience
Thank you
John Gentilin
Gerald Coley wrote:
Don’t misintepret what I am saying. I like the ideas. But the issue here is as much a busines/logistical issue as anything. I have LOTS of ideas of my own. They are sitting in a folder on my PC called “Wild Dreams”. I just have a habit of being honest and trying to let everyone in on the story as to the reality of what we have here. Beagleboard.org is unique in the way that it is set up and as a result has some unique challenges. BeagleBoard.org is an all volunteer effort. TI is a sponsor and they help out a lot by giving us discounts on parts and helping with publicity and promotion, but that is the extent of it. It takes a lot to keep this effort going and keep production running. I am getting beat up daily because we cannot keep DigiKey stocked because of the last changes that we made.
As to the power changes, I am OK with this. Some of these ideas I already dismissed in the initial design because at the time we needed to be compatible with our other internal platforms because I wanted to make the effort happen and that was a requirement placed on us by TI that we be compatible. Sometimes you do what you have to do.
I aready have the changes I want to make as I have said. The problem is timing. I can’t just spin another board at the moment. For one, we have no funds for a respin just to make these changes. They can only go in when a more “substantial” change is being implemented. So, I have to save these changes for a point when the other changes are being made, such as going for more memory and more MIPS, the MIPS potentially being a new OMAP device. Now, before you all get too happy, that is a LONG way down the road, and it is unclear at this point if it will even happen. Hence my delima.
The other factor here is layers on the PCB=cost. I don’t have much room to make a lot of etch changes without affecting the integrity of the current layout and still keep it at 6 layers. More layers equals more cost. Since the initial release of the board we have doubled the memory, added the LCD I/F, and added USB EHCI and not raised the price of the board. So, at this point we are breakeven.
So, as long as everyone understands what our goal is, low cost MIPs and memory, we should be OK. I will work to get as many of these changes as possible that make sense, into the next revision, whenever that may end up being. But, I am not looking to make any drastic changes in the overall design of the board. So, we will take the easy “free” changes and run with them if we can. Having said all that, we may still be faced with a price increase on that next revision to keep up with the costs.
I hope everyone understands the situation.
Gerald
Gerald Coley wrote:
Sure. But will it fit everybody's needs? Most likely not.
Well, that was what I was trying to say, asking 10 people what
they want the board to be you will get >=10 answers. 
For me the BB should always stay a low cost entry level platform,
"specialized" versions are for others to design, as you say all
the info needed is there.
Regards,
Vladimir