JTAG connector part # for Beagle Play

I was not suggesting that the part be loaded. This would be an end-user installed item, as it was on previous Beagles being only a fraction of the cost of the Tag-Connect.

Maybe I am missing something but I believe the Wurth footprint is SMALLER than JTAG-AM62 on the image below based on the respective datasheets. Am I looking at the correct footprint? I get 22mm2 roughly for the Tag-Connect:

And for the Wurth I get 21.59mm2

Put it in place of this:

image

Thinking layer3 is the only layer that would need some changes. Traces would need to be shifted to left/right. If this design was in KiCad I could change this for you:-) Also, I am not requesting that the other JTAG connector be changed, just the AM62.

Sorry, but I’m not letting you get away with that comparison @jkridner :slight_smile: .

My experience is that the Tag-Connect without clips is quite unreliable for development work without a custom jig to hold things in place. It’s fine for one time programming tasks or a rare firmware update, but for debugging it just doesn’t work reliably even for much smaller SoCs. Even our holding jigs had to go througn several iterations to make it “reliable enough”.

So, a “real” comparison is against the Tag-Connect with clips. A footprint for a “full” 10-pin through hole is 6.4mm long x 3.4mm wide. (21.7 mm^2) A footprint for a “full” 10-pin SMT connector is 6.4mm long by 6.3mm wide (40.3 mm^2)–the advantage being no through holes to obstruct other layer routing.

See: https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/FCI%20PDFs/Minitek%20127_Catalog.pdf

A Tag-Connect without clips is 7.62mm long x 2.069mm wide (15.7 mm^2). A Tag-Connect with clips is 8.91mm long x 7.62mm wide (67.8 mm^2).

My smattering of dev boards concurs with this. Their one-shot interfaces are either 10-pin SMT .050", Tag-Connect, or custom solder pads. However, their debug probe interfaces are all 10-pin SMT .050" with one exception that is Tag-Connect with clips.

I’m a big believer in .100" through hole. However, if you simply can’t stomach that, then the standard CoreSight 10 10-pin .050" ARM debug connector is really the way to go for debug ports.

I do understand that part of this is cost transfer as everybody continues to get stung by everybody whining that the RPis are “cheaper” than a BeagleBone in spite of them being totally unavailable (I sympathize). So, you’d like to 1) not populate the footprint but 2) allow people to run a debug probe on these boards without having to pull out a soldering iron and 3) only charge those people who are actually using a debug probe. Only a Tag-Connect with clips hits that point.

Unfortunately, the Tag-Connect cables are sufficiently expensive (about $50) and fragile that I just see you irritating everybody. Those of us who are used to this will just roll our eyes and buy the cable and wish you’d used a standard .050" connector. Those who aren’t used to this will probably duck the cable and try to solder to the pads anyway to save the $50. And those who need reliability will pull out a soldering iron to avoid the problems with Tag-Connect.

So, the only people who would be well-served are those who aren’t sensitive to a $50 cable and don’t easily lean into soldering on a connector. In return you are inflicting a slightly flaky debug connection on them.

You have better feedback on this than I do, but I’m just not seeing this.

I think 0.1" (2.54mm) is out of reach. 0.05" (1.27mm) is worth considering if it can fit.

I’ll look into something like Documentation – Arm Developer.

1 Like

I’m not particularly against the TagConnect and have used the TC2030 for various MSP430 boards. However it seems particularly awkward to use with the BeaglePlay.

I bought an XDS-110 debugger when experimenting with the PRU on the BeagleBone Black and that works just fine once the header’s soldered on. The TC-2050 cable is fairly expensive for what it is, but then it seems there’s no easy way to connect the TC-2050 to the XDS-110. Of course it’s possible to spin up an adapter board, but that seems unnecessary and a bit clunky - especially when you’re using the official TI debugger for the Sitara.

I’ve looked at this connector, and I don’t see detents on the beagle play that actually let you attach the connector securely.

Thoughts on how this should be secured?

This is the 2050 - note the hooks are expected to plug into something?

I don’t see any way to solder on a header - at least with the tools I have.
Perhaps some solder paste and heat the entire post ?
For reference further down (another comment posting) showing the TC-2050 cable and beagleplay JTAG contacts.
Ideas - thanks.

These are spring loaded… I use: TC2050-IDC-NL Tag-Connect LLC | Development Boards, Kits, Programmers | DigiKey + TC2050-CLIP-3PACK Tag-Connect LLC | Development Boards, Kits, Programmers | DigiKey

Then they just stay in place…

Regards,

As Robert mentioned, the NL (no leg) version can be used. I don’t bother with the clips and just hold it in place when I need to.

When I was trying out the BeaglePlay I used an XDS110 and a custom adapter between the XDS-110 and the TC2050-IDC-NL TagConnect cable. I could successfully detect the BeaglePlays’ CC1352 in Code Composer Studio. However, I didn’t have any luck with the Sitara on the BeaglePlay or the CC1352 on the BeagleConnect Freedom.

Thanks for the feedback. I see why the pins on the no clip connectors are angled a bit - that’s what holds the TC2050 connectors in place. Newer way to do this, but 50 bucks .vs. 2x5 header is a bit much, but savings over the entire number of BeaglePlays purchased (consumer product) may be worth it.

I object this non-sense copper tips (connectors) on such a large board!
We do not need to minimize everything!

The most possible reason is: Seeed studio receives big commission from tageconnect! :money_mouth_face:

I want my ARM Cortex debug connectors back!!! :rage:

1 Like