Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The EOMA68 Upgradeable ARM Board Faces Another Setback: HDMI Connectors Don't Fit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The EOMA68 Upgradeable ARM Board Faces Another Setback: HDMI Connectors Don't Fit

    Phoronix: The EOMA68 Upgradeable ARM Board Faces Another Setback: HDMI Connectors Don't Fit

    The EOMA68 computer card design was novel when first talked about for integerchangeable Arm-based computer cards that could also be installed within laptops and other devices. But even after being worked on for years and raising more than $234k USD, it's still not ready yet to see the light of day...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rade-ARM-Board

  • tuxd3v
    replied
    Originally posted by polarathene View Post

    I haven't looked into it further since it doesn't appear as accessible to develop for as a hobbyist. Presumably they meant a third at the lowest required not necessarily for achieving 12Gb/s, "power" wasn't defined in the citation either so it's quite vague. Perhaps they meant voltage or amperage(USB 2.0 outputs load units of 100mA up to 500mA and USB 3.0 150mA up to 900mA) could have been in wattage, for USB 2 that's what.. 500mW, if GreyBus was running [email protected], that'd be 165mW(third of the 500mA roughly).

    As a bus, that 12Gb/s would be distributed across all the connected modules, not 12Gb/s each(assuming there is a single controller managing all modules).
    Thanks for the clarification..
    Yeah, looking into it that way, it seems plausible to me.

    I read a bit about it, and one nice feature is exactly, what was described above, the capacity to 'shutdown' or "startup/enable/disable" or wherever a part of the phone, by software or Hardware, in a safety manner, or in a "atomic way"..

    But it seems to lack ASIC's implementing and driving it, I believe( maybe a advantage of other protocols out there.. ).

    Leave a comment:


  • polarathene
    replied
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    I didn't knew about GreyBUS 1/3 power consumption for ~12Gb/s,
    If that is true.. then USB doesn't make sense in a lot of places..
    I haven't looked into it further since it doesn't appear as accessible to develop for as a hobbyist. Presumably they meant a third at the lowest required not necessarily for achieving 12Gb/s, "power" wasn't defined in the citation either so it's quite vague. Perhaps they meant voltage or amperage(USB 2.0 outputs load units of 100mA up to 500mA and USB 3.0 150mA up to 900mA) could have been in wattage, for USB 2 that's what.. 500mW, if GreyBus was running [email protected], that'd be 165mW(third of the 500mA roughly).

    As a bus, that 12Gb/s would be distributed across all the connected modules, not 12Gb/s each(assuming there is a single controller managing all modules).

    Leave a comment:


  • tuxd3v
    replied
    Originally posted by polarathene View Post
    Yes, they didn't seem to make business sense for such a market. They require more physical space due to additional components and connecting them, and generally that's going to push up initial costs for a complete phone too. Likely reduces profit margins that can be had from selling a whole phone(as mass production of smaller components/blocks would likely be cheaper and thus more competitive), along with upgrades to newer products(Assuming you retain the customer for all parts), far more accessible to a customer than PC parts. Along with potential added support/maintenance/compatibility burden. Equivalent phone would have higher BOM and not perform as well or be able to have the same flexibility in design/aesthetics as an all-in-one model.
    Agree with that..

    Originally posted by polarathene View Post
    The technology though is still useful from a customer perspective, especially in other markets like we're discussing here. I don't know what the actually bandwidth can be, but the raw line width is apparently close to 12Gbit/s and lower power requirements than USB3. Even with overheads, that's probably still going to be ok.
    I believe that 12 Gb/s is already ok to a lot of things..
    Currently only USB3.2( over usb-c ) has 2 new SuperSpeed+ modes of 10Gb/s and 20Gb/s.
    usb4 will be 40+ Gb/s because it is based on thunderbolt3, and backwards compatible til usb2.0..

    USB is a very complicated protocol, once we program for it, we realise the complexity it is..

    I didn't knew about GreyBUS 1/3 power consumption for ~12Gb/s,
    If that is true.. then USB doesn't make sense in a lot of places..

    Leave a comment:


  • polarathene
    replied
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    The Unipro specification?
    I believe that GreyBUS, was the application Layer, L1-L4 of the OSI model..
    I believe it had a big Overhead.. but was created to be modular.

    Don' t know what happened with that Ideas/Project( Google brought what we know as project ara, to create a modular phone.. ).
    Initially I tough it would be a good Idea,
    But then Google also found out, that "selling parts", would prevent them from selling phones

    I think( not sure ), people wanted "modularity for free", but with it, comes complexity/bigger amount of processing power/big latency, which defeated the initial idea..
    Yes, they didn't seem to make business sense for such a market. They require more physical space due to additional components and connecting them, and generally that's going to push up initial costs for a complete phone too. Likely reduces profit margins that can be had from selling a whole phone(as mass production of smaller components/blocks would likely be cheaper and thus more competitive), along with upgrades to newer products(Assuming you retain the customer for all parts), far more accessible to a customer than PC parts. Along with potential added support/maintenance/compatibility burden. Equivalent phone would have higher BOM and not perform as well or be able to have the same flexibility in design/aesthetics as an all-in-one model.

    The technology though is still useful from a customer perspective, especially in other markets like we're discussing here. I don't know what the actually bandwidth can be, but the raw line width is apparently close to 12Gbit/s and lower power requirements than USB3. Even with overheads, that's probably still going to be ok.

    > They created a proprietary port, but one that uses an open standard, UniPro. The phone has six, and each one can push up to 11.9 gigabits of data per second, in both directions. Ara chief Richard Woolridge spits out crazy edit-video-while-you-computer-vision use cases, but says the spec boils down to this: It can handle anything. And it only consumes a third as much power as USB 3. - Source

    Mostly I just like the magnetic lock(electropermanent magnet) with capacitive data/power connection. I've seen it used for a Microsoft backed IoT education product(they were modules in hexagon shapes that I saw demonstrated in a Chinese expo last year, but rather expensive), and another one is from Seeedstudio with Grove Zero: https://www.chmakered.com/GroveZero

    Leave a comment:


  • tuxd3v
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
    I think the important innovations here that LKCL was trying to reach were:
    So it seems to me that something the size of a PCMCIA card could have all the connectivity required through a single USB type C connection. An external gadget could convert to HDMI and all of the other necessary connector types.
    I believe that today is easier to go USB-C than in the past..
    USB-C is now a standard used by the market..
    Probably if the project had get tremendous impetus, we would be now seeing the second iteration of it, with USB-C, and probably a Allwinner H6 on it, clocked @1.8Ghz, which would be a big jump in possibilities, with a low power CPU

    Dreaming is free, or almost

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael_S
    replied
    I think the important innovations here that LKCL was trying to reach were:

    1. The complete hardware device spec would be open under a copyleft license, so any person or company could produce and sell the devices. Raspberry Pi, Pine64, Orange Pi, and other SoCs do not - as far as I know - do that.

    2. The focus on reusable components. Your laptop chassis or mini-desktop chassis could last 15 or more years, and you just upgrade your tiny EOMA68 device. That's better for you financially and also cuts down on e-waste.

    It may be a colossal failure, but I think both ideas are worth pursuing. Big corporations will never pursue either idea. An open spec allows other companies to compete more directly, which cuts margins. Apple, Google, Dell, Samsung, etc... would rather sell you a $700 laptop every four years instead of a $500 chassis once and then a $200 card every four years.

    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
    Which is exactly why this project is beyond stupid. It effectively is 1980’s thinking and dismisses the reality of SoC technology.

    The fact of the matter is that any viable solution like this needs to have the majority majority of the ports the user might want on the module. Frankly you would want the common ports coming out of the SoC available to power the device and support connecting to a user.
    I'm far from a hardware expert, but my work laptop connects to a docking station that connects to two full HD monitors and four USB 2.0 ports through a single USB type C connector. And it charges through the same connector, too.

    So it seems to me that something the size of a PCMCIA card could have all the connectivity required through a single USB type C connection. An external gadget could convert to HDMI and all of the other necessary connector types.

    Leave a comment:


  • tuxd3v
    replied
    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    You mean the EOMA68 where people print replacement parts with a 3d Printer, but are unable to open the chassis or a trapdoor and change a module with a PCIe-like connector?
    I don't know if I understood you..
    I am talking about the board of the article..

    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    There are more similarities than differences. Heck, just develop a Metal casing for SMARC and your argument is completely moot...
    I understood your point,
    But what you want is not the same concept as the EOMA68..

    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    Not that I know of. The idea behind it is that Arm/Opensource Devices typically are lowerend throughout. Id like to have a chassis with a good monitor, good keyboard and be able to use an ARM (or RISC-V) module.
    (If I can go completely crazy: Imagine having a TV with slots for 4 such cards, and you could plugin "PCs" or console boards there.)
    Just search for them..
    there are MXM graphic cards( ex: for laptops.. )
    There are carriers and modules for small computers( more for embedded.. )

    But I think a complete up-gradable solution doesn't exist, at least that I know of in ARM..
    I know that there are solutions like that, for MIPS32r5, but for All-in-one, or small mini-ITX like format..

    You were the one speaking about SMARC.. of curse you should have some knowledge about..?!

    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    I am not sure the advantages of unplugging the CPU card daily is something alot people are wishing for. Even less if they have peripherals hanging physically on that card (really.. what were they thinking).
    That will depend, on what your needs are..
    I for instance cold like the idea, of unplug it for launch, and get it with me..
    If you shutdown the computer, there are no peripherals hanging..

    It all depends, what you like/need..
    Last edited by tuxd3v; 08-31-2019, 08:47 PM. Reason: typos..

    Leave a comment:


  • discordian
    replied
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    I see that you are looking into a different type of device..

    You are looking into a device that:
    You can configure, with some effort, but then its there with a module, until you go ahead and have the trouble to substitute it by another one..

    There are Already Solutions using that idea, with SMARC/COM Express/others..
    They are very good Ideas, but are not for the same target application that EOMA68 is..
    You mean the EOMA68 where people print replacement parts with a 3d Printer, but are unable to open the chassis or a trapdoor and change a module with a PCIe-like connector?

    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    You can change SMARC/COM/etc when you want to, but not with same simplicity and easy as PCMCIA.. they are different!!
    There are more similarities than differences. Heck, just develop a Metal casing for SMARC and your argument is completely moot...
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    SMARC/COM/etc could work nice in a Laptops too( in fact there are already solutions for that in the market...),
    But even tough they are upgradable, they follow the Same concept as Ram Memory Dimms.. you need to "pull some dirty tricks", not the same concept.
    Not that I know of. The idea behind it is that Arm/Opensource Devices typically are lowerend throughout. Id like to have a chassis with a good monitor, good keyboard and be able to use an ARM (or RISC-V) module.
    (If I can go completely crazy: Imagine having a TV with slots for 4 such cards, and you could plugin "PCs" or console boards there.)

    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    But its an alternative concept, harder to change, and made not to change frequently as PCMCIA..
    I am not sure the advantages of unplugging the CPU card daily is something alot people are wishing for. Even less if they have peripherals hanging physically on that card (really.. what were they thinking).

    Leave a comment:


  • tuxd3v
    replied
    Originally posted by discordian View Post
    And why would that be the case?
    1. Either everything is on board, then the carrier only has the physical endpoints (Phy's/magnetics)
    2. Or you can extend the board via PCIe (in some cases I2c or other busses)
    SMARC covers alot usecases already, a Laptop using SMARC could be done today, with a choice between ARM and x86 boards.
    I fail to see why EOMA68 has any advantage.
    (..)
    No it gives you more, if the EOMA68 card is supposed to carry a fixed amount of connectors (as far as I understand) and you would not need different CPU module configurations (=connectors) for different appliances.
    I see that you are looking into a different type of device..

    You are looking into a device that:
    You can configure, with some effort, but then its there with a module, until you go ahead and have the trouble to substitute it by another one..

    There are Already Solutions using that idea, with SMARC/COM Express/others..
    They are very good Ideas, but are not for the same target application that EOMA68 is..

    You can change SMARC/COM/etc when you want to, but not with same simplicity and easy as PCMCIA.. they are different!!

    SMARC/COM/etc could work nice in a Laptops too( in fact there are already solutions for that in the market...),
    But even tough they are upgradable, they follow the Same concept as Ram Memory Dimms.. you need to "pull some dirty tricks", not the same concept.

    But its an alternative concept, harder to change, and made not to change frequently as PCMCIA..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X