Talk:FOSS Programmer - Revision history

Robertbaruch: /* cr1901 */

2018-12-31T04:36:58Z

cr1901

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:36, 31 December 2018
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:I like the idea of RISC-V on FPGA as a base, especially since gcc supports RISC-V now, as long as it uses a very popular FPGA. I'm a bit less enthusiastic about Greenpak -- mainly because I don't know anything about it. Like, are they in the habit of discontinuing chips older than like 5 years? --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)		:I like the idea of RISC-V on FPGA as a base, especially since gcc supports RISC-V now, as long as it uses a very popular FPGA. I'm a bit less enthusiastic about Greenpak -- mainly because I don't know anything about it. Like, are they in the habit of discontinuing chips older than like 5 years? --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

	:[https://github.com/cliffordwolf/picorv32 picorv32] on a [https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=LFE5U-25F LFE5U-25F] would probably be viable. The LFE5U-25F is already on the [https://tinyfpga.com/ TinyFPGA] EX prototypes, and is supported by [http://www.clifford.at/yosys/ yosys]. The sticky part is the pin driver: do we want all 40 pins capable of N types of voltages? We could just start with the drivers found in the TL866. As for USB, there are some [https://lcsc.com/search?q=ch340 very cheap FTDI alternatives] out there that could make USB easy. I've worked with FTDI chips, but I haven't tried the cheaper ones. --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)		:[https://github.com/cliffordwolf/picorv32 picorv32] on a [https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=LFE5U-25F LFE5U-25F] would probably be viable. The LFE5U-25F is already on the [https://tinyfpga.com/ TinyFPGA] EX prototypes, and is supported by [http://www.clifford.at/yosys/ yosys]. The sticky part is the pin driver: do we want all 40 pins capable of N types of voltages? We could just start with the drivers found in the TL866. As for USB, there are some [https://lcsc.com/search?q=ch340 very cheap FTDI alternatives] out there that could make USB easy. I've worked with FTDI chips, but I haven't tried the cheaper ones.

			:My thought is that we could start small and easy: just use similar pin drivers to the TL866, use an Atmel ATMega as the main processor, add a cheap USB interface chip, and get a minimum viable product. Then start changing things out to support greater capabilities. --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Robertbaruch: /* cr1901 */

2018-12-31T04:30:09Z

cr1901

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 31 December 2018
Line 17:		Line 17:

	:I like the idea of RISC-V on FPGA as a base, especially since gcc supports RISC-V now, as long as it uses a very popular FPGA. I'm a bit less enthusiastic about Greenpak -- mainly because I don't know anything about it. Like, are they in the habit of discontinuing chips older than like 5 years? --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)		:I like the idea of RISC-V on FPGA as a base, especially since gcc supports RISC-V now, as long as it uses a very popular FPGA. I'm a bit less enthusiastic about Greenpak -- mainly because I don't know anything about it. Like, are they in the habit of discontinuing chips older than like 5 years? --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

			:[https://github.com/cliffordwolf/picorv32 picorv32] on a [https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=LFE5U-25F LFE5U-25F] would probably be viable. The LFE5U-25F is already on the [https://tinyfpga.com/ TinyFPGA] EX prototypes, and is supported by [http://www.clifford.at/yosys/ yosys]. The sticky part is the pin driver: do we want all 40 pins capable of N types of voltages? We could just start with the drivers found in the TL866. As for USB, there are some [https://lcsc.com/search?q=ch340 very cheap FTDI alternatives] out there that could make USB easy. I've worked with FTDI chips, but I haven't tried the cheaper ones. --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Robertbaruch: /* cr1901 */

2018-12-29T22:46:42Z

cr1901

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 29 December 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:
	* Greenpak 4 interfacing gives us "free 5V support", they are also incredibly cheap and small.		* Greenpak 4 interfacing gives us "free 5V support", they are also incredibly cheap and small.
	* FPGA can be put to other use? My proposal is a softcore (RISC-V? lm32? Something else?) running from SPIflash and using block RAM and RAM. This would give a superior development environment in terms of resources 'and' toolchain support compared to PIC.		* FPGA can be put to other use? My proposal is a softcore (RISC-V? lm32? Something else?) running from SPIflash and using block RAM and RAM. This would give a superior development environment in terms of resources 'and' toolchain support compared to PIC.

			:I like the idea of RISC-V on FPGA as a base, especially since gcc supports RISC-V now, as long as it uses a very popular FPGA. I'm a bit less enthusiastic about Greenpak -- mainly because I don't know anything about it. Like, are they in the habit of discontinuing chips older than like 5 years? --[[User:Robertbaruch\|Robertbaruch]] ([[User talk:Robertbaruch\|talk]]) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Mcmaster at 22:32, 29 December 2018

2018-12-29T22:32:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 29 December 2018
Line 2:		Line 2:

	While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In particular, with a TL866 costing $50 and still readily available, effort is much better spent focusing on these.		While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In particular, with a TL866 costing $50 and still readily available, effort is much better spent focusing on these.

			"Nominal max VPP is 21V on the TL866 A/CS and 18V on the TL866II." [Elemecca]. Did this cause any important devices to be discontinued?

	= cr1901 =		= cr1901 =

Cr1901 at 22:43, 26 September 2018

2018-09-26T22:43:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 26 September 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The basic idea I've seen thrown around for a FOSS programmer (from talking with davidc__ on siliconpr0n IRC channel) is thus:		The basic idea I've seen thrown around for a FOSS programmer (from talking with davidc__ on siliconpr0n IRC channel) is thus:

	* Use an FPGA with a custom I2C core, possibly an FPGA ~~softcore~~ as well.		* Use an FPGA with a custom I2C core, possibly an FPGA USB core as well. If we can tolerate HDL to provide a base that's rarely modified, this reduces part count while maximizing flexibility.
	* The I2C interface talks to a number of Silego Greenpak 4s, which control both the pass transistors for the power lines and also provide lines of I/O for the target device.		* The I2C interface talks to a number of Silego Greenpak 4s, which control both the pass transistors for the power lines and also provide lines of I/O for the target device.
	* Greenpak 4 interfacing gives us "free 5V support", they are also incredibly cheap and small.		* Greenpak 4 interfacing gives us "free 5V support", they are also incredibly cheap and small.
	* FPGA can be put to other use? My proposal is a softcore (RISC-V? lm32? Something else?) running from SPIflash and using block RAM and RAM. This would give a superior development environment in terms of resources 'and' toolchain support compared to PIC.		* FPGA can be put to other use? My proposal is a softcore (RISC-V? lm32? Something else?) running from SPIflash and using block RAM and RAM. This would give a superior development environment in terms of resources 'and' toolchain support compared to PIC.

Cr1901: /* cr1901 */

2018-09-26T22:42:08Z

cr1901

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 26 September 2018
Line 6:		Line 6:

	While the TL866 is ending production, the TL866-II is still available/produced. In case TL866-II stops production and both variants become difficult to obtain easily, doing our own design has been proposed before. The short version is we have a lot of good/doable ideas for a FOSS programmer, but it ''would'' be a time commitment and would ''not'' be as cheap as a TL866. I suspect in principle an open design would attract more contributors in the long run; while Elemecca has done a great job on this front, PIC isn't exactly known to be pleasant to work with.		While the TL866 is ending production, the TL866-II is still available/produced. In case TL866-II stops production and both variants become difficult to obtain easily, doing our own design has been proposed before. The short version is we have a lot of good/doable ideas for a FOSS programmer, but it ''would'' be a time commitment and would ''not'' be as cheap as a TL866. I suspect in principle an open design would attract more contributors in the long run; while Elemecca has done a great job on this front, PIC isn't exactly known to be pleasant to work with.

			The basic idea I've seen thrown around for a FOSS programmer (from talking with davidc__ on siliconpr0n IRC channel) is thus:

			* Use an FPGA with a custom I2C core, possibly an FPGA softcore as well.
			* The I2C interface talks to a number of Silego Greenpak 4s, which control both the pass transistors for the power lines and also provide lines of I/O for the target device.
			* Greenpak 4 interfacing gives us "free 5V support", they are also incredibly cheap and small.
			* FPGA can be put to other use? My proposal is a softcore (RISC-V? lm32? Something else?) running from SPIflash and using block RAM and RAM. This would give a superior development environment in terms of resources 'and' toolchain support compared to PIC.

Mcmaster at 22:37, 26 September 2018

2018-09-26T22:37:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 26 September 2018
Line 2:		Line 2:

	While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In particular, with a TL866 costing $50 and still readily available, effort is much better spent focusing on these.		While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In particular, with a TL866 costing $50 and still readily available, effort is much better spent focusing on these.

			= cr1901 =

			While the TL866 is ending production, the TL866-II is still available/produced. In case TL866-II stops production and both variants become difficult to obtain easily, doing our own design has been proposed before. The short version is we have a lot of good/doable ideas for a FOSS programmer, but it ''would'' be a time commitment and would ''not'' be as cheap as a TL866. I suspect in principle an open design would attract more contributors in the long run; while Elemecca has done a great job on this front, PIC isn't exactly known to be pleasant to work with.

Mcmaster: Created page with "= mcmaster = While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In p..."

2018-09-26T22:37:08Z

Created page with "= mcmaster = While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In p..."

New page

= mcmaster =

While I'm not opposed to such a project, I'm skeptical of the time that it will take to develop such a device and the availability of it vs a COTS solution. In particular, with a TL866 costing $50 and still readily available, effort is much better spent focusing on these.