Featured Articles
Announcing Pi
Technical Specifications
Raspberry Pi FAQs
Win a Pi
Raspberry Pi Wishlist
Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 55 replies
  • Subscribers 679 subscribers
  • Views 6874 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

RPi rev 2.0 explained

Former Member

Eben has a front-page story up explaining rev 2.0.

It does fix the 1.8V problem, although no credit where

credit is due to Jamodio or any of the others here for

finding, characterizing, and reporting the problem.

 

No mention that I can see of FCC/CE residential

certification.  I assume the needed minor pcb changes

were made, but perhaps certification has not been

done yet.

 

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/1929

 

p.s.

   hopefully element14 will explain to their customers

how to be sure to get rev 2.0 when ordering.

Parents Reply Children
  • in reply to morgaine

    Morgaine Dinova wrote:

     

    jamodio wrote:

     

    It is really a great thing that they already released the schematics and gerbers for the new board !!

     

    Really???!!!  Woot!!!  Was that announced somewhere, or they just silently appeared somewhere?

    I think Jorge is being gamesome -- "this is merriment".  If I'm wrong, could someone please post a link or add it to the RasPi Hardware wiki: http://elinux.org/Rpi_Hardware#Schematic_.2F_Layout

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    I think Jorge is being gamesome -- "this is merriment".  If I'm wrong, could someone please post a link or add it to the RasPi Hardware wiki: http://elinux.org/Rpi_Hardware#Schematic_.2F_Layout

     

    They are on the same page where they posted high res pictures of the new board together with additional documentation much better than the supermarket list written by Eben.

     

    If somebody knows the URL please let me know ... image

     

     

    BTW, what is their interpretation of a major revision ? Calling this new board 2.0 is a big joke.

     

    -J

  • in reply to jamodio

    jamodio wrote:

     

    BTW, what is their interpretation of a major revision ? Calling this new board 2.0 is a big joke.

    I would think that anything that affects software is a major revision.  Substituting Ohmless links for F1 and F2 and removing D14 doesn't, though it it useful to know which board is which for fault analysis.  OTOH, when you're moving I2C channels around and adding I2S, some software needs to know which rev it's running on and apologize profusely if it can't run on rev 1.x.

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    IMHO a major revision is when you make major changes. It is very positive that finally they admited that the first production version had issues that needed to be fixed, and some of the fixes required some changes on the PCB layout.

     

    Even switching the I2C is not really a major change. Some open issues that call for a major revision could be for example a better power management design, get rid of the micro USB connector, better layout with connectors in line and not all around the board, add more GPIO/interfaces from the SoC, RTCC, switch to a microSD, etc.

     

    Still one thing I find hard to understand is why they keep releasing information in small bits, where is the new schematics, gerbers, etc. It is quite interesting that for-profit companies like Olimex give you complete access to their designs, while a non-profit organization such as RPF does not.

     

    One thumb up for the changes, but still work to do ...

     

    BTW, Amazon released yesterday the e-book version of the User's Guide, which now is outdated image

     

    -J

  • in reply to jamodio

    As far as I can tell, the minimum increment on their version number seems to be 1 (not something like 0.5), so this is a rev 2, a minor revision. And they must have been working on it for while, since some are already in punters hands, so thinking back, the board changes must be probably 2-3 months old at least (to get through re-design, prototyping and testing etc), so even though they didn't announce anything, they have been working behind the scene to fix stuff for a while.  I guess that's how most companies work - can't think of many companies that actively announce problems in their product they are going to fix until after the event.

     

    BB

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    OTOH, when you're moving I2C channels around and adding I2S, some software needs to know which rev it's running on and apologize profusely if it can't run on rev 1.x.

    Not just software, it'll be a problem for hardware too

     

    Has anyone seen any proper explanation of the reasoning behind moving the I2C channels ?  Not sure if I missed something, but I don't see anything in the datasheet to suggest there's any difference between them, so not clear why the switch was necessary.

     

    Did a pinout of P5 get posted ?  Or do we have to wait for someone with a new board and a multimeter ?

     

    It seems such a pity that they didn't align the network & usb sockets with this respin. My feeling is that this will never be fixed now, possibly so that they don't annoy case designers.

     

    And to think I just dropped in to see if anyone knew if the lan9512 1.8v supply had been fixed.

     

    Oh well, at least I don't feel so guilty about wanting to cast one in clear resin like http://runawaybrainz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/audio-crystal-cmoy-freeform-headphone.html anymore image

  • in reply to Former Member

    The +1 increment is the number they burn on the OTP section of the BCM SoC.

     

    According to their Revision numbering it contemplates a minor revision number, the new board is Revision 2.0.

     

    I know MANY companies, even non-profits and large ones traded in public markets that provide advance information, erratas, and known issues reports and expected fixes and time frames when the fixes will show up on production units.

     

    -J

  • in reply to Former Member

    The Blog article does not show any pinout for P5 and I didn't find any reference to it on the forum.

     

    About the 1V8 error, Eben said "The SMSC 1V8 power has been disconnected from the system supply."

     

    -J

  • in reply to jamodio

    Even switching the I2C is not really a major change.

     

    Unless you're actually relying on I2C for something. 

     

    It makes for quite a complex problem, especially when you get to a kernel that uses devicetree. That leaves you needing the bootloader to modify the supplied devicetree file prior to kernel boot, it can't be cleanly fixed in the kernel. So it probably leaves you to multiply up the combinations of Rpi-v1 or Rpi-v2 vs addon board designed for a Rpi-v1 or v2 vs SDcard with kernel that knows about v2 or not.  Oh, and a bootloader that knows about v1 vs v2 and what any addon board expects.

     

    I was never keen on the BeagleBone idea of every addon board having a small I2C flash device on it which describes the required gpio details. However it now seems like a very good idea - apart from the I2C pins have moved so you would have challenges to read it!

     

    Also it further breaks the idea of being able to use one SD card on any Pi you like.

  • in reply to jamodio

    The Blog article does not show any pinout for P5 and I didn't find any reference to it on the forum.

    I put a comment on the post asking for it. Lets see if there's a reply..