Standardisation?

Question

Following on from a discussion about the Intel Edison being discontinued I got thinking about what could be used as a replacement for longer lifetime projects. The Pi compute module was mentioned but that form factor is a single supplier again. I understand you can get suppliers to sign up to longer term support but that's no good unless you are one of the big companies.

So I was wondering if there were any small form factor standards for processor boards that would allow you to have multiple supplier options?

I spotted Smarc 2.0 which has a option for 82 mm × 50 mm boards https://www.sget.org/standards/smarc.html

and

96Boards IOT (which only has 2 boards and one supplier at the moment) - 96Boards - Internet of Things Edition

shabaz · Answer

Hi Andy!

Really good topic. I think there was such a discussion a few years ago, but time has moved on and this topic is worthwhile examining from fresh with current information.

From my perspective, I feel the availability for the parts and ease-of-use for using the parts and associated software is more important than the pin compatibility, but I can appreciate that for many projects the two go hand-in-hand.

In terms of availability, the BeagleBone modules (i.e. AM335x TI Sitara) are highly desirable because TI has discussed a typical 10-year product life on Sitara devices. Also, for form-factor, it offers a lot of flexibility because even if people don't want to work with the processor directly, they can pick up a module, such as the OSD335x which integrates the processor, DRAM and other stuff. It isn't quite as integrated as Edison sadly : (

The module is usable even by hobbyists, so is just as easy to use as Edison. Also companies like Olimex have modules based on the same chipset. And the BeagleBoard project means there is no need to build and maintain an image, Ubuntu for it already exists.

So, for me, it seems like BeagleBone design is still the way forward for now, since even if a form-factor board disappears, it would not be hard to create your own using the OSD335x.

I've thought a lot about it in recent times and in terms of connectors, if I had to design a board, I don't really like the DIMM slot design, and my ideal board would have a combination of some (very few) 0.1" pins (for I2C, SPI and a few I/O), but also a higher density low profile connector with all the rest of the connections. For that, the Edison style connector was very good, it was dense but still manageable for hobbyist use too. And the board would be tiny, it should be smaller than credit-card size. In other words, almost like Edison : )

Anyway, that is just some thoughts, others will have perhaps totally different ideas about their preferred modules/form-factors etc.

DAB · Answer

Hi Andy, Interesting post. Board size is usually determined by the functions implemented. I think that was the key reason for the Arduino, TI, BeagleBone, and RPi support boards. Each vender determines the market they want to support and develop a capability based upon those initial requirements. In my experience, there is little coordination between venders and I have not found much interest between them to define or comply with a standard. I think this is mostly due to the rampant 'Not Invented Here" syndrome that is rampant within each company. There are some venders that do support multiple platforms by creating a interface conversion board across multiple products to support their specific sensors or devices. I think that is the best you can hope for. There is just too much competition and preference for proprietary products (read Apple here) that makes the maker environment very difficult, though not impossible. As they say, "Where there is a will, there is a way!" Just a thought. DAB

Workshopshed · Answer

>I feel the availability for the parts and ease-of-use for using the parts and associated software is more important than the pin compatibility

I was thinking a bit more than just the pinout, the form factor, power requirements, aerial placement and software (I forgot to mention that) are all important. I'd agree that for some things the tool chain is important but for a Linux based board how much of an issues is that?

>In terms of availability, the BeagleBone modules (i.e. AM335x TI Sitara) are highly desirable

I totally agree that if a supplier has agreed a 10 year life (and we are not already on year 9) then that would be a good choice.

>And the board would be tiny, it should be smaller than credit-card size.

I typically prefer a small board over a powerful board

Workshopshed · Answer

Douglas, I was thinking standard between boards so you could swap them out if one supplier let you down.

RParkerE · Answer

I believe that the IGEP Com Module (DM3730/AM3703) may be a good option. 18 mm X 68.5 mm https://www.isee.biz/products/igep-processor-boards/igep-com-module-dm3730-am3703

RParkerE · Answer

Also potentially the ConnectCore 6UL - https://www.digi.com/products/embedded-systems/system-on-modules/connectcore-for-i-mx6ul

Workshopshed · Answer

The Pocketbone has potential, although I/O is a bit sparce https://hackaday.io/project/19495-pocketbone-kicad Hand Assembly of pocketbone

RParkerE · Answer

There are similar boards to the IGEP Module. Most are a little larger (measuring 55 mm x 35 mm, 86 mm x 86 mm, 165 mm x 115 mm, and 136.2 mm x 105.3 mm) but use the same DM3730/AM3703 chip. However, Logic PD makes an even smaller one using the DM3730/AM3703 measuring in at 15 mm x 27 mm. And as for the ConnectCore it looks as though iWave sells similar boards using the i.MX6 chip.

Standardisation?

Top Replies