[En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Ethernut Bus System

Mike Cornelius mikec at calldirect.com.au
Fri Apr 4 02:33:29 CEST 2003

Hi Harald,

I'll vote for PC-104, if this is done correctly it should be possible to
make the thing PC-104 electrically compatible, at least for I/O mapped
PC-104 peripherals.
That would open up a whole bunch of possibilities...


Mike Cornelius                      Internet: mikec at calldirect.com.au
Call Direct Cellular Solutions      Phone:    +61 2 99-65-75-85
Level 1 8-22 West St North Sydney   FAX:      +61 2 99-65-75-90
NSW 2060 Australia                  URL:      http://www.calldirect.com.au

-----Original Message-----
From: en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de
[mailto:en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de]On Behalf Of Harald Kipp
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:07 PM
To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
Subject: [En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Ethernut Bus System

Hi all,

As you may know, Ethernut 2 will be plug-in compatible to
Ethernut 1.

For long term planning I'm considering some kind of bus
system for easy add-on board design. I already discussed
this in some private emails, but would like to get more
people involved.

One thing I'd like to discuss are the mechanical connectors.

Solution 1: Using 96 pin DIN 41612 connectors. Disadvantage
is, that they are very large. Advantage is, that housings are
easily available and, because this is a backplane system,
it's very flexible.

Solution 2: Using PC104 connectors. Disadvantage is, that
stacking up boards is limited and component height matters.
Advantage is, that they are 2mm pitch and much smaller than
1" pitch connectors.

Solution 3: Using SIMM connectors. They are looking very
unreliable to me, number of pins and board size is limited.

Solution 4: Using one of those very tiny (down to 1mm pitch)
connectors offered by some manufacturers without second source
and build a backplane system.

What do you think?


En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de

More information about the En-Nut-Discussion mailing list