AW: [En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Ethernut Bus System
robert.hildebrand at ims.fhg.de
Mon Apr 7 11:21:59 CEST 2003
to my opinion the most important advantage of using ethernut or the
AVR-Controllers is their simplicity. Adding more and more components brings
them in competition to more sophisticated solutions like embedded linux
solutions on StrongArm etc.
We mostly used ethernut for connecting serial interfaces (RS232, RS485, IIC,
SPI, EIB) of "not networkable devices) to ehternet. So our typical topologie
ist 1 Ethernut + 1 adapter-board or 1 Ethernut + special interface cable.
The next problem always was the housing of the system.
With this experience I would prefer a connection which is
too big, an a standard 19''-Backplane-Solution is getting very expensive.
Competition with PC104 could lead to complex solutions.
I share your opinion
We have some expirience with connectors used from TQ-Components (data sheet
attached), which force you to make a real layout even for breadboarding, but
are very small and reliable. Maybe you could combine two connectors, one
with all the signals in a "professional" shape and one for simple additions
with uart, power and some portpins on one or two 10 pin 1" pitch connectors.
Another solution could be a high-density connector and a "first steps
extension" board for development, which could later be replaced by a
user-made extension board.
One word to the housing: I would really like a shape of ehternut, which
allows the usage of a standard housing like "Europakarten
Von: en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de
[mailto:en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de]Im Auftrag von Harald Kipp
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2003 14:07
An: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
Betreff: [En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Ethernut Bus System
As you may know, Ethernut 2 will be plug-in compatible to
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1494637 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion