[beagleboard] X11 Forwarding can't open display (client rejected?)

[Ben Nguyen]

In Putty, I've enabled x11 forwarding, with the 'X display location' set to 
0.0

The BBB's X -version is  1.16.4, with the the /etc/ssh/ssh_config set to:

ForwardX11 yes
ForwardX11 Trusted yes

and /etc/ssh/sshd_config:
X11Forwarding yes

I've also forced the DISPLAY variable to point to my local machine's IP:
export DISPLAY=192.168.1.140:0.0
and verified it's set correctly (using 'echo $DISPLAY')

Finally restarted, 'service ssh restart' and 'service sshd restart'

Unfortunately, when I enter 'xterm&', I get the error 
"Can't open display: %s"

and the locally running xming (Win8) never shows anything.  Interestingly, 
the Xming log seems to show an authentication error?

winClipboardProc - Hello
DetectUnicodeSupport - Windows Vista
winClipboardProc - DISPLAY=127.0.0.1:0.0
winMultiWindowXMsgProc - XOpenDisplay () returned and successfully opened 
the display.
winInitMultiWindowWM - XOpenDisplay () returned and successfully opened the 
display.
winClipboardProc - XOpenDisplay () returned and successfully opened the 
display.
AUDIT: Mon Jul 04 09:40:48 2016: 2508 C:\Program Files 
(x86)\Xming\Xming.exe: client 4 rejected from IP 192.168.1.151 
[Note: the 192.168.1.151 is the IP of the BBB (ifconfig -a)]


Any ideas what could be the problem?  Anyone else try this on the 
beaglebone black (Debian 8.4)?

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b54ef6e6-0c2e-4a32-bc5f-f8d10ecc7372%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[beagleboard] Dual Booting BBB

[Bryan Wilcutt]

I'm NOT using an SD CARD for this, but I have partitioned my mmcblk0 into 
two bootable drives.  I would like to selectively boot off of one OR the 
other.

I created a uEnv.txt on p1:

And a uEnv.txt on p2:




I want to boot from p2 in this instance.   Doing so, the boot process 
starts up but then hangs with:

[   15.466256] Waiting 1 sec before mounting root device...
[   16.480027] Waiting for root device /dev/mmcblk1p2...

There is no mmcblk1p2!!!  I dumped the env of u-boot and no where in it 
does it specifically address mmcblk1p2 but it does reference an mmc device 
indirectly.  Why is u-boot hell bent on booting off of mmcblk1p2 when the 
cmdline clearly states mmcblk0p2???

Also, fstab for both p1 and p2 are identical, both referencing the same 
device UUID and file system type of ext4 as they should.



Any help would be appreciated!

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/23d02e31-9f99-4273-baf8-28165218d65d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] USB disconnect/reconnect continuously

[Bryan Wilcutt]

William,

Thanks for your reply.  I doubt the issue is Windows since it only does it 
on the BBB and not with any other device [including my Samsung fone, memory 
sticks, etc.]I'll continue to look into it with a USB sniffer and see 
who's the culprit.

Thanks!
Bryan

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:33:26 PM UTC-5, William Hermans wrote:

> *William *
>>
>> *I installed the ip over USB driver on Win10 (it's unsigned so had to 
>> wiggle it in there) but I haven't bothered doing IP over USB in days and 
>> have had this issue before and after installing that driver.  Otherwise, 
>> I'm just using the standard Win10 distro on a 20 core Xeon (it's good to be 
>> me!).  Also, note I don't get this issue on the BBB 3.14 distro, only on 
>> 4.1.15.*
>>
>> *Thank you kindly for helping!!*
>>
> It's very unlikely related to the Linux you're using, and more likely 
> related to different drivers on the Windows side. Personally, I do not use 
> Win10, but I do use Win8, and have used Win7 prior to that.
> So, using g_multi ethernet is a different driver than g_ether, and the 
> same is true for g_multi Serial versus g_serial. They are completely 
> different drivers. The purpose of g_multi is that only one USB gadget 
> driver can be loaded as a driver at any one given time. So g_multi, is a 
> way to have all 3 gadget drivers in one kernel module. 
>
> So, when you load a different driver such as g_ether, or g_serial from the 
> beaglebone side. It requires that Windows uses a completely different 
> driver. Which may not be buggy ;)
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Bryan Wilcutt  > wrote:
>
>> William 
>>
>> I installed the ip over USB driver on Win10 (it's unsigned so had to 
>> wiggle it in there) but I haven't bothered doing IP over USB in days and 
>> have had this issue before and after installing that driver.  Otherwise, 
>> I'm just using the standard Win10 distro on a 20 core Xeon (it's good to be 
>> me!).  Also, note I don't get this issue on the BBB 3.14 distro, only on 
>> 4.1.15.
>>
>> Thank you kindly for helping!!
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 2:13 PM William Hermans > > wrote:
>>
>>> It's a standard 4.1.15 build, all drivers installed.  It's customized 
 only by cutting down unnecessary packages and some custom programs 
 added... 
 but it is still wholly a 4.1.15 distro.

>>>
>>> No . . . how did you install the Windows driver ? Or did you install any 
>>> ? The reason why I ask is that with Windows in many cases installing needed 
>>> drivers for various things is going to work best if you install the drivers 
>>> without certificate checking. Which requires booting Win10 differently than 
>>> normal.
>>>
>>> So, I'm not sure I can help you fix this specific problem, or cause, but 
>>> I can possibly help you track it down. I can also offer potential work 
>>> arounds. Such as removing g_multi, and instead load g_serial if that's all 
>>> the functionality you require from g_multi. This way Windows would be using 
>>> a different driver, one that is for one specific gadget device that 
>>> hopefully would not be constantly disconnected by another built in feature.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Bryan Wilcutt >> > wrote:
>>>
 It's a standard 4.1.15 build, all drivers installed.  It's customized 
 only by cutting down unnecessary packages and some custom programs 
 added... 
 but it is still wholly a 4.1.15 distro.

 On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 1:27 PM William Hermans >>> > wrote:

> I have not heard of this specific problem, but have heard of many 
> similar problems for different embedded hardware platforms.
>
> The first question to ask and get answered would be how did you 
> install the drivers for the beaglebone ?
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bryan Wilcutt  > wrote:
>
>> I have a somewhat custom BB distro I've made and all is well except 
>> one thing I've noticed that is annoying... when I plugged my BBB into a 
>> Windows 10 box using the USB the following happens:
>>
>> 1. Constant discovery notices are sent to Windows 10 from BBB causing 
>> BBB to announce a "new device found" type message.  Very annoying.
>> I turned off auto discovery on Windows 10, but that only kept it 
>> from opening a window showing my the drive.
>> 2. I can serial into the BBB through Putty over the USB.  That works 
>> great.  However, when the discovery messages happen (see #1), connection 
>> is 
>> lost.
>>
>> So, this tells me I am connecting and disconnecting continuously.
>>
>> Anyone have this problem?  Any ideas what to check?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> -- 
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> --- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
>> send an email to

[beagleboard] Re: Flash eMMC from uSD with higher capacity

[mdjdmi]

I would like to know this also. I have Debian Jessie, latest distro, on a 
16gb SD card along with some other software. I would like to flash the EMMC 
such that it will run the Debian Jessie and then automatically start the 
software on the SD card. Can someone tell me how to do that?
Thanks!

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 6:53:04 AM UTC-4, yol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> With a Debian distro installed into a 8GB uSD (but uSD memory is almost 
> free), I need to flash this distro to eMMC.
>
> - The S2 switch button only works to start the BeagleBone Black from the 
> uSD, and not for flashing the distro into eMMC. 
> - Distro has no included any tool for flashing eMMC.
>
> So, which tool can I use for? Or which is the best method to flash the 
> eMMC at this case?
>
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/fd08f51b-c067-46fe-94d6-665a8b142318%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] Re: BBB startup current

[kzsoltkzsolt]

First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I 
never request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For 
example it is help to make workaround. 

"TI did not write that specification"
No, but use it in all reference design. See TI TPS20x1 PDS 
application information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33.

"If you put the CAP after the switch then ..."  
Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS in all TI application information? 
Because PDS has soft start feature which prevent overload IN (BBB SYS power 
rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 and 8. 
Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit charge of 
100uF to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current limit, 
therefore no dip on IN. 
This is one main function of PDS.

"I did not design the board for your application"
It is not required. But during research work to specify our problem I found 
many topic where users discover mysterious problems with power supply, and 
try to found a right one for BBB. This can be originated from startup 
current peak. 

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[beagleboard] Re: BBB USB0 change from client to host

[pranga . k]

Hello,
Has anyone manage how to convert USB1 (normally host) to client?
Regards

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/54c6a375-dd95-4236-b526-b789ab360fd6%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] How can I bring my 'bone completely back to as-delivered status?

[mdjdmi]

Graham (or anyone who knows):
I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all 
running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I have to hold the button 
every time I power it up. Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC 
memory? I don't use any video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate those 
features from the Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there would 
be room for Softether as well in the eMMC.
Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:18:44 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
>
> You never said how you are running the BBB.  
> If you are running without a video display, local or remote, then you 
> don't need about half of what is in the full package.
> Then you could load a minimum "console" package, which will only fill 1.7G 
> of your 4 G eMMC, then add in what else you need to run your application.
> So, you would have about 2 GB of play space.
>
> If you have a video display you are better off going with the full 
> package..
>
> --- Graham
>
> ==
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:27:27 AM UTC-5, blues man wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Graham!  I'll just use my 64G uSD card, expand the file system, 
>> and go back to JRMC on Debian.  I guess the older images didn't fill the 
>> eMMC, so I still had room for JRMC - but the latest one tipped the scale 
>> too far.  I've been viewing having to run from the card as a sign of 
>> defeat, for some odd reason! :)
>>
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/4cc6fa59-245f-4eae-bb87-60a14cbbd3de%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] Re: Chipsee 7" cap touchscreen v1 Expansion for BBB dtbo

[lwundke via BeagleBoard]

Hey Kishor,

would you mind posting how you did it? which driver did you use?

Im currently working with the Chipsee LCD 7" capacative Touchscreen and the 
BBB Rev C. 
Unfortunately serial wont work with prebuilt images Chipsee shipped with 
the expansion board. So im configuring a linux 3.8.13 kernel source to 
build my own kernel. Which modules do I need to choose?

many thanks


On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:03:48 AM UTC+1, Kishor Dhanawade wrote:
>
> Also I got the success to run chipsee's lcd  with 3.8 kernel but not 
> capacitive touch. Resistive touch is working fine.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Javier Perez  > wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>> I already make that it works with kernel 3.8 ubuntu. But the touchscreen 
>>> I have to do some modifications to the kernel and the buttons works rare, 
>>> but I already boot with Ubuntu 3.8 LCD BBB-expantion.
>>>
>> -- 
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beagleboard/iIwh1X85BaI/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> beagleboard...@googlegroups.com .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/1940cce5-058c-48d8-9070-0058d6e7f00b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[beagleboard] Re: Expanding Root Partition - Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/mmcblk0p2

[mailbot . netserv]

I had the same issue as you. So, what I did is to remove all partitions (/
dev/mmcblk0p*) and create a new partition that uses all the available 
space. Write the changes and reboot BBB. Run resize2fs on the only 
partition. Do a "df -h" to confirm.

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/a19e4d43-5da9-41b8-a1e2-2ddc5a728235%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] Re: BBB startup current

[Gerald Coley]

Thank you for your feedback.

Gerald

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM,  wrote:

> First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I
> never request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For
> example it is help to make workaround.
>
> "TI did not write that specification"
> No, but use it in all reference design. See TI TPS20x1 PDS
> application information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33.
>
> "If you put the CAP after the switch then ..."
> Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS in all TI application information?
> Because PDS has soft start feature which prevent overload IN (BBB SYS
> power rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 and 8.
> Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit charge of
> 100uF to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current limit,
> therefore no dip on IN.
> This is one main function of PDS.
>
> "I did not design the board for your application"
> It is not required. But during research work to specify our problem I
> found many topic where users discover mysterious problems with power
> supply, and try to found a right one for BBB. This can be originated from
> startup current peak.
>
> --
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Gerald

ger...@beagleboard.org
http://beagleboard.org/
gcol...@emprodesign.com

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHK_S%2BcAH_U%3DVtJmLq62wrVPmRg8%2Bn27YjWM_oeorZezSTKorQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] USB disconnect/reconnect continuously

[William Hermans]

Bryan,

Ok, anything you like. Just realize that I have 3.5 years experience
specifically with the Beaglebone Black, and this is one thing I know better
than others.

With that said, I did not say it was specifically a Windows problem. It
could be a Windows remote end g_multi driver problem. See, as I mentioned
before. g_multi ethernet driver is not the same as g_ether ethernet, or
g_serial serial drivers. So, if you specifically get g_ether or g_serial
working. This could help you isolate the problem.

However, if you're troubleshooting method works best for you. have at it :)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Bryan Wilcutt 
wrote:

> William,
>
> Thanks for your reply.  I doubt the issue is Windows since it only does it
> on the BBB and not with any other device [including my Samsung fone, memory
> sticks, etc.]I'll continue to look into it with a USB sniffer and see
> who's the culprit.
>
> Thanks!
> Bryan
>
> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:33:26 PM UTC-5, William Hermans wrote:
>
>> *William *
>>>
>>> *I installed the ip over USB driver on Win10 (it's unsigned so had to
>>> wiggle it in there) but I haven't bothered doing IP over USB in days and
>>> have had this issue before and after installing that driver.  Otherwise,
>>> I'm just using the standard Win10 distro on a 20 core Xeon (it's good to be
>>> me!).  Also, note I don't get this issue on the BBB 3.14 distro, only on
>>> 4.1.15.*
>>>
>>> *Thank you kindly for helping!!*
>>>
>> It's very unlikely related to the Linux you're using, and more likely
>> related to different drivers on the Windows side. Personally, I do not use
>> Win10, but I do use Win8, and have used Win7 prior to that.
>> So, using g_multi ethernet is a different driver than g_ether, and the
>> same is true for g_multi Serial versus g_serial. They are completely
>> different drivers. The purpose of g_multi is that only one USB gadget
>> driver can be loaded as a driver at any one given time. So g_multi, is a
>> way to have all 3 gadget drivers in one kernel module.
>>
>> So, when you load a different driver such as g_ether, or g_serial from
>> the beaglebone side. It requires that Windows uses a completely different
>> driver. Which may not be buggy ;)
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Bryan Wilcutt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> William
>>>
>>> I installed the ip over USB driver on Win10 (it's unsigned so had to
>>> wiggle it in there) but I haven't bothered doing IP over USB in days and
>>> have had this issue before and after installing that driver.  Otherwise,
>>> I'm just using the standard Win10 distro on a 20 core Xeon (it's good to be
>>> me!).  Also, note I don't get this issue on the BBB 3.14 distro, only on
>>> 4.1.15.
>>>
>>> Thank you kindly for helping!!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 2:13 PM William Hermans  wrote:
>>>
 It's a standard 4.1.15 build, all drivers installed.  It's customized
> only by cutting down unnecessary packages and some custom programs 
> added...
> but it is still wholly a 4.1.15 distro.
>

 No . . . how did you install the Windows driver ? Or did you install
 any ? The reason why I ask is that with Windows in many cases installing
 needed drivers for various things is going to work best if you install the
 drivers without certificate checking. Which requires booting Win10
 differently than normal.

 So, I'm not sure I can help you fix this specific problem, or cause,
 but I can possibly help you track it down. I can also offer potential work
 arounds. Such as removing g_multi, and instead load g_serial if that's all
 the functionality you require from g_multi. This way Windows would be using
 a different driver, one that is for one specific gadget device that
 hopefully would not be constantly disconnected by another built in feature.

 On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Bryan Wilcutt 
 wrote:

> It's a standard 4.1.15 build, all drivers installed.  It's customized
> only by cutting down unnecessary packages and some custom programs 
> added...
> but it is still wholly a 4.1.15 distro.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 1:27 PM William Hermans  wrote:
>
>> I have not heard of this specific problem, but have heard of many
>> similar problems for different embedded hardware platforms.
>>
>> The first question to ask and get answered would be how did you
>> install the drivers for the beaglebone ?
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bryan Wilcutt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a somewhat custom BB distro I've made and all is well except
>>> one thing I've noticed that is annoying... when I plugged my BBB into a
>>> Windows 10 box using the USB the following happens:
>>>
>>> 1. Constant discovery notices are sent to Windows 10 from BBB
>>> causing BBB to announce a "new device found" type message.  Very 
>>> annoying.
>>> I turned off auto discovery on Windows 10, but that only kept it

Re: [beagleboard] Re: BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

kzsoltkzsolt,

I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who
designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at
some point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge
to the public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that
you're free to change and use for your own personal use.

So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of making
yourself looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". e.g. it
doesn't make you look good.

SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well aware of what
you're trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for various
reasons. Reason, that you, I, or the next person do not need to understand.
Because we can change to designs to our own liking if we so wish.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Gerald Coley  wrote:

> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> Gerald
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM,  wrote:
>
>> First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I
>> never request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For
>> example it is help to make workaround.
>>
>> "TI did not write that specification"
>> No, but use it in all reference design. See TI TPS20x1 PDS
>> application information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33.
>>
>> "If you put the CAP after the switch then ..."
>> Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS in all TI application information?
>> Because PDS has soft start feature which prevent overload IN (BBB SYS
>> power rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 and 8.
>> Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit charge of
>> 100uF to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current limit,
>> therefore no dip on IN.
>> This is one main function of PDS.
>>
>> "I did not design the board for your application"
>> It is not required. But during research work to specify our problem I
>> found many topic where users discover mysterious problems with power
>> supply, and try to found a right one for BBB. This can be originated from
>> startup current peak.
>>
>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gerald
>
> ger...@beagleboard.org
> http://beagleboard.org/
> gcol...@emprodesign.com
>
> --
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHK_S%2BcAH_U%3DVtJmLq62wrVPmRg8%2Bn27YjWM_oeorZezSTKorQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORo-TL2x_vUEni%2B-daiSEQXxLUU_N5p%2BEh%2Bt6tzpuuPT0g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] How can I bring my 'bone completely back to as-delivered status?

[William Hermans]

> Graham (or anyone who knows):
> I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all
running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I >have to hold the button
every time I power it up.
The reason for this is that you have an older bootloader on the emmc. You
can change this behavior if you wish. BY two differnt method I personally
am aware of.

>Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC memory? I don't use any
>video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate >those features from the
Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there >would be room for
Softether as well in the eMMC.
> Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie

You download and put a flasher image onto an sdcard. Instead of a
standalone image.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM,  wrote:

> Graham (or anyone who knows):
> I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all
> running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I have to hold the button
> every time I power it up. Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC
> memory? I don't use any video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate those
> features from the Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there would
> be room for Softether as well in the eMMC.
> Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:18:44 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
>>
>> You never said how you are running the BBB.
>> If you are running without a video display, local or remote, then you
>> don't need about half of what is in the full package.
>> Then you could load a minimum "console" package, which will only fill
>> 1.7G of your 4 G eMMC, then add in what else you need to run your
>> application.
>> So, you would have about 2 GB of play space.
>>
>> If you have a video display you are better off going with the full
>> package..
>>
>> --- Graham
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:27:27 AM UTC-5, blues man wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Graham!  I'll just use my 64G uSD card, expand the file system,
>>> and go back to JRMC on Debian.  I guess the older images didn't fill the
>>> eMMC, so I still had room for JRMC - but the latest one tipped the scale
>>> too far.  I've been viewing having to run from the card as a sign of
>>> defeat, for some odd reason! :)
>>>
>> --
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/4cc6fa59-245f-4eae-bb87-60a14cbbd3de%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORoqGr_xYzoVHiGbg2FCTpBbnBOeCy40%2BdQWF405ew2LbQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] Re: Flash eMMC from uSD with higher capacity

[William Hermans]

>
> I would like to know this also. I have Debian Jessie, latest distro, on a
> 16gb SD card along with some other software. I would like to flash the EMMC
> such that it will run the Debian Jessie and then automatically start the
> software on the SD card. Can someone tell me how to do that?Thanks!
>

sdcard size does not matter as long as the card is larger than the image
file. SO=o if the file name says "4GB" in it, a 4G sdcard, or larger will
work.

But as I said in the other post you made. Get, and put a flasher image onto
your sdcard. Insert, and boot the bbb from it. Wait 30-60 minutes i
suppose. then it should be done. The LEDs are supposed to give some kind of
flashing pattern when it's done, and I honestly have no idea what that
pattern is now days.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:47 AM,  wrote:

> I would like to know this also. I have Debian Jessie, latest distro, on a
> 16gb SD card along with some other software. I would like to flash the EMMC
> such that it will run the Debian Jessie and then automatically start the
> software on the SD card. Can someone tell me how to do that?
> Thanks!
>
> On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 6:53:04 AM UTC-4, yol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> With a Debian distro installed into a 8GB uSD (but uSD memory is almost
>> free), I need to flash this distro to eMMC.
>>
>> - The S2 switch button only works to start the BeagleBone Black from the
>> uSD, and not for flashing the distro into eMMC.
>> - Distro has no included any tool for flashing eMMC.
>>
>> So, which tool can I use for? Or which is the best method to flash the
>> eMMC at this case?
>>
>> --
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/fd08f51b-c067-46fe-94d6-665a8b142318%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORrxckBCCk3M6xPVvgRtHi7_pkPpHYWxnkYXao65g0GQoQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[beagleboard] Re: Dual Booting BBB

[Bryan Wilcutt]

Fixed my own issue.  I moved the "root=/dev/mmcblk0p2" to the end of the 
"cmdline=" string in the uEnv.txt file on my p2 and it all suddenly seems 
to work great.  So, lesson learned-- position of "root=" matters in the 
uEnv file.   BUT WHY?



Heisenbug Uncertainty Principle:  You may know where the bug is but not how 
to fix it -- or you know how to fix it but not where it is.  NEVER shall 
you know both!
Bryan

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:49:20 PM UTC-5, Bryan Wilcutt wrote:

> I'm NOT using an SD CARD for this, but I have partitioned my mmcblk0 into 
> two bootable drives.  I would like to selectively boot off of one OR the 
> other.
>
> I created a uEnv.txt on p1:
>
> And a uEnv.txt on p2:
>
>
>
>
> I want to boot from p2 in this instance.   Doing so, the boot process 
> starts up but then hangs with:
>
> [   15.466256] Waiting 1 sec before mounting root device...
> [   16.480027] Waiting for root device /dev/mmcblk1p2...
>
> There is no mmcblk1p2!!!  I dumped the env of u-boot and no where in it 
> does it specifically address mmcblk1p2 but it does reference an mmc device 
> indirectly.  Why is u-boot hell bent on booting off of mmcblk1p2 when the 
> cmdline clearly states mmcblk0p2???
>
> Also, fstab for both p1 and p2 are identical, both referencing the same 
> device UUID and file system type of ext4 as they should.
>
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated!
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/57f5a19b-810c-4c1c-998b-fddc0ad92d48%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[John Syne]

Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has accepted 
your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your feedback. Now, let me 
address your concerns:

1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that it does 
not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish to change 
that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A power supply 
will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage the BBB means that 
you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a power supply that is 
spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A load, but rather, it should 
current limit at 4A. If the power supply is spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be 
treated as a short circuit. 
2) The TI spec for the TPS65217C is a general recommendation as they are 
unaware of how you are going to use the part. The BBB SYS_5V powers several 
subsystems, including HDMI, I/O (VDD_3V3B) and USB. Clearly you could move the 
100uF to the other side of the TPS2051, but then you need an additional 
capacitor on the SYS_5V which increases the cost and doesn’t provide any clear 
benefit, if you choose the correct power supply.
3) As Gerald has pointed out, the BBB is just a reference design. It was 
designed as a low cost solution which meant that tradeoffs were required to 
keep the price low. Clearly things could have been done differently, but then 
the BBB price would have been much higher and the board larger. Given that most 
users would probably not need these extra features, they were not incorporated 
into the current design. There are several spinoffs of the BBB, some with wifi, 
some with more RAM, etc, but none have been as successful as the BBB. 
4) While I have provided Gerald input into both the BBB and BeagleBoard-x15 
designs, I ultimately defer to his judgement because he has the track record or 
having designed several products that are very successful. 

>From my prospective, the BBB design is good, but your input was none the less 
>valuable. 

Regards,
John




> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
> 
> kzsoltkzsolt,
> 
> I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who 
> designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at some 
> point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge to the 
> public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that you're 
> free to change and use for your own personal use.
> 
> So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of making 
> yourself looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". e.g. it 
> doesn't make you look good.
> 
> SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well aware of what 
> you're trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for various 
> reasons. Reason, that you, I, or the next person do not need to understand. 
> Because we can change to designs to our own liking if we so wish.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Gerald Coley  > wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback. 
> 
> Gerald
> 
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM,  > wrote:
> First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I never 
> request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For example it 
> is help to make workaround.
> 
> "TI did not write that specification"
> No, but use it in all reference design. See TI TPS20x1 PDS application 
> information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33.
> 
> "If you put the CAP after the switch then ..."  
> Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS in all TI application information? 
> Because PDS has soft start feature which prevent overload IN (BBB SYS power 
> rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 and 8.
> Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit charge of 100uF 
> to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current limit, therefore 
> no dip on IN.
> This is one main function of PDS.
> 
> "I did not design the board for your application"
> It is not required. But during research work to specify our problem I found 
> many topic where users discover mysterious problems with power supply, and 
> try to found a right one for BBB. This can be originated from startup current 
> peak.
> 
> 
> -- 
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss 
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: [beagleboard] How can I bring my 'bone completely back to as-delivered status?

[Graham Haddock]

It should automatically boot from the card without having to push the boot
button.
On Debian 8 and later, this usually means that you do not have the "boot
bit" set on the card.

If you created the card by installing the resident version of Debian, then
expanding the partition, the "boot bit" should already be set.

If you created the card some other way, then put it in a Linux desktop, and
run Gparted. Go into the option-menus and manually set the boot bit.  It
should then automatically boot, whenever you apply power to the BBB.

There is probably some other way to manually edit the card and set the bit,
but I find Gparted very easy to use.

I am running a BBG as a SoftEther VPN server and it works fine.  No need to
push buttons to get it to boot.

--- Graham

==

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:14 PM, William Hermans  wrote:

> > Graham (or anyone who knows):
> > I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all
> running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I >have to hold the button
> every time I power it up.
> The reason for this is that you have an older bootloader on the emmc. You
> can change this behavior if you wish. BY two differnt method I personally
> am aware of.
>
> >Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC memory? I don't use any
> >video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate >those features from the
> Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there >would be room for
> Softether as well in the eMMC.
> > Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie
>
> You download and put a flasher image onto an sdcard. Instead of a
> standalone image.
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Graham (or anyone who knows):
>> I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all
>> running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I have to hold the button
>> every time I power it up. Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC
>> memory? I don't use any video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate those
>> features from the Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there would
>> be room for Softether as well in the eMMC.
>> Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:18:44 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> You never said how you are running the BBB.
>>> If you are running without a video display, local or remote, then you
>>> don't need about half of what is in the full package.
>>> Then you could load a minimum "console" package, which will only fill
>>> 1.7G of your 4 G eMMC, then add in what else you need to run your
>>> application.
>>> So, you would have about 2 GB of play space.
>>>
>>> If you have a video display you are better off going with the full
>>> package..
>>>
>>> --- Graham
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:27:27 AM UTC-5, blues man wrote:

 Thanks, Graham!  I'll just use my 64G uSD card, expand the file system,
 and go back to JRMC on Debian.  I guess the older images didn't fill the
 eMMC, so I still had room for JRMC - but the latest one tipped the scale
 too far.  I've been viewing having to run from the card as a sign of
 defeat, for some odd reason! :)

>>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/4cc6fa59-245f-4eae-bb87-60a14cbbd3de%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beagleboard/Sfpg7Ohg_Z4/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORoqGr_xYzoVHiGbg2FCTpBbnBOeCy40%2BdQWF405ew2LbQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.co

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Harvey White]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:

>Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has accepted 
>your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your feedback. Now, let 
>me address your concerns:

>From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
vary):
>
>1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that it does 
>not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish to change 
>that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A power supply 
>will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage the BBB means that 
>you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a power supply that is 
>spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A load, but rather, it should 
>current limit at 4A. If the power supply is spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not 
>be treated as a short circuit. 

I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power
supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not
have mattered.  Using a power supply with a maximum current rating to
avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution.  If,
because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then it is
imperative of the designer to put this information specifically in the
power supply recommendations.  Not doing this leads to damage, doing
this puts the responsibility on the user.  Is this a "before the
design/after the design"?  I don't know, and I don't remember (either
way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements.
Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  If it's that important, then perhaps
the documentation needs to be changed.  Decision not up to me.


>2) The TI spec for the TPS65217C is a general recommendation as they are 
>unaware of how you are going to use the part. The BBB SYS_5V powers several 
>subsystems, including HDMI, I/O (VDD_3V3B) and USB. Clearly you could move the 
>100uF to the other side of the TPS2051, but then you need an additional 
>capacitor on the SYS_5V which increases the cost and doesn’t provide any clear 
>benefit, if you choose the correct power supply.

"correct power supply" bothers me.  I'm familiar with minimum current
capacity, voltage limits, short circuit current limits (infrequently
applied).  Again, "a 4 amp power supply will allow the board to damage
itself, so we depend on a 2 amp maximum supply to avoid damage."  This
could be discussed a bit


>3) As Gerald has pointed out, the BBB is just a reference design. It was 
>designed as a low cost solution which meant that tradeoffs were required to 
>keep the price low. Clearly things could have been done differently, but then 
>the BBB price would have been much higher and the board larger. Given that 
>most users would probably not need these extra features, they were not 
>incorporated into the current design. There are several spinoffs of the BBB, 
>some with wifi, some with more RAM, etc, but none have been as successful as 
>the BBB. 

Hmmm, well, perhaps (although not required) it might be nice to know
what the engineering limitations are of the design.

I've seen 1) the ones I know about, and 2) the ones I haven't found
out yet... and 3) the ones people are going to have to tell me
about...

and I do like paranoid designs.

Harvey


>4) While I have provided Gerald input into both the BBB and BeagleBoard-x15 
>designs, I ultimately defer to his judgement because he has the track record 
>or having designed several products that are very successful. 
>
>From my prospective, the BBB design is good, but your input was none the less 
>valuable. 
>
>Regards,
>John
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
>> 
>> kzsoltkzsolt,
>> 
>> I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who 
>> designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at 
>> some point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge to 
>> the public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that 
>> you're free to change and use for your own personal use.
>> 
>> So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of making 
>> yourself looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". e.g. it 
>> doesn't make you look good.
>> 
>> SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well aware of what 
>> you're trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for various 
>> reasons. Reason, that you, I, or the next person do not need to understand. 
>> Because we can change to designs to our own liking if we so wish.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Gerald Coley > > wrote:
>> Thank you for your feedback. 
>> 
>> Gerald
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM, > > wrote:
>> First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I 
>> never request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For 
>> example

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[John Syne]

Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree with 
anything you said.

Regards,
John




> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
> 
>> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has 
>> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your feedback. 
>> Now, let me address your concerns:
> 
> From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
> vary):
>> 
>> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that it does 
>> not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish to 
>> change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A power 
>> supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage the BBB 
>> means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a power supply 
>> that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A load, but rather, 
>> it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is spec’d at 4A, then 4A 
>> should not be treated as a short circuit. 
> 
> I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power
> supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not
> have mattered.  Using a power supply with a maximum current rating to
> avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution.  If,
> because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then it is
> imperative of the designer to put this information specifically in the
> power supply recommendations.  Not doing this leads to damage, doing
> this puts the responsibility on the user.  Is this a "before the
> design/after the design"?  I don't know, and I don't remember (either
> way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements.
> Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  If it's that important, then perhaps
> the documentation needs to be changed.  Decision not up to me.
> 
> 
>> 2) The TI spec for the TPS65217C is a general recommendation as they are 
>> unaware of how you are going to use the part. The BBB SYS_5V powers several 
>> subsystems, including HDMI, I/O (VDD_3V3B) and USB. Clearly you could move 
>> the 100uF to the other side of the TPS2051, but then you need an additional 
>> capacitor on the SYS_5V which increases the cost and doesn’t provide any 
>> clear benefit, if you choose the correct power supply.
> 
> "correct power supply" bothers me.  I'm familiar with minimum current
> capacity, voltage limits, short circuit current limits (infrequently
> applied).  Again, "a 4 amp power supply will allow the board to damage
> itself, so we depend on a 2 amp maximum supply to avoid damage."  This
> could be discussed a bit
> 
> 
>> 3) As Gerald has pointed out, the BBB is just a reference design. It was 
>> designed as a low cost solution which meant that tradeoffs were required to 
>> keep the price low. Clearly things could have been done differently, but 
>> then the BBB price would have been much higher and the board larger. Given 
>> that most users would probably not need these extra features, they were not 
>> incorporated into the current design. There are several spinoffs of the BBB, 
>> some with wifi, some with more RAM, etc, but none have been as successful as 
>> the BBB. 
> 
> Hmmm, well, perhaps (although not required) it might be nice to know
> what the engineering limitations are of the design.
> 
> I've seen 1) the ones I know about, and 2) the ones I haven't found
> out yet... and 3) the ones people are going to have to tell me
> about...
> 
> and I do like paranoid designs.
> 
> Harvey
> 
> 
>> 4) While I have provided Gerald input into both the BBB and BeagleBoard-x15 
>> designs, I ultimately defer to his judgement because he has the track record 
>> or having designed several products that are very successful. 
>> 
>> From my prospective, the BBB design is good, but your input was none the 
>> less valuable. 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
>>> 
>>> kzsoltkzsolt,
>>> 
>>> I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who 
>>> designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at 
>>> some point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge 
>>> to the public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that 
>>> you're free to change and use for your own personal use.
>>> 
>>> So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of making 
>>> yourself looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". e.g. it 
>>> doesn't make you look good.
>>> 
>>> SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well aware of what 
>>> you're trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for various 
>>> reasons. Reason, that you, I, or the next person do not need to understand. 
>>> Because we can change to designs to our own liking if we so wish.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM

Re: [beagleboard] How can I bring my 'bone completely back to as-delivered status?

[William Hermans]

>
> *On Debian 8 and later, this usually means that you do not have the "boot
> bit" set on the card.*
>

No . ..as I said. It means there is an older bootloader on the emmc. If you
remove the bootloader, said problem goes away.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Graham Haddock  wrote:

> It should automatically boot from the card without having to push the boot
> button.
> On Debian 8 and later, this usually means that you do not have the "boot
> bit" set on the card.
>
> If you created the card by installing the resident version of Debian, then
> expanding the partition, the "boot bit" should already be set.
>
> If you created the card some other way, then put it in a Linux desktop,
> and run Gparted. Go into the option-menus and manually set the boot bit.
> It should then automatically boot, whenever you apply power to the BBB.
>
> There is probably some other way to manually edit the card and set the
> bit, but I find Gparted very easy to use.
>
> I am running a BBG as a SoftEther VPN server and it works fine.  No need
> to push buttons to get it to boot.
>
> --- Graham
>
> ==
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:14 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
>
>> > Graham (or anyone who knows):
>> > I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all
>> running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I >have to hold the button
>> every time I power it up.
>> The reason for this is that you have an older bootloader on the emmc. You
>> can change this behavior if you wish. BY two differnt method I personally
>> am aware of.
>>
>> >Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC memory? I don't use
>> any >video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate >those features from the
>> Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there >would be room for
>> Softether as well in the eMMC.
>> > Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie
>>
>> You download and put a flasher image onto an sdcard. Instead of a
>> standalone image.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM,  wrote:
>>
>>> Graham (or anyone who knows):
>>> I use my BBB as a VPN server running Softether. Right now, it is all
>>> running from a 16gb uSD card which means that I have to hold the button
>>> every time I power it up. Can you tell me how to get this all into the eMMC
>>> memory? I don't use any video or GUI but don't know how to eliminate those
>>> features from the Debian Jessie 8.4 that I am running so that there would
>>> be room for Softether as well in the eMMC.
>>> Thanks in advance for help with this...Arnie
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:18:44 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:

 You never said how you are running the BBB.
 If you are running without a video display, local or remote, then you
 don't need about half of what is in the full package.
 Then you could load a minimum "console" package, which will only fill
 1.7G of your 4 G eMMC, then add in what else you need to run your
 application.
 So, you would have about 2 GB of play space.

 If you have a video display you are better off going with the full
 package..

 --- Graham

 ==


 On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:27:27 AM UTC-5, blues man wrote:
>
> Thanks, Graham!  I'll just use my 64G uSD card, expand the file
> system, and go back to JRMC on Debian.  I guess the older images didn't
> fill the eMMC, so I still had room for JRMC - but the latest one tipped 
> the
> scale too far.  I've been viewing having to run from the card as a sign of
> defeat, for some odd reason! :)
>
 --
>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/4cc6fa59-245f-4eae-bb87-60a14cbbd3de%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beagleboard/Sfpg7Ohg_Z4/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORoqGr_xYzoVHiGbg2FCTpBbnBOeCy40%2BdQWF405ew2LbQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> 

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Harvey White]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:46:43 -0700, you wrote:

>Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree with 
>anything you said.

Thank you.  I prefer paranoid designs myself.  However, I don't design
commercial products, I design stuff for myself.  It does make a
difference.  If I get it wrong, I have to fix it...  and I have LOTS
of stuff to fix myself.

I also don't have to design to a price point, at least, not as much as
for a commercial product.

Harvey


>
>Regards,
>John
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>>> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has 
>>> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your 
>>> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
>> 
>> From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
>> vary):
>>> 
>>> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that it 
>>> does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish to 
>>> change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A 
>>> power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage 
>>> the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a 
>>> power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A 
>>> load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is 
>>> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit. 
>> 
>> I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power
>> supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not
>> have mattered.  Using a power supply with a maximum current rating to
>> avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution.  If,
>> because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then it is
>> imperative of the designer to put this information specifically in the
>> power supply recommendations.  Not doing this leads to damage, doing
>> this puts the responsibility on the user.  Is this a "before the
>> design/after the design"?  I don't know, and I don't remember (either
>> way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements.
>> Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  If it's that important, then perhaps
>> the documentation needs to be changed.  Decision not up to me.
>> 
>> 
>>> 2) The TI spec for the TPS65217C is a general recommendation as they are 
>>> unaware of how you are going to use the part. The BBB SYS_5V powers several 
>>> subsystems, including HDMI, I/O (VDD_3V3B) and USB. Clearly you could move 
>>> the 100uF to the other side of the TPS2051, but then you need an additional 
>>> capacitor on the SYS_5V which increases the cost and doesn’t provide any 
>>> clear benefit, if you choose the correct power supply.
>> 
>> "correct power supply" bothers me.  I'm familiar with minimum current
>> capacity, voltage limits, short circuit current limits (infrequently
>> applied).  Again, "a 4 amp power supply will allow the board to damage
>> itself, so we depend on a 2 amp maximum supply to avoid damage."  This
>> could be discussed a bit
>> 
>> 
>>> 3) As Gerald has pointed out, the BBB is just a reference design. It was 
>>> designed as a low cost solution which meant that tradeoffs were required to 
>>> keep the price low. Clearly things could have been done differently, but 
>>> then the BBB price would have been much higher and the board larger. Given 
>>> that most users would probably not need these extra features, they were not 
>>> incorporated into the current design. There are several spinoffs of the 
>>> BBB, some with wifi, some with more RAM, etc, but none have been as 
>>> successful as the BBB. 
>> 
>> Hmmm, well, perhaps (although not required) it might be nice to know
>> what the engineering limitations are of the design.
>> 
>> I've seen 1) the ones I know about, and 2) the ones I haven't found
>> out yet... and 3) the ones people are going to have to tell me
>> about...
>> 
>> and I do like paranoid designs.
>> 
>> Harvey
>> 
>> 
>>> 4) While I have provided Gerald input into both the BBB and BeagleBoard-x15 
>>> designs, I ultimately defer to his judgement because he has the track 
>>> record or having designed several products that are very successful. 
>>> 
>>> From my prospective, the BBB design is good, but your input was none the 
>>> less valuable. 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
 
 kzsoltkzsolt,
 
 I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who 
 designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at 
 some point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge 
 to the public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that 
 you're free to change and use for your own personal use.
 
 So, telling him things, he probably already 

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Gerald Coley]

When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
get the cost down.

1) As few components as possible.
2) Limit the application. Only one application,
3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
4) Lowest cost components.
5) Limit the features.
6) Cut the profit.

Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these no
one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it because
it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That is where
the value is, in the price. Not the value..

Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.

If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it more
robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it, by
all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.

But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and will
stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the BBB
and why does my my GPIO does not work..


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:

> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree with
> anything you said.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has
> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your
> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
> >
> > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
> > vary):
> >>
> >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that it
> does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish to
> change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A
> power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage
> the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a
> power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A
> load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is
> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
> >
> > I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power
> > supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not
> > have mattered.  Using a power supply with a maximum current rating to
> > avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution.  If,
> > because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then it is
> > imperative of the designer to put this information specifically in the
> > power supply recommendations.  Not doing this leads to damage, doing
> > this puts the responsibility on the user.  Is this a "before the
> > design/after the design"?  I don't know, and I don't remember (either
> > way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements.
> > Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  If it's that important, then perhaps
> > the documentation needs to be changed.  Decision not up to me.
> >
> >
> >> 2) The TI spec for the TPS65217C is a general recommendation as they
> are unaware of how you are going to use the part. The BBB SYS_5V powers
> several subsystems, including HDMI, I/O (VDD_3V3B) and USB. Clearly you
> could move the 100uF to the other side of the TPS2051, but then you need an
> additional capacitor on the SYS_5V which increases the cost and doesn’t
> provide any clear benefit, if you choose the correct power supply.
> >
> > "correct power supply" bothers me.  I'm familiar with minimum current
> > capacity, voltage limits, short circuit current limits (infrequently
> > applied).  Again, "a 4 amp power supply will allow the board to damage
> > itself, so we depend on a 2 amp maximum supply to avoid damage."  This
> > could be discussed a bit
> >
> >
> >> 3) As Gerald has pointed out, the BBB is just a reference design. It
> was designed as a low cost solution which meant that tradeoffs were
> required to keep the price low. Clearly things could have been done
> differently, but then the BBB price would have been much higher and the
> board larger. Given that most users would probably not need these extra
> features, they were not incorporated into the current design. There are
> several spinoffs of the BBB, some with wifi, some with more RAM, etc, but
> none have been as successful as the BBB.
> >
> > Hmmm, well, perhaps (although not required) it might be nice to know
> > what the engineering limitations are of the design.
> >
> > I've seen 1) the ones I know about, and 2) the ones I haven't found
> > out yet... and 3) the ones people are going to have to tell me
> > about...
> >
> > and I do like paranoid designs.
> >
> > Harvey
> >
> >
> >> 4) While I have provided Gerald input into both the BBB and
> Bea

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

>
> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
> get the cost down.
>
> 1) As few components as possible.
> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
> 4) Lowest cost components.
> 5) Limit the features.
> 6) Cut the profit.
>
> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
> no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it
> because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That
> is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>
> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
> complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>
> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>
> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>

Exactly, or close enough to what I was getting at. So Instead of me saying:
"Pay no attention to John, as he tends to pontificate on others comments,
and has no idea what the hell he is talking about." Let me just say that I
figured Gerald had the sole purpose of designing this board to work "good
enough" while remaining within a specified price range. e.g. it works, and
it's cheap.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Gerald Coley  wrote:

> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
> get the cost down.
>
> 1) As few components as possible.
> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
> 4) Lowest cost components.
> 5) Limit the features.
> 6) Cut the profit.
>
> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
> no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it
> because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That
> is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>
> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
> complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>
> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>
> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:
>
>> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree with
>> anything you said.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has
>> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your
>> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
>> >
>> > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
>> > vary):
>> >>
>> >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that
>> it does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish
>> to change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A
>> power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage
>> the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a
>> power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A
>> load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is
>> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
>> >
>> > I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power
>> > supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not
>> > have mattered.  Using a power supply with a maximum current rating to
>> > avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution.  If,
>> > because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then it is
>> > imperative of the designer to put this information specifically in the
>> > power supply recommendations.  Not doing this leads to damage, doing
>> > this puts the responsibility on the user.  Is this a "before the
>> > design/after the design"?  I don't know, and I don't remember (either
>> > way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements.
>> > Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  If it's that important, then perhaps
>> > the documentation needs to be changed.  Decision not 

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

@Gerald

Actually, my buddy and I would have bought the white, if that's all that
was available. So, much to our surprise when the beaglebone black was
announced . . . we immediately jumped on the pre-order list for two boards
. . .

Would we have prefered you did one thing, or another slightly differently
?  Sure ! But as it is, you saved us 50% right away, by doing what you did
with the BBB versus the BBW. So . . . we nite our lip. Then implement what
we have to on the side to make the BBB work for our own application. Too
bad many youngsters would prefer to complain about what the board *ISNT*
versus what the board *IS*.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, William Hermans  wrote:

> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>> get the cost down.
>>
>> 1) As few components as possible.
>> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>> 4) Lowest cost components.
>> 5) Limit the features.
>> 6) Cut the profit.
>>
>> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
>> no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it
>> because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That
>> is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>>
>> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
>> complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>>
>> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
>> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
>> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
>> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>>
>> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
>> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
>> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>>
>
> Exactly, or close enough to what I was getting at. So Instead of me
> saying: "Pay no attention to John, as he tends to pontificate on others
> comments, and has no idea what the hell he is talking about." Let me just
> say that I figured Gerald had the sole purpose of designing this board to
> work "good enough" while remaining within a specified price range. e.g. it
> works, and it's cheap.
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Gerald Coley 
> wrote:
>
>> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>> get the cost down.
>>
>> 1) As few components as possible.
>> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>> 4) Lowest cost components.
>> 5) Limit the features.
>> 6) Cut the profit.
>>
>> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
>> no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it
>> because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That
>> is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>>
>> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
>> complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>>
>> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
>> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
>> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
>> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>>
>> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
>> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
>> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:
>>
>>> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree
>>> with anything you said.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has
>>> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your
>>> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
>>> >
>>> > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
>>> > vary):
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that
>>> it does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish
>>> to change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A
>>> power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage
>>> the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a
>>> power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A
>>> load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is
>>> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
>>> >
>>> > I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

So, we bit our lip *

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:16 PM, William Hermans  wrote:

> @Gerald
>
> Actually, my buddy and I would have bought the white, if that's all that
> was available. So, much to our surprise when the beaglebone black was
> announced . . . we immediately jumped on the pre-order list for two boards
> . . .
>
> Would we have prefered you did one thing, or another slightly differently
> ?  Sure ! But as it is, you saved us 50% right away, by doing what you did
> with the BBB versus the BBW. So . . . we nite our lip. Then implement what
> we have to on the side to make the BBB work for our own application. Too
> bad many youngsters would prefer to complain about what the board *ISNT*
> versus what the board *IS*.
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
>
>> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>>> get the cost down.
>>>
>>> 1) As few components as possible.
>>> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>>> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>>> 4) Lowest cost components.
>>> 5) Limit the features.
>>> 6) Cut the profit.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
>>> no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it
>>> because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That
>>> is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>>>
>>> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
>>> complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>>>
>>> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
>>> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
>>> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
>>> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>>>
>>> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
>>> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
>>> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, or close enough to what I was getting at. So Instead of me
>> saying: "Pay no attention to John, as he tends to pontificate on others
>> comments, and has no idea what the hell he is talking about." Let me just
>> say that I figured Gerald had the sole purpose of designing this board to
>> work "good enough" while remaining within a specified price range. e.g. it
>> works, and it's cheap.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Gerald Coley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>>> get the cost down.
>>>
>>> 1) As few components as possible.
>>> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>>> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>>> 4) Lowest cost components.
>>> 5) Limit the features.
>>> 6) Cut the profit.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
>>> no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought it
>>> because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. That
>>> is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>>>
>>> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
>>> complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>>>
>>> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
>>> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
>>> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
>>> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>>>
>>> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
>>> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
>>> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:
>>>
 Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree
 with anything you said.

 Regards,
 John




 > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White 
 wrote:
 >
 > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
 >
 >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has
 accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your
 feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
 >
 > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
 > vary):
 >>
 >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that
 it does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish
 to change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A
 power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage
 the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a
 power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A
 load, but rather, 

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Gerald Coley]

Thanks for the words. But, I think my days are numbered here.

Gerald


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:17 PM, William Hermans  wrote:

> So, we bit our lip *
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:16 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
>
>> @Gerald
>>
>> Actually, my buddy and I would have bought the white, if that's all that
>> was available. So, much to our surprise when the beaglebone black was
>> announced . . . we immediately jumped on the pre-order list for two boards
>> . . .
>>
>> Would we have prefered you did one thing, or another slightly differently
>> ?  Sure ! But as it is, you saved us 50% right away, by doing what you did
>> with the BBB versus the BBW. So . . . we nite our lip. Then implement what
>> we have to on the side to make the BBB work for our own application. Too
>> bad many youngsters would prefer to complain about what the board *ISNT*
>> versus what the board *IS*.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, William Hermans 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
 get the cost down.

 1) As few components as possible.
 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
 4) Lowest cost components.
 5) Limit the features.
 6) Cut the profit.

 Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of
 these no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought
 it because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
 That is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..

 Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up
 and complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for
 $49.

 If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
 more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
 by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
 hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.

 But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
 will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
 BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..

>>>
>>> Exactly, or close enough to what I was getting at. So Instead of me
>>> saying: "Pay no attention to John, as he tends to pontificate on others
>>> comments, and has no idea what the hell he is talking about." Let me just
>>> say that I figured Gerald had the sole purpose of designing this board to
>>> work "good enough" while remaining within a specified price range. e.g. it
>>> works, and it's cheap.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Gerald Coley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions
 to get the cost down.

 1) As few components as possible.
 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
 4) Lowest cost components.
 5) Limit the features.
 6) Cut the profit.

 Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of
 these no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought
 it because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
 That is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..

 Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up
 and complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for
 $49.

 If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
 more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it,
 by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
 hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.

 But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
 will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the
 BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..


 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:

> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree
> with anything you said.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald
> has accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your
> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
> >
> > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
> > vary):
> >>
> >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so
> that it does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If 
> you
> wish to change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify th

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

>
> Thanks for the words. But, I think my days are numbered here.
>
> Gerald
>

That's a shame. Truly. You've contributed much in the last several years
since the original beagleboard. I can imagine without project like this
that many other boards like the nVidia Jetson K1 would not be available.

But . . . I think I understand where you're coming form. Aside from the
thanklessness.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Gerald Coley  wrote:

> Thanks for the words. But, I think my days are numbered here.
>
> Gerald
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:17 PM, William Hermans  wrote:
>
>> So, we bit our lip *
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:16 PM, William Hermans 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @Gerald
>>>
>>> Actually, my buddy and I would have bought the white, if that's all that
>>> was available. So, much to our surprise when the beaglebone black was
>>> announced . . . we immediately jumped on the pre-order list for two boards
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> Would we have prefered you did one thing, or another slightly
>>> differently ?  Sure ! But as it is, you saved us 50% right away, by doing
>>> what you did with the BBB versus the BBW. So . . . we nite our lip. Then
>>> implement what we have to on the side to make the BBB work for our own
>>> application. Too bad many youngsters would prefer to complain about what
>>> the board *ISNT* versus what the board *IS*.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, William Hermans 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions
> to get the cost down.
>
> 1) As few components as possible.
> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
> 4) Lowest cost components.
> 5) Limit the features.
> 6) Cut the profit.
>
> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of
> these no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought
> it because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
> That is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>
> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up
> and complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for
> $49.
>
> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell 
> it,
> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>
> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in 
> the
> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>

 Exactly, or close enough to what I was getting at. So Instead of me
 saying: "Pay no attention to John, as he tends to pontificate on others
 comments, and has no idea what the hell he is talking about." Let me just
 say that I figured Gerald had the sole purpose of designing this board to
 work "good enough" while remaining within a specified price range. e.g. it
 works, and it's cheap.

 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Gerald Coley 
 wrote:

> When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions
> to get the cost down.
>
> 1) As few components as possible.
> 2) Limit the application. Only one application,
> 3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
> 4) Lowest cost components.
> 5) Limit the features.
> 6) Cut the profit.
>
> Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of
> these no one has even identified. But if I had, you would not have bought
> it because it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
> That is where the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>
> Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up
> and complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for
> $49.
>
> If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
> more robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell 
> it,
> by all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
> hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>
> But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
> will stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in 
> the
> BBB and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:
>
>> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree
>> with anything you said.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Harvey White]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:02:13 -0500, you wrote:

>When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>get the cost down.
>
>1) As few components as possible.
  granted, no problem with that.

>2) Limit the application. Only one application,
  do we know what the application is?  Apparently people tend to think
that this can do anything.
>3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
  hmmm, then that says you have not as much control over the power
supply as you might want.  Certainly not as much as you may like.

>4) Lowest cost components.
  no problem.
>5) Limit the features.
  no problem.  It does what it does.

>6) Cut the profit.
  diminishing returns.
>
>Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these no
>one has even identified. 
Perhaps it might be interesting to know what they were... Not
criticizing, but to know design alternatives might be nice.

>But if I had, you would not have bought it because
>it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap. 

I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
though.


>That is where
>the value is, in the price. Not the value..

Then you're designing to a price point, and that's a different thing
entirely.

>
>Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
>complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.

I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars.  I might
not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I"
however, am not "they" but there are a lot more of "them" than
there are of me

Not practical for you to put too many blank pads on a board and expect
the user to solder parts in.  I do, because I can build the boards.
Your average hobby type... not likely I suspect.

>
>If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it more
>robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it, by
>all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
>hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.

If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.  

The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what,
but that's a simple economic decision.  Then there's the engineering
decision.



>
>But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and will
>stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the BBB
>and why does my my GPIO does not work..

Can't help you with that


Harvey

>
>
>On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:46 PM, John Syne  wrote:
>
>> Harvey, you raised several very good points. I cannot say I disagree with
>> anything you said.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:13:00 -0700, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pay no attention to William. You comments are welcome and Gerald has
>> accepted your comments as valuable input by thanking your for your
>> feedback. Now, let me address your concerns:
>> >
>> > From my own engineering standpoint (and opinions will, of course,
>> > vary):
>> >>
>> >> 1) The power supply used to power the BBB should be selected so that it
>> does not damage the BBB, so a 2A power supply was specified. If you wish to
>> change that specification, then the onus is on you to verify that a 4A
>> power supply will not damage the BBB. Your conclusion that is may damage
>> the BBB means that you should not use a 4A power supply. In addition, a
>> power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A
>> load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is
>> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
>> >
>> > I would have designed the power supply circuitry so that with a power
>> > supply of appropriate minimum rating, the maximum rating would not
>> > have mattered.  Using a power supply with a maximum current rating to
>> > avoid damaging circuitry is not (again, IMHO) the best solution.  If,
>> > because of economic considerations, that decision is made, then it is
>> > imperative of the designer to put this information specifically in the
>> > power supply recommendations.  Not doing this leads to damage, doing
>> > this puts the responsibility on the user.  Is this a "before the
>> > design/after the design"?  I don't know, and I don't remember (either
>> > way) if this warning was ever in the power supply requirements.
>> > Hindsight is 20/20, of course.  If it's that important, then perhaps
>> > the documentation needs to be changed.  Decision not up to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >> 2) The TI 

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[John Syne]

@William

The part I was referring to is your constant need to second guess peoples 
motives and intentions. This is an open forum and developers are always welcome 
to provide their input. I don’t know why you constantly have this compelling 
need to denigrate people on this forum. Gerald doesn’t need you to protect him. 
He is more than capable of defending himself and his product. I acknowledge 
your contributions to helping people on this forum, but  it pisses me off when 
I see you tear into people for no apparent reason. Stay away from the personal 
stuff. 

Regards,
John

> 
> 
> Exactly, or close enough to what I was getting at. So Instead of me saying: 
> "Pay no attention to John, as he tends to pontificate on others comments, and 
> has no idea what the hell he is talking about." Let me just say that I 
> figured Gerald had the sole purpose of designing this board to work "good 
> enough" while remaining within a specified price range. e.g. it works, and 
> it's cheap.
> 

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/25804297-CCFB-4675-ABA3-75E0F790EC7F%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

HI Harvey,

I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
though.

Id disagree with you. Only because we can second guess each other until the
end of time. But the point here that this was part of the reasoning for the
design behind the BBB, and without it we would not be where we are.

I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars.  I might
not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I"
however, am not "they" but there are a lot more of "them" than
there are of me


The initial design discussed here is the BBW I believe. By the time my
biddy and I priced the BBW actually, the cost was $99.


If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.
>
> The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what,
> but that's a simple economic decision.  Then there's the engineering
> decision.
>

Problem is, if this design was only a 2 layer design. the actual board
dimensions probably would have increased 5x or more.

>But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and will
>stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the BBB
>and why does my my GPIO does not work..

Can't help you with that...


If you want my take on this situation . . . it's because the I.Q. of the
average person posting on theses forums seems to have diminished in the
last couple of years. These people can not understand that the software
people on this project are not paid and offer their service for free to the
community. As well as software upgrades are not the responsibility of the
community, nor are these upgrade required for the software that third
parties have written to work properly. Nor, do these third parties take
responsibility for doing so . . . I could go on all day . . .


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Harvey White  wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:02:13 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
> >get the cost down.
> >
> >1) As few components as possible.
>   granted, no problem with that.
>
> >2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>   do we know what the application is?  Apparently people tend to think
> that this can do anything.
> >3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>   hmmm, then that says you have not as much control over the power
> supply as you might want.  Certainly not as much as you may like.
>
> >4) Lowest cost components.
>   no problem.
> >5) Limit the features.
>   no problem.  It does what it does.
>
> >6) Cut the profit.
>   diminishing returns.
> >
> >Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
> no
> >one has even identified.
> Perhaps it might be interesting to know what they were... Not
> criticizing, but to know design alternatives might be nice.
>
> >But if I had, you would not have bought it because
> >it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
>
> I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
> does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
> more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
> though.
>
>
> >That is where
> >the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>
> Then you're designing to a price point, and that's a different thing
> entirely.
>
> >
> >Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
> >complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>
> I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars.  I might
> not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I"
> however, am not "they" but there are a lot more of "them" than
> there are of me
>
> Not practical for you to put too many blank pads on a board and expect
> the user to solder parts in.  I do, because I can build the boards.
> Your average hobby type... not likely I suspect.
>
> >
> >If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
> more
> >robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it, by
> >all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
> >hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>
> If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.
>
> The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what,
> but that's a simple economic decision.  Then there's the engineering
> decision.
>
>
>
> >
> >But,

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

And, of course, I'm sure John has something to say, about what I have to
say. Good thing for me, and everyone else who reads these posts. that I
have blocked his posts on this forum. Globally.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:41 PM, William Hermans  wrote:

> HI Harvey,
>
> I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
> does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
> more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
> though.
>
> Id disagree with you. Only because we can second guess each other until
> the end of time. But the point here that this was part of the reasoning for
> the design behind the BBB, and without it we would not be where we are.
>
> I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars.  I might
> not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I"
> however, am not "they" but there are a lot more of "them" than
> there are of me
>
>
> The initial design discussed here is the BBW I believe. By the time my
> biddy and I priced the BBW actually, the cost was $99.
>
>
> If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
>> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
>> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
>> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.
>>
>> The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what,
>> but that's a simple economic decision.  Then there's the engineering
>> decision.
>>
>
> Problem is, if this design was only a 2 layer design. the actual board
> dimensions probably would have increased 5x or more.
>
> >But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and
> will
> >stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the BBB
> >and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>
> Can't help you with that...
>
>
> If you want my take on this situation . . . it's because the I.Q. of the
> average person posting on theses forums seems to have diminished in the
> last couple of years. These people can not understand that the software
> people on this project are not paid and offer their service for free to the
> community. As well as software upgrades are not the responsibility of the
> community, nor are these upgrade required for the software that third
> parties have written to work properly. Nor, do these third parties take
> responsibility for doing so . . . I could go on all day . . .
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Harvey White 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:02:13 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> >When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>> >get the cost down.
>> >
>> >1) As few components as possible.
>>   granted, no problem with that.
>>
>> >2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>>   do we know what the application is?  Apparently people tend to think
>> that this can do anything.
>> >3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>>   hmmm, then that says you have not as much control over the power
>> supply as you might want.  Certainly not as much as you may like.
>>
>> >4) Lowest cost components.
>>   no problem.
>> >5) Limit the features.
>>   no problem.  It does what it does.
>>
>> >6) Cut the profit.
>>   diminishing returns.
>> >
>> >Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
>> no
>> >one has even identified.
>> Perhaps it might be interesting to know what they were... Not
>> criticizing, but to know design alternatives might be nice.
>>
>> >But if I had, you would not have bought it because
>> >it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
>>
>> I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
>> does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
>> more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
>> though.
>>
>>
>> >That is where
>> >the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>>
>> Then you're designing to a price point, and that's a different thing
>> entirely.
>>
>> >
>> >Nobody asked how I took it from $89 to $49. They just bought them up and
>> >complained that it didn't do all the things they wanted it to do for $49.
>>
>> I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars.  I might
>> not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I"
>> however, am not "they" but there are a lot more of "them" than
>> there are of me
>>
>> Not practical for you to put too many blank pads on a board and expect
>> the user to solder parts in.  I do, because I can build the boards.
>> Your average hobby type... not likely I suspect.
>>
>> >
>> >If anyone of you want to change the design, add more features, make it
>> more
>> >robust, add more cost, increase the price, manufacture it and sell it, by
>> >all means, go ahead. I am sure there will b a few folks that value the
>> >hardware and recognize that value, and will pay for it.
>>
>> If I needed something with th

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[John Syne]

You cannot get the board layout done with 2 layers and you would have all kind 
of issues with power supply noise, ground bounce, etc. You have to start with 2 
power planes and then you need at least 4 layers to get the signals out from 
the processor. You will not be able to route the board on 2 layers. You need a 
minimum of 4 routing layers and add 2 power planes and so you have a minimum of 
6 layers. 

Regards,
John




> On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
> 
> If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.  

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/DF81005F-A570-407C-86AC-3569BEF16B8F%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Harvey White]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:41:47 -0700, you wrote:

>HI Harvey,
>
>I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
>does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
>more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
>though.
>
>Id disagree with you. Only because we can second guess each other until the
>end of time. But the point here that this was part of the reasoning for the
>design behind the BBB, and without it we would not be where we are.

It's not second guessing.  We're (to me) looking at different design
goals.  I'm willing to pay more to have a feature if I want it.  Price
point is simply that, 5 more dollars and who knows how many customers
you lose?

Because I design *my* stuff (to my own price points) it's a matter
of divergent design goals.  Not right or wrong, just different.


>
>I'm not even aware that your initial design was 89 dollars.  I might
>not have bought it for that, but that would have been my decision. "I"
>however, am not "they" but there are a lot more of "them" than
>there are of me
>
>
>The initial design discussed here is the BBW I believe. By the time my
>biddy and I priced the BBW actually, the cost was $99.

Ah, now that is a different product.  Different design goals.

>
>
>If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
>> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
>> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
>> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.
>>
>> The cost would, of course, determine how many I'd use, and for what,
>> but that's a simple economic decision.  Then there's the engineering
>> decision.
>>
>
>Problem is, if this design was only a 2 layer design. the actual board
>dimensions probably would have increased 5x or more.

>From my experience, perhaps a factor of 2 IF the board could be routed
properly.  With added layers, there's a factor that makes the board
more stable, gives better performance (due to transmission line
effects and signal isolation), and is often easier to route in a
particular size.  The physical cost is that the board can cost twice
as much (at least).

>
>>But, I suspect the majority will complain that it is too expensive and will
>>stay with the BBB and instead ask how to flash the latest image in the BBB
>>and why does my my GPIO does not work..
>
>Can't help you with that...
>
>
>If you want my take on this situation . . . it's because the I.Q. of the
>average person posting on theses forums seems to have diminished in the
>last couple of years. These people can not understand that the software
>people on this project are not paid and offer their service for free to the
>community. As well as software upgrades are not the responsibility of the
>community, nor are these upgrade required for the software that third
>parties have written to work properly. Nor, do these third parties take
>responsibility for doing so . . . I could go on all day . . .

I think that the BBB has transitioned from a somewhat specialized
product supported by hobbyists to a commodity.  Commodities are bought
by appliance users (a term borrowed from the amateur radio community).
The mindset is quite different.  The expectations of the consumer are
also quite different.

If you think the BBB is bad, I think we should both consider the
Arduino world

Harvey



>
>
>On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:02:13 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> >When you design low cost hardware, you have to make certain decisions to
>> >get the cost down.
>> >
>> >1) As few components as possible.
>>   granted, no problem with that.
>>
>> >2) Limit the application. Only one application,
>>   do we know what the application is?  Apparently people tend to think
>> that this can do anything.
>> >3) Push as much cost outside, for example the power supply.
>>   hmmm, then that says you have not as much control over the power
>> supply as you might want.  Certainly not as much as you may like.
>>
>> >4) Lowest cost components.
>>   no problem.
>> >5) Limit the features.
>>   no problem.  It does what it does.
>>
>> >6) Cut the profit.
>>   diminishing returns.
>> >
>> >Yes, there are several things I could have done different. Many of these
>> no
>> >one has even identified.
>> Perhaps it might be interesting to know what they were... Not
>> criticizing, but to know design alternatives might be nice.
>>
>> >But if I had, you would not have bought it because
>> >it cost too much. After all hardware is supposed to be cheap.
>>
>> I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
>> does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
>> more capability, within reason.  Not your typical consumer,
>> though.
>>
>>
>> >That is where
>> >the value is, in the price. Not the value..
>>
>> Then you're designing to a price point, and that's a different thing
>> entirely.
>>

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Harvey White]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:49:05 -0700, you wrote:

>You cannot get the board layout done with 2 layers and you would have all kind 
>of issues with power supply noise, ground bounce, etc. You have to start with 
>2 power planes and then you need at least 4 layers to get the signals out from 
>the processor. You will not be able to route the board on 2 layers. You need a 
>minimum of 4 routing layers and add 2 power planes and so you have a minimum 
>of 6 layers. 

I wasn't considering a modification of an ARM design, I was thinking
more of different processors.  My preference (and cost limitations) as
well as what I already have software for, point me to other
processors.  If I were to use ARM processors ( a possibility), I'd be
working with a pre-made board of some sort, due to manufacturing
difficulties.

Harvey


>
>Regards,
>John
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Harvey White  wrote:
>> 
>> If I needed something with that capability, I'd probably buy it
>> because my cost preference on a PC board is 2 layers and not 4 or 6. I
>> don't have the money to develop a product at this level, nor do I have
>> the desire, nor perhaps the time or expertise.  

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/nnulnb15lkat696jpnvomnd7p11ng2v4cj%404ax.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

>
> It's not second guessing.  We're (to me) looking at different design
> goals.  I'm willing to pay more to have a feature if I want it.  Price
> point is simply that, 5 more dollars and who knows how many customers
> you lose?
>
> Because I design *my* stuff (to my own price points) it's a matter
> of divergent design goals.  Not right or wrong, just different.
>

Ah, ok, I get that.



Ah, now that is a different product.  Different design goals

Absolutely. The BBW for us would have worked fine, but many of the cool
features like onboard JTAG simply was not needed for our design goals, but
seemed to have added a lot of costs that we would have preferred not to
pay. So for us, in this context, Gerald was bang on with his designed
goals. But was it perfect ? Probably not, but how many here would profess
to "looking a gift horse in the eye" ? Also, many of use could look at
these so called design flaws as an opportunity. I'm already making money
from one such "flaw",  that is actually not a flaw. But a design / cost
decision.

>From my experience, perhaps a factor of 2 IF the board could be routed
properly.  With added layers, there's a factor that makes the board
more stable, gives better performance (due to transmission line
effects and signal isolation), and is often easier to route in a
particular size.  The physical cost is that the board can cost twice
as much (at least).



Well my own comments here were rather . . . yeah I do not know what. I'm
not an EE, with experience in design layout. But I do have some
understanding of the process, as one of my long time friends is very good
with orcad, and design layout. So, I'm sure there is more than dimensions
to consider in this design. For instance, I know that the DDR traces have
to be very exact. A two layer design would surely have an impact on that,
if not more . . .

I think that the BBB has transitioned from a somewhat specialized
product supported by hobbyists to a commodity.  Commodities are bought
by appliance users (a term borrowed from the amateur radio community).
The mindset is quite different.  The expectations of the consumer are
also quite different.

If you think the BBB is bad, I think we should both consider the
Arduino world

I do not know much about the Arduino world. I prefer not to think about
Arduino's period. My buddy here who is a very good EE, and has been an EE
for 35+ years tells me he thinks the Arduino is awesome. Because it puts
hardware in the hands of novices, and give them the ability to "make". My
take on this is quite the opposite actually . . .

But here is the thing, 3.5+ year ago I entered into the world of Beagle
knowing nothing. So I can understand the frustration of not knowing how to
deal with a given situation. I have even once or twice "bitten someones
head off" because I was frustrated. The thing is, my inability to
understand something is not someone elses problem, or responsibility.
Which I realized even as I complained silently to myself . . .so I forced
myself to learn, instead of blaming someone else for my inabilities. Now, I
understand more about this hardware, and perhaps a good bit more about
embedded Linux. But *ONLY* because I put effort into it. Well, others have
helped some too, but no one did anything for me. Others helped as I helped
myself to learn enough to ask a smart question.

Honestly I think I can count the "real" questions I've asked on these
groups on one hand. I've asked Robert many questions in relation to other
posts he replied to from others. But questions I started myself . . . very
few. So why is this important ? It's important because 99% of the time it's
best to go out and find the answer for yourself, and make sure you get the
correct answer. Versus getting the wrong answer right away from someone
else. There are of course exceptions, such as asking Robert specific
questions about things in his domain. Not only that, but going out and
finding your own answers sets you up as a problem solver. Someone who can
think their own way out of things, versus being a hindrance on the
community.

Anyway, this all ties to people making false assumptions on these groups
and getting huffy / puffy, and claiming that x.y.z platform is better
because of a.b.c. But guess what ? Beagle hardware has no direct comparison
out there. So if peopel in this situation do as they claim, they're only
hurting themselves. Most of these people though , , I tend to view as dim
witted want-to-be's. People who want to run a media player app/ shell /
whatever, and nothing else WHICH, in this persons humble opinion is not
where this hardware shines . . .anyway, I'm starting to rant. Perhaps I
should call it quites for now.



On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Harvey White  wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:41:47 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >HI Harvey,
> >
> >I'd personally disagree.  Hardware costs as much as you pay for, and
> >does what you design it to do.  I, for one, am willing to pay more for
> >more capabi

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

By the way, Happy 4th to all you 'Merican's' of which I am one too ;)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:36 PM, William Hermans  wrote:

> It's not second guessing.  We're (to me) looking at different design
>> goals.  I'm willing to pay more to have a feature if I want it.  Price
>> point is simply that, 5 more dollars and who knows how many customers
>> you lose?
>>
>> Because I design *my* stuff (to my own price points) it's a matter
>> of divergent design goals.  Not right or wrong, just different.
>>
>
> Ah, ok, I get that.
>
>
>
> Ah, now that is a different product.  Different design goals
>
> Absolutely. The BBW for us would have worked fine, but many of the cool
> features like onboard JTAG simply was not needed for our design goals, but
> seemed to have added a lot of costs that we would have preferred not to
> pay. So for us, in this context, Gerald was bang on with his designed
> goals. But was it perfect ? Probably not, but how many here would profess
> to "looking a gift horse in the eye" ? Also, many of use could look at
> these so called design flaws as an opportunity. I'm already making money
> from one such "flaw",  that is actually not a flaw. But a design / cost
> decision.
>
> From my experience, perhaps a factor of 2 IF the board could be routed
> properly.  With added layers, there's a factor that makes the board
> more stable, gives better performance (due to transmission line
> effects and signal isolation), and is often easier to route in a
> particular size.  The physical cost is that the board can cost twice
> as much (at least).
>
>
>
> Well my own comments here were rather . . . yeah I do not know what. I'm
> not an EE, with experience in design layout. But I do have some
> understanding of the process, as one of my long time friends is very good
> with orcad, and design layout. So, I'm sure there is more than dimensions
> to consider in this design. For instance, I know that the DDR traces have
> to be very exact. A two layer design would surely have an impact on that,
> if not more . . .
>
> I think that the BBB has transitioned from a somewhat specialized
> product supported by hobbyists to a commodity.  Commodities are bought
> by appliance users (a term borrowed from the amateur radio community).
> The mindset is quite different.  The expectations of the consumer are
> also quite different.
>
> If you think the BBB is bad, I think we should both consider the
> Arduino world
>
> I do not know much about the Arduino world. I prefer not to think about
> Arduino's period. My buddy here who is a very good EE, and has been an EE
> for 35+ years tells me he thinks the Arduino is awesome. Because it puts
> hardware in the hands of novices, and give them the ability to "make". My
> take on this is quite the opposite actually . . .
>
> But here is the thing, 3.5+ year ago I entered into the world of Beagle
> knowing nothing. So I can understand the frustration of not knowing how to
> deal with a given situation. I have even once or twice "bitten someones
> head off" because I was frustrated. The thing is, my inability to
> understand something is not someone elses problem, or responsibility.
> Which I realized even as I complained silently to myself . . .so I forced
> myself to learn, instead of blaming someone else for my inabilities. Now, I
> understand more about this hardware, and perhaps a good bit more about
> embedded Linux. But *ONLY* because I put effort into it. Well, others have
> helped some too, but no one did anything for me. Others helped as I helped
> myself to learn enough to ask a smart question.
>
> Honestly I think I can count the "real" questions I've asked on these
> groups on one hand. I've asked Robert many questions in relation to other
> posts he replied to from others. But questions I started myself . . . very
> few. So why is this important ? It's important because 99% of the time it's
> best to go out and find the answer for yourself, and make sure you get the
> correct answer. Versus getting the wrong answer right away from someone
> else. There are of course exceptions, such as asking Robert specific
> questions about things in his domain. Not only that, but going out and
> finding your own answers sets you up as a problem solver. Someone who can
> think their own way out of things, versus being a hindrance on the
> community.
>
> Anyway, this all ties to people making false assumptions on these groups
> and getting huffy / puffy, and claiming that x.y.z platform is better
> because of a.b.c. But guess what ? Beagle hardware has no direct comparison
> out there. So if peopel in this situation do as they claim, they're only
> hurting themselves. Most of these people though , , I tend to view as dim
> witted want-to-be's. People who want to run a media player app/ shell /
> whatever, and nothing else WHICH, in this persons humble opinion is not
> where this hardware shines . . .anyway, I'm starting to rant. Perhaps I
> should call it quites for now.
>
>

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

['Morgaine' via BeagleBoard]

John Syne writes:

> > a power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a
> 4A load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is
> spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
>

That's impossible.  You can't recommend that fundamental electrical laws be
overridden. :P

If a PSU current limits at 4A, it can do so only by reducing its output
voltage.  This may then drop below specification for its load and this can
have very bad consequences such as non-stop rebooting.  There is no way for
the voltage to be maintained above its minimum spec while still providing a
current limit.

This is the reason why ensuring that startup inrush transients cause no
harm must always be handled within the design of the load, ie. the BBB in
this case.  The load is a black box as far as the external PSU is
concerned, so the external PSU has no means to perform this protective
function while still maintaining regulation.  (Blowing a fuse does not
maintain regulation, but is sometimes the only practical alternative.)

In other words, a load can demand a *minimum* current capability under a
rated voltage specification, but it cannot demand a *maximum* current
capability unless it can cope with arbitrary drops in supply voltage.  Such
voltage tolerance is generally not available in electronic circuitry today,
certainly not in BBB.

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAM0uzStPOH3i%2B0pH2O4Bz3E_kcggLrJu9yZSaOO4HzZ%2BkLQ3mg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[John Syne]

Nonsense. This is how the vast majority of power supplies work. The voltage 
ramps up while the current is maintained at it’s maximum current. When the 
voltage reaches the regulation voltage, the current is reduced. What the OP 
proposed is that 4A was regarded as a short circuit and hence the power supply 
shutdown. This is not normal. 

Regards,
John




> On Jul 4, 2016, at 6:14 PM, 'Morgaine' via BeagleBoard 
>  wrote:
> 
> John Syne writes:
> > a power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A 
> > load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is 
> > spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
> 
> That's impossible.  You can't recommend that fundamental electrical laws be 
> overridden. :P
> 
> If a PSU current limits at 4A, it can do so only by reducing its output 
> voltage.  This may then drop below specification for its load and this can 
> have very bad consequences such as non-stop rebooting.  There is no way for 
> the voltage to be maintained above its minimum spec while still providing a 
> current limit.
> 
> This is the reason why ensuring that startup inrush transients cause no harm 
> must always be handled within the design of the load, ie. the BBB in this 
> case.  The load is a black box as far as the external PSU is concerned, so 
> the external PSU has no means to perform this protective function while still 
> maintaining regulation.  (Blowing a fuse does not maintain regulation, but is 
> sometimes the only practical alternative.)
> 
> In other words, a load can demand a minimum current capability under a rated 
> voltage specification, but it cannot demand a maximum current capability 
> unless it can cope with arbitrary drops in supply voltage.  Such voltage 
> tolerance is generally not available in electronic circuitry today, certainly 
> not in BBB.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss 
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAM0uzStPOH3i%2B0pH2O4Bz3E_kcggLrJu9yZSaOO4HzZ%2BkLQ3mg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/5F599CF2-6CBC-4415-ACF6-C1F60A5583E3%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] Re: BBB startup current

['Mark Lazarewicz' via BeagleBoard]

:-) I've often wondered how many people post in here trying to be seen as 
knowledgeable.  Great comments William 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:11 PM, William Hermans wrote:   
kzsoltkzsolt,

I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who 
designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at some 
point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge to the 
public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that you're free 
to change and use for your own personal use.

So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of making yourself 
looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". e.g. it doesn't make 
you look good.

SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well aware of what you're 
trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for various reasons. Reason, 
that you, I, or the next person do not need to understand. Because we can 
change to designs to our own liking if we so wish.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Gerald Coley  wrote:

Thank you for your feedback. 
Gerald
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM,  wrote:

First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I never 
request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For example it is 
help to make workaround. 
"TI did not write that specification"No, but use it in all reference design. 
See TI TPS20x1 PDS application information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33.
"If you put the CAP after the switch then ..."  Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS 
in all TI application information? Because PDS has soft start feature which 
prevent overload IN (BBB SYS power rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 
and 8. Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit charge of 
100uF to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current limit, 
therefore no dip on IN. This is one main function of PDS.
"I did not design the board for your application"It is not required. But during 
research work to specify our problem I found many topic where users discover 
mysterious problems with power supply, and try to found a right one for BBB. 
This can be originated from startup current peak. 


-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
Gerald gerald@beagleboard.orghttp://beagleboard.org/gcol...@emprodesign.com


-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHK_S%2BcAH_U%3DVtJmLq62wrVPmRg8%2Bn27YjWM_oeorZezSTKorQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORo-TL2x_vUEni%2B-daiSEQXxLUU_N5p%2BEh%2Bt6tzpuuPT0g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/1046652277.1700874.1467693539920.JavaMail.yahoo%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[Harvey White]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:27:22 -0700, you wrote:

>Nonsense. This is how the vast majority of power supplies work. The voltage 
>ramps up while the current is maintained at it’s maximum current. When the 
>voltage reaches the regulation voltage, the current is reduced. What the OP 
>proposed is that 4A was regarded as a short circuit and hence the power supply 
>shutdown. This is not normal. 

Much of this depends on the type of supply.

A bulk supply provides unregulated current to the limit of its
capacity.  Voltage decreases as current is drawn.  There are no
voltage or current regulating elements.  Obviously not used for the
BBB.

A voltage regulated supply may or may not have a current limit
circuit.

If not, then the supply current is limited by the resistance of the
parts.  From zero, the supply will try to charge up whatever
capacitance is on the output.  Large startup currents can happen,
similar to a bulk supply.  The voltage regulator does keep the output
voltage from rising past a set point, however.

A voltage and current regulated supply may operate in two ways
depending on the current limiter design.

If the supply is only current limited, then the supply is a constant
current supply at startup, supplying the maximum current it can
(depending on load) until the nominal voltage is reached (assuming
we're charging capacitors).  Under normal operation, the supply is a
voltage regulated supply.  Should current demand exceed (or try to)
the current limit, the supply becomes a constant current supply.  The
voltage drops to the point where the rated maximum current flows.

For instance, 5 volts 4 amps.  Put a 2 ohm load on the supply and you
have 5 volts at 2.5 amps load.  Put a 1 ohm load on it, and you will
have a 4 volt supply at 4 amps.  

It is possible for a supply to have foldback current limiting.  In
that case, the maximum supply current changes on maximum draw.  In
this case, you may have a 200 ma current foldback limit.  Try to draw
4 amps and the supply changes its limit to 200 ma and adjusts the
output voltage to maintain that lower limit.  Depending on the design
of the foldback, the load may have to be reduced or disconnected to
restore the regulated voltage.

Constant voltage with constant current limiting is common on lab
supplies, higher quality wall-wart power supplies, and is not common
on straight battery supplies, or bulk supplies, and some older (and
cheaper) power adaptors.

Power limiting can be built in rather easily, though, if you have the
right parts.

Harvey


>
>Regards,
>John
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 6:14 PM, 'Morgaine' via BeagleBoard 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> John Syne writes:
>> > a power supply that is spec’d at 4A should not shutdown when it sees a 4A 
>> > load, but rather, it should current limit at 4A. If the power supply is 
>> > spec’d at 4A, then 4A should not be treated as a short circuit.
>> 
>> That's impossible.  You can't recommend that fundamental electrical laws be 
>> overridden. :P
>> 
>> If a PSU current limits at 4A, it can do so only by reducing its output 
>> voltage.  This may then drop below specification for its load and this can 
>> have very bad consequences such as non-stop rebooting.  There is no way for 
>> the voltage to be maintained above its minimum spec while still providing a 
>> current limit.
>> 
>> This is the reason why ensuring that startup inrush transients cause no harm 
>> must always be handled within the design of the load, ie. the BBB in this 
>> case.  The load is a black box as far as the external PSU is concerned, so 
>> the external PSU has no means to perform this protective function while 
>> still maintaining regulation.  (Blowing a fuse does not maintain regulation, 
>> but is sometimes the only practical alternative.)
>> 
>> In other words, a load can demand a minimum current capability under a rated 
>> voltage specification, but it cannot demand a maximum current capability 
>> unless it can cope with arbitrary drops in supply voltage.  Such voltage 
>> tolerance is generally not available in electronic circuitry today, 
>> certainly not in BBB.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss 
>> 
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAM0uzStPOH3i%2B0pH2O4Bz3E_kcggLrJu9yZSaOO4HzZ%2BkLQ3mg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .

-- 
For more options, visit http://be

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

['Morgaine' via BeagleBoard]

John Syne writes:

> > Nonsense. This is how the vast majority of power supplies work. The
> voltage ramps up while the current is maintained at it’s maximum current.
> When the voltage reaches the regulation voltage, the current is reduced.
>

How?  By magic? :P

You appear to think that current limiting "just happens", without
understanding how it's actually done.  It cannot be done without affecting
the supplied voltage, as that is core electrical theory.

It doesn't matter how a PSU implements current limiting internally.  It
could be manipulating effective internal resistance with linear devices, or
it could be altering buck/boost frequencies or duty cycles, or it could be
controlling linear or packetized charge injection into a capacitive tank,
or in a fun Heath Robinson world it could even be using stepper motors to
switch between transformer or inductor windings, but it really doesn't
matter how.  Regardless of the internal technique in use, the end result is
that when the current limit is reached and fractionally exceeded, the PSU
will *always* *and* *under all circumstances* reduce the voltage supplied
to the load that is demanding the excess current.  There is no alternative
available in circuit theory.

And if the load keeps on demanding more current, that supply voltage will
keep on dropping, until it goes out of spec and then "bad things happen".

You won't understand this until you check it out yourself --- easily done,
just grab a programmable PSU, set a current limit on it, watch the voltage
on a separate DVM, and reduce your load resistance to demand more current.
Good luck trying to keep the voltage fixed when you hit the current limit.
Not gonna happen. :-)

Incidentally, it's very important that you try this and understand it.
Nothing in electronics will make any sense to you until this is fully
comprehended, as it's such a fundamental part of circuit theory.

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAM0uzSuQY4gFZ%2Bt4BdrPg_0hUwj_BbW8c%2BOov0fznZyqXtfkpA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [beagleboard] Re: BBB startup current

[William Hermans]

>
> :-) I've often wondered how many people post in here trying to be seen as
> knowledgeable.  Great comments William
>

Perhaps a poor choice of words . . .but both definitely know more about
power electronics than I. Which I'm afraid isn't saying much.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:38 PM, 'Mark Lazarewicz' via BeagleBoard <
beagleboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> :-) I've often wondered how many people post in here trying to be seen as
> knowledgeable.  Great comments William
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:11 PM, William Hermans
>  wrote:
> kzsoltkzsolt,
>
> I would like to point out to you that you're talking to *the* person who
> designed the beaglebones, who also used to work for Texas Instruments at
> some point in his career. Someone who has made his designs free of charge
> to the public, which he has made perfectly clear to you in these post that
> you're free to change and use for your own personal use.
>
> So, telling him things, he probably already knows, in hopes of making
> yourself looks good. Actually make you look like a "know it all". e.g. it
> doesn't make you look good.
>
> SO perhaps you should realize that Gerald is probably well aware of what
> you're trying to discuss here, but is unwilling to change for various
> reasons. Reason, that you, I, or the next person do not need to understand.
> Because we can change to designs to our own liking if we so wish.
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Gerald Coley 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your feedback.
>>
>> Gerald
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> First of all making changes on design "tomorrow" is irresponsible, so I
>>> never request it. But good to know where is some "leak" in design. For
>>> example it is help to make workaround.
>>>
>>> "TI did not write that specification"
>>> No, but use it in all reference design. See TI TPS20x1 PDS
>>> application information. See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 33.
>>>
>>> "If you put the CAP after the switch then ..."
>>> Then why CAP placed OUT of PDS in all TI application information?
>>> Because PDS has soft start feature which prevent overload IN (BBB SYS
>>> power rail). See for example TPS2051 docu Fig 4 and 8.
>>> Fig 8 is perfect draw for this. The soft start feature limit charge of
>>> 100uF to 0,5A, therefore current never exceed USB1 and 2 current limit,
>>> therefore no dip on IN.
>>> This is one main function of PDS.
>>>
>>> "I did not design the board for your application"
>>> It is not required. But during research work to specify our problem I
>>> found many topic where users discover mysterious problems with power
>>> supply, and try to found a right one for BBB. This can be originated from
>>> startup current peak.
>>>
>>> --
>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/b974f98a-0cff-4380-af1f-9ce5db9e199f%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gerald
>>
>> ger...@beagleboard.org
>> http://beagleboard.org/
>> gcol...@emprodesign.com
>>
>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHK_S%2BcAH_U%3DVtJmLq62wrVPmRg8%2Bn27YjWM_oeorZezSTKorQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORo-TL2x_vUEni%2B-daiSEQXxLUU_N5p%2BEh%2Bt6tzpuuPT0g%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
>

Re: [beagleboard] BBB startup current

[John Syne]

Clearly you are not listening. I already said the voltage will drop and then 
rise as the capacitor charges, but the current will be constant until the 
voltage reaches the regulator voltage. All these references to all kinds of 
power supplies is senseless. We are only talking about the 5V2A supply 
recommended for the BBB, or the 5V4A supply suggested by the OP. If the power 
supply is spec’d at 2A, you are not going to get 10A because the power supply 
will protect itself and reduce the voltage to maintain the 2A limit. If this 
protection was not available, the power supply would just die. Your argument is 
this is a 10Watt supply, so if you drop the voltage to 0.1V, you can achieve 
100A make no sense whatsoever. The maximum current is defined by the size of 
the wire in the coil or transformer and the size of the PCB traces. To prevent 
exceeding this max current, the regulator will reduce the voltage and maintain 
a constant current, thereby protecting the power supply from a dangerous 
failure. 

Regards,
John




> On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:58 PM, 'Morgaine' via BeagleBoard 
>  wrote:
> 
> John Syne writes:
> > Nonsense. This is how the vast majority of power supplies work. The voltage 
> > ramps up while the current is maintained at it’s maximum current. When the 
> > voltage reaches the regulation voltage, the current is reduced.
> 
> How?  By magic? :P
> 
> You appear to think that current limiting "just happens", without 
> understanding how it's actually done.  It cannot be done without affecting 
> the supplied voltage, as that is core electrical theory.
> 
> It doesn't matter how a PSU implements current limiting internally.  It could 
> be manipulating effective internal resistance with linear devices, or it 
> could be altering buck/boost frequencies or duty cycles, or it could be 
> controlling linear or packetized charge injection into a capacitive tank, or 
> in a fun Heath Robinson world it could even be using stepper motors to switch 
> between transformer or inductor windings, but it really doesn't matter how.  
> Regardless of the internal technique in use, the end result is that when the 
> current limit is reached and fractionally exceeded, the PSU will always and 
> under all circumstances reduce the voltage supplied to the load that is 
> demanding the excess current.  There is no alternative available in circuit 
> theory.
> 
> And if the load keeps on demanding more current, that supply voltage will 
> keep on dropping, until it goes out of spec and then "bad things happen".
> 
> You won't understand this until you check it out yourself --- easily done, 
> just grab a programmable PSU, set a current limit on it, watch the voltage on 
> a separate DVM, and reduce your load resistance to demand more current.  Good 
> luck trying to keep the voltage fixed when you hit the current limit.  Not 
> gonna happen. :-)
> 
> Incidentally, it's very important that you try this and understand it.  
> Nothing in electronics will make any sense to you until this is fully 
> comprehended, as it's such a fundamental part of circuit theory.
> 
> 
> -- 
> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss 
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "BeagleBoard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAM0uzSuQY4gFZ%2Bt4BdrPg_0hUwj_BbW8c%2BOov0fznZyqXtfkpA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/BDEF82B0-502C-4CA5-B092-4EFC86B91A33%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.