LaunchPad hardware revision? We need your opinions - the future of LaunchPad is in your hands!

LaunchPad  hardware revision to expand device support? We need your opinions - the future of LaunchPad is in your hands!

Hello MSP430 e2e-ers!

We would like to call on the online community to help us determine the future of the MSP430 Value Line LaunchPad development kit. The Value Line microcontroller family (MSP430G2xx) is growing and will soon feature integrated hardware UART in future devices.

With this new feature, we may update LaunchPad so that it can directly interface with these devices. Please, review the proposals below, and let us know your opinion via the online poll. The poll will be open until Jan 20, 2011.


If you have any other ideas or comments, let us know by responding to this post!

As always, thanks for supporting MSP430! LaunchPad was built specifically with our online community in mind, so we're excited at the opportunity to hear everyone's thoughts!

 

[poll]

Scenario:

Existing LaunchPad (MSP-EXP430G2) pin assignments are OK for today's devices with Timer UART

  • P1.1 = TXD (TA0.0)
  • P1.2 = RXD (TA0.1)

However, we want LaunchPad to continue to support the new wave of Value Line devices (MSP430G2xx3) with HW UART (notice the RX and TX lines are flipped on these new devices)

  • P1.1 = UCA0RXD
  • P1.2 = UCA0TXD

The new MSP430G2xx3 devices can continue to use LaunchPad if the Timer UART is used, but HW UART will not be compatible due to the flipped pins...



 

What are the options?

Proposal 1: Rev LaunchPad to include 2 more pins, to allow users to flip ports P1.1 and P1.2 depending on the position of a jumper. Both positions below support Timer UART (pin swap can be reflected in SW) and HW UART with position 2.

Jumpers @ Position 1 will allow existing code to run without modification on this new LaunchPad

Jumpers @ Position 2 will allow designs with HW UART to run on this new LaunchPad as well


 

Proposal 2: Similar in concept to Proposal 1, except we do not change the LaunchPad layout - we simply provide prototyping wires to allow developers to flip the pins when HW UART is needed. Both positions below support Timer UART (pin swap can be reflected in SW) and HW UART with position 2.


 

Proposal 3: Rev LaunchPad by re-routing the existing traces to permanently flip P1.1 and P1.2


Proposal 3 allows HW UART and Timer UART, however existing code generated on the current LaunchPad design will have to be modified to support the flipped pins.

Proposal 1 and 2 can support existing code unmodified when the jumper/wire is in position 1.

 

@aye_dreee_an

www.ti.com/launchpad

www.energia.nu

52 Replies

  • Proposal 2 is fine. Why complicate with different launchpad layouts/revisions.

  • Go for Proposal 1! Sounds perfectly reasonable.

  • In reply to Ian Daniher:

    I went for proposal 1 also.  Personally I would also be okay with 2, but 3 sounds like starting from ground zero all over again.  Since I know that all I have to do is "flip pins" to use new chip functionality on the old board, I am totally good as is.   ;)  

    Btw @ Ian, how is your I2C servo going??  I tried your website about a month ago, but I.E. just asks me if I want to download a file??   ... wierd huh?  My drv8811 stepper is coming along, but I will not have a lot of time to work on it because my new semester starts 1/3/11.  I just got my new textbooks.

  • Honestly, I think Proposal 3 is the best.  The LaunchPad hasn't been out that long, so there's not a very large quantity of legacy code to have to rely on.  Why keep the extra baggage?  I say we break with the old connection and do it right.  Any code that is going to be reused, it's simply a pin swap; it shouldn't be too difficult of a change.

  • I like proposal 1 for ease of use. If the board is going to be rerouted for other reasons, by all means include the extra jumper. On my existing Launchpads, I would most likely homebrew a solution similar to proposal 2. By all means, do not do proposal 3.

  • In reply to paradug:

    Hi Adrian,

    Proposal 2 is the right one! That's what every current LaunchPad user will have to do when using the new parts on his board.
    Just include 2 jump wires in the LaunchPad boxes and you're done!

    Happy New Year to all!
    aBUGSworstnightmare

     

  • For new stock, Proposal 1 is the cleanest implementation. The LaunchPad is such an inexpensive dev board, I would probably simply buy 2 or three new ones to use with HW UART. That said, it would be wonderful if TI also offered (at a reasonable cost) jumpers to swap pins on current revision LaunchPad boards. These are obviously easy enough for a hobbyist to make, but a manufactured solution would be cleaner. Thanks for your great support and concern for the community!
  • proposal 2 is best.

    than proposal 1.

     

  • Proposal 2 is best... As it is we are facing delievery issue with this tool so just including wire jumpers make sense.

  • In reply to Vikas Chola:

    how do i vote??