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

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

Go for Proposal 1! Sounds perfectly reasonable.

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.

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

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.

how do i vote??

IMHO, proposal 3 is the best. It is compatible with existing external hardware and compatible with the new devices. And it requires just two changed defines for any old software for the LaunchPad (of which there won't be much).

Second best is #1, as it allows hardware configuration if you have the"wrong" firmware on the MCU. But then, you could as well change the defines and don't need the jumpers.

Worst would be #2, as a replacement for lost wires is difficult to get. While everyone might have a jumper and every LaunchPad user has a compiler to compile a fixed software, few will have a replacement for lost wires.

And after all, #3 is the cheapest to build. And I guess we all want cheap launchpads, don't we?

right but how do i vote for #3 or #1?

WTF it just loaded. I've loaded and reloaded the webpage chrome and firefox and just now it worked??????? wow that was a hard vote.

                     I think Proposal 1 would be the simplest option.

I'd rather just move some jumpers.

Hi there,

when you're looking for jumper wires look i.e. at Sparfun's website http://www.sparkfun.com/search/results?term=jumper+wires&what=products

Rgds
aBUGSworstnightmare 

Since support for the 2211/2231 will still be part of the launchpad even when the new chips arrive in the lineup I have to vote for option 1.

Or you could add peripheral pin selection to the value line :)  That would be fine as well.

If you do a board redesign how about adding jumpers to XIn/XOut pins so that you can select either the crystal or the P2.6/P2.7 GPIO with out the need to remove the crystal.

One final suggestion, please consider adding the pins to the flash emulator side of the board for the F2013/CC2500 spy by wire pads, it is a pain to get this little header.

 -Cecil

@Cecil

I didn't htink that header was too bad.  I just put it on my last DigiKey order.  As a side note though, Ti lists a Mill Max header in the wiki.  That header is 50 position, and like almost $13.50.  I odered one wtih only six positions, all other specifications the same:

P/n  S9016E-06-ND

This header is only like $0.48, so I got 4, with my last order.  I would not make a special order for them, too much shipping.

Cecil Casey said:

Since support for the 2211/2231 will still be part of the launchpad even when the new chips arrive in the lineup I have to vote for option 1.

Cecil Casey said:

If you do a board redesign how about adding jumpers to XIn/XOut pins

Cecil Casey said:

please consider adding the pins to the flash emulator side of the board for the F2013/CC2500 spy by wire pads

I would go with Option 2. That way, "early adopters" won't feel bad, no hardware should be produces (adding jumpers and/or board traces). For LaunchPad's shipped with new uCs, a special jumper block can be designed to cross the required pins (with "straight" one available as an option for "old" uCs). We can upgrade to new controllers and make the jumper wires by ourselves. I don't think average Joe Doe is the target customer anyway, so this will not create any troubles.

See, that's exactly why I feel like Option 3 is the best choice.  The pin problem has nothing to do with the "old" uCs, because the problem is in software.  It's just that the convention chosen when the LaunchPad was first designed turned out to be opposite the convention used in designing the hardware UART.  The same convention can easily be used for both hardware and software UARTs, by swapping the pins in the code.  If the code was designed well, this should be trivial to do.  If not, is it really that important that we keep the legacy software UART code for all eternity?  As you say, the target customers here ought to be able to get around any switches with the original LaunchPads.  It seems like we'd save everyone lots of grief if we just standardize to the hardware UART convention and be done with it so we don't have to deal with different methods for different chip/software combinations.

Ok, I'll get off the soapbox now.  

Hey if there is room on that soapbox I will join you there. Option 3 is the way to go IMHO.

Whatever you do, document it in silkscreen on the back of the PCB. That way I don't have to go digging through manuals to find info that should be right there. Silk is free!

--Derek

Why complicate things? The board is good as is. Swiching connections is no big deal for different test applications. It's not as though we are constantly swiching back and forth between devices..

Dear Champs,

I like proposal 1 > proposal 3> proposal2.

And could it intinally put  the jumpers @ (Position) HW UART to allow designers run on this new LaunchPad.

The most popular proposal N1 needs new PCB layout and it is time to revise layout, introducing at least two new features:

1. Many developing MC tools have a piece of a perforboard for simple external user circuit. Launchpad has free of components space near both sides of DIP20 socket and this space can be used for perforboard as it is done in the middle of the well known layout ( http://groups.google.com/group/ti-launchpad , msp430-runtime.png). The current Launchpad need an additional perforboad ( for instance 201-0004-01 board from http://www.schmartboard.com ) that increase total price of a prototyping system 2-3 times. Regular MSP430G2 circuitry has few elements that will fit 2 pads aside DIP20 socket. Introducing perforboard will open a new field for Launchpad applications – very fast small series (<10) manual production of extremely cheap nonsizerestricted & nonweightrestricted G2-series based devices.

2. Nearly all G2 processors have SSOP (PW) package. So, it is time to support this package by Launchpad. SSOP20 landing pads can be placed between led jumpers and reset button instead of TI Launchpad label. The package can be pressed to the PCB by a paper clip as it it is described in my paper http://svb3.hotmail.ru/launchpad/SSOP_Shield.pdf . Is it very hard to wire 20 additional connections between DIP20 socket and SSOP pads?

I had the same problem with the 1.27mm header for F2013, but there is a workaround - two-row surface mounted 1.27mm pin headers PLLD-1.27-12S can be used. I have used available nearby PLLD-1.27-80S (http://www.brownbear.ru/components/plld-1.27-80s.html ), cut 6x2 part, took off one row of pins with pliers and soldered the resultant rectangular header. Unfortunately, PLLD-1.27 pins are rectangular but not round, but it works!

Proposal #1 for me...

Option 2 is ok. 

Option 3 may be reserved for Launchpad 2.0.

Launchpad should be also  shipped with one of those 20PIN DIP chips

for applications requiring more than 10 IO pins.

I voted for 2 but think 1 is fine too.  In any of the cases, I think some accompanying SW/HW is needed with the HW UART.  

With all the requests on the MSP430 Forums for printf(), can we make HW with line drivers/USB adaptor (PC's with DB-9 connectors are getting hard to find) that will allow the Launchpad to connect to a PC?

That way anyone (including newbies) can run the "Hello world via SW UART"  Grace Example "out of the box" to get a printf().

I Like proposal 1.

Tim Daugard

I would suggest another solution:

As you can see:  turning the Jumpers by 90 degrees leads to a crossed Signal path.

The advantage is, you don't need Jumperwires and could use the old behavior for the old parts and the turned configuration for the new ones.

Hello Everyone!

Thank you for your feedback, comments, and suggestions -- we really appreciate the discussion and opinions. It looks like a hardware revision is in order, with Proposal Number 1 gathering the most votes.

Also, the MSP430 team is very interested in A.Wenzel's proposal. This is a cool solution that may be cleaner than the original layout change proposed in Proposal Number 1.

We'll keep everyone updated with the final decision! Stay tuned!

Thanks again!
AdrianF & the MSP430 team

A.Wenzel said:

As you can see:  turning the Jumpers by 90 degrees leads to a crossed Signal path.

In the original version, you could take a jigsaw and cut the LaunchPad into two pieces right through the connector, resulting in a programming part and a target, and you only needed a 1:1 wire bridge for programming. Wiht the twisted setup you proposed, this would destroy the wiring completely.

It is, however, a smarter (because cheaper and smaller with same result) aproach than Proposal #1, which has the same drawback but requires more space and two pins more which need to be bought and placed.

Personally, I still think #3 is the optimum way as it jsut takes a small change in the software for the old devices (which isn't really a problem because everyone will either use its own software or has to compile the demo software anyway), does not cost more than the original LaunchPad, and still allows cutting the piece into pieces :)

Jens-Michael Gross said:

In the original version, you could take a jigsaw and cut the LaunchPad into two pieces right through the connector, resulting in a programming part and a target, and you only needed a 1:1 wire bridge for programming. Wiht the twisted setup you proposed, this would destroy the wiring completely.

Two points:

1- What would be gained by cutting a LaunchPad apart?  The side with the socketed MSP430 is basically a break-out board.  Since the MSP430 needs few, if any, external components, a breadboard would be a much easier solution for prototyping.  For actual use in hobby projects, a simple proto-board would be more flexible and useful.

2-In fact, I think the silkscreened division on the board is somewhat misleading.  Cutting along the line would not only split the 6-pin header for other boards, but would sever the shared ground plane.  A 1:1 bridge between the now-split header would not be sufficient; some ground connection between the two pieces would also be necessary.

I think A. Wenzel's Idea is brilliant in its simplicity.  Had his proposal been listed in the original choices, it would have definitely been my choice.

I would suggest that  with only 60 votes, you did not get the word out very well.

I just found this topic, and the poll is closed.

CDodd said:

What would be gained by cutting a LaunchPad apart?  The side with the socketed MSP430 is basically a break-out board. 

CDodd said:

Since the MSP430 needs few, if any, external components, a breadboard would be a much easier solution for prototyping

Sure, a dedicated breadboard for a good price as add-on would be a good thing. But currently there i sno such a thing, so a half LaunchPad is the cheapest choice.

hey, we really considered buying a heap of smartphones just to rip the LCD panels off, as they were much cheaper than the panels alone.

CDodd said:

Cutting along the line would not only split the 6-pin header for other boards, but would sever the shared ground plane. 

@CDodd

I think A. Wenzel's idea was brilliant also!!  I would vote for that, if it is a choice.

@Jens-Michael Gross

I think I understand the concept but, who would want to cut a launchpad in half??  That would destroy its abillity to program ez430 target devices, besides all you need to connect it to another target board is a pin header to connect to the emulator right where the jumpers would go.  That would be much easier than "cutting" the board in half!

Mark Hunsberger said:

That would destroy its abillity to program ez430 target devices

I agree on the split-ability of the programmer/debugger from the launchpad, it's a really good idea!  Just add two vacant (opposing) ground pads to J3 next to Vcc, no jumper required,   Those of us who are inclined, could then hack on a 6 pin straight or right angle header.  Perfect!  Adding some evenly spaced perf holes along the dotted line would be an added bonus.

About the 'missing' side connector for programming other devices, with a bit of creativity you can build something by yourself :)
http://www.43oh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=203

And it would be cool if you add a 3th, but unused, programming header with standard pindistance (located near the side or where the text 'emulation' is located) were people can solder their own cable to turn the launchpad into a universal msp430 programmer.

Also someone already mentioned in the launchpad wiki to relocate the pushbuttons, when I now press the left one, the launchpad sometimes tilts:

I would change few things in Launchpad board design. 1. Switch S2 (P1.3) is too close to the left border, it should be placed closer to the center, before board stand. Now if I press switch S2 board tilts! 2. Jumpers J5 (P1.0,P1.6) are too close to Switch S2, distance between those elements should be twice current value. 3. Pinheads J6 seems useless 4. Connection pads J1, J2 could be double, instad of single row. Two rows would allow user to stack boards and put some interesting stuff not only above but also under the board. 5. That nano crystal is too hard to solder for an unexperienced user.

Doubling J1 and J2 seems ok for me, but a mini proto area on the launchpad seems kinda useless to me, if you want to proto make a proto-shield like this one:
http://www.simpleavr.com/msp430-projects/launchpad-shield
But a sort of 'designpad' like this would be cool:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2762/4155924737_29c4d8bd02.jpg
The only thing that the board misses are a tiny (USB) power supply, a second button and the side headers to connect previous made launchpad shields.

And I would love to see PayPal at the e-store, here in the EU (and probaly also among students) is it pretty popular (visa/credit card not...).
And could you add the MCU's in quantities of 10 to the e-store for a reasonable price? (now i'm simply sampling them all because it is to expensive to buy them at farnell/RS)

And do you have any idea when the new launchpads will be available?

Glenn Loddewykx said:

And I would love to see PayPal at the e-store, here in the EU (and probaly also among students) is it pretty popular (visa/credit card not...).

A credit card is the best way for both sides. Instant verification, the insurance to get the money back if there's something wrong with the billing, and no problems getting the money from Visa/Master if the customer does not complain. With PayPal, things can go wrong utterly, even if both sides have no complaints or made anything wrong.

i don't know how the paypal system works for dealers, but so far I have done about 3 payments without any problems.
With one order something went wrong on the dealers he's site, after a few mails (and transfering the money to the company's paypal account) everything was ok and a few days later I receiced a small box :)
An other order was over 350$ (my rigol scope purchase :p), and a paypal employee called me on my cellphone to ask if I wanted to confirm/authorize the transfer.

But I have to admit the system can be abused, a class mate ordered somethin on ebay in china, the delivery time was about 3 to 4 weeks, after 4 weeks (or a little more)he claimed his money back through paypal .
And because the seller had no idea where the package was (no track an trace) he sended the money back, a few days later my mate received a small box with his 'free' stuff in it...

But I don't think TI wil have these issues because they work with fedex, ups, ...
And those company's use bar codes and you have to sign at delivery.

And I guess the are aiming on the students/hobbiest group, so if they add Paypal as a additional/possible payment system they can reach a much bigger group.

Besides intentional abuse, there is the fact that PayPal does not transparently act as 'money transfer handler', bu toften freezes payments based on some opaque rules and does neither forward it to the recipient nor give it back.
Sure it doesn't happen every day, but it happens way too often to recommend this service. In Germany, we have a computer magazine that has a dedicated "attention: customer!" section where they disclose cases where customers have unsolveable (yet unexplainable) problems with dealers. PayPal is a regular guest in this show (as well as several telecommunication companies) and often you can only wonder how this can be. Well, as a customer with a small bill (a few bucks) I wouldn't bother. As a company that expects a regular and perhaps large cash flow, I'd consider this a financial risk (not getting the money even if the customer is satisfied and all should be well) and an image risk if the customer is no satisfied but doesn't get his money back too.
This kind of problems is way less common (despite of the much larger user base) for Visa and Master.

Hi,

I just ordered my TI launchpad two days ago.

I am a high school student and wish to get some experience working with microcontrollers.

With what appears to be a new board in the works should i be concerned with my purchase?

If worth waiting, cancelling my order is possible (i think) as it doesn't appear to have shipped yet.

I'm more concerned with future compatibility as the popularity increases and im stuck with the old board - ex if there is a project w/t code on instructables - can mine do it...

What do you feel is the best action for me to take?

Thanks

MC

PS: Out of curiosity, how long does it typically take to receive once ordered?

And maybe a jumper controllerd USB charger and mangement IC...

After all MSP430 esp. appropriate for battery based ckts.

R.

Please add a ground pin to J3 to enable Spy-Bi-Wire with separate boards:

Alternately, change J4 to a .1 inch grid--that mill-max part is way to expensive!

Otherwise, Proposal 1 works for me.

Thanks & Regards,

--incoherent

A jumper to disable the FET would allow powering the Launchpad from batteries via LDO. Will allow people to use LPs like chewing gum (stick it somewhere, forget about it), probably not as intended? Instead, how about a prototyping board like the Launchpad minus the FET plus proto area?

A 20 pin MSP like the MSP430G2553 could be shipped instead of the 2211. This will potentially save a lot of sample orders and give access to all the family's peripheral features.

Why are the IN / OUT pins on USI / USCI reversed?

PS: the poll does not work with Google Chrome. It does not say it's closed either.

I would prefer proposal 1 or 2, the extra wires would be useful for owners of then older launchpads also, but extra jumpers would be cheaper I think. If it will be proposal 1 one really nice thing would be an extra jumper for ground along with the other ones - that would simplify sbw programming of custom msp430 boards. I know there is an extra header - but for many hobbyists 2.54mm spacing is just more familiar and easy to handle than that 1.27mm one (no issue for me, made a set of cables for the "real" FET).

I think Purposal 2 is good. No revision required.

I´ve used a rs232  pin header for ribbon cable an old pc card, you can make two of these one crossed and one straight.

Here is the crossed. No solder need. You can put the lid on, and the locking is very nice.

As you can see, cutting odd  plates one line, and even from another, reversing this for TX and leaving RX untouched (for the tread) solves all.