Welcome to the MSP430™16-bit Ultra-Low Power MCUs Section of the TI E2E Support Community. Ask questions, share knowledge, explore ideas, and help solve problems with fellow engineers. To post a question, click on the forum tab then "New Post".
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!
Let us know your opinions! Please select which proposal you prefer...
Scenario:
Existing LaunchPad (MSP-EXP430G2) pin assignments are OK for today's devices with Timer UART
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)
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.
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?
_____________________________________Before posting bug reports or ask for help, do at least quick scan over this article about reporting bugs. Its content applies to any kind of problem reporting.If you cannot discuss your problem in the public, feel free to start a private conversation: click on my name and then 'start conversation'. But please do so only if you really cannot do it in a public thread, as I usually read all threads. And I prefer to answer where others can profit from it (or contribute to it) too.
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
RgdsaBUGSworstnightmare