TM4CGH6PM Design Resources

Hello Hikmet,

The CAD Symbols for the part can be generated from the Webench Application

http://webench.ti.com/cad/

System Desgin Guidelines

www.ti.com/.../spma059.pdf

Regards
Amit

Hi Amit,

May I "devil advocate" (again) and advise the poster to, "steer a different course?"

It's great that poster has progressed (did a lot w/his LPad).   And now - expansion & new challenges beckon.  But...is this (really) in poster's best interest?

I think not.  There are many challenges in fine-pitch, SMD, board design.   And many components to properly specify, order, and strategically locate upon his new (larger) board.   Can a relatively new user get all of this right?   And properly/robustly reflow solder the MCU - and other tiny SMD devices?

How long will all of this take?   What will it cost?   How will the board be soldered?   What if it doesn't work?   And won't "time away" from poster's (normal) programming & code study prove a detriment?

Might there be a (more) successful alternative?   Many believe "Yes" - they employ the LPad and/or Eval board as a "Mother board" and their "board creation" as a specialized "Daughter board" which contains the expanded devices, features & functions you wish to add.   In most cases this will meet your new/added requirements - cost less than a completely new, larger board - and be far easier to design, assemble & debug.

Note that my small, tech firm has a, "Pick and Place" (SMD capable) machine and a 20' long, multi-zone, reflow oven.   And still - most always - we will "Prove the concept" by designing & building such "add-on" boards - which attach to various vendor's Eval boards.   Only once the combination is tweaked, peaked and proved - do we consider moving to a larger, single board.   And sales volume & profit margin must be met - to justify that "extra" effort.

The reality - most often we'll offer - at least initially - a "multi-board" solution.   (as detailed, above)   And the client will (always) seek changes - and the time/effort/cost - which a "too soon" commitment to a single-board yields - is thus avoided!    (and how smart we feel - and too our poster - maybe...)

Hello cb1

Yes, and that is why the forum is a great place to discuss approaches. I admire your approach (though loosely related in LaunchPad and Booster Pack terms)

Regards
Amit

Amit Ashara said:

...like your approach (though loosely related in LaunchPad and Booster Pack)

Indeed Amit - and (very) loosely!   (Was it (that) obvious?)  

We have used (your) LPads - and your "terrific" 20 pin to 10 pin JTAG adapter - along w/the advantaged (and discounted) dev. boards of others.

I deliberately "left out" the time/effort required to, "Load the Pick/Place" with all of the required component spools.   (such is never fun - and great "punishment" for smart yet unruly staff)   Our "usual" component spools contain the "normal/customary" jelly-bean parts: "caps, diodes, signal FETs, VRegs, ferrite beads, headers etc."  

This "array" of decisions - and actions - points to "employing our force" only, "When & Where" it is uniquely required...   (and makes financial sense.   Money is not everything - yet its absence - surely is!)

Hello cb1,

Every business has its mode of operation that is well suited for the line of work. The LPad ecosystem uses the booster packs while you have the "best ever" test the GPIO toggle board on a generic header that allows to make sense of signal toggle before complex testing commences.

Regards
Amit

Amit Ashara said:

LPad ecosystem uses the booster packs while you have the "best ever" test the GPIO toggle board on a generic header that allows to make sense of signal toggle before complex testing commences.

    Hi Amit,

So kind of you to note - thanks - yet may I add that our "generic header(s)" often extend to include multiple, organized: "Serial Ports, PWM outputs, 8 & 16 bit parallel data, and (isolated) ADC inputs."   Such allows our uber quick/familiar "hook-up and exercise" of each (even brand new) MCU board - and leads to faster, more in-depth, even highly automated board testing.

And - the common location, size, and type of headers enables our unique "expander boards" (we hesitate to promote these as "booster") to achieve higher volume usage.

As to your, "Every business has its mode of operation that is well suited..." that may prove (more) true if "successful" precedes business.   And - sometimes knowing that one's "mode of operation" is too stretched - or insufficient - or (even) when the "understanding model is supremely flawed" - it is vital to, "back away" from the (too risky) opportunity.   (despite the, "pile of gold" - especially despite - that, "pile of gold").

Poster here (one suspects) sees only the "applause & glory" of his proposed, custom TM4C pcb.    Others see the immense detail - the time, effort, knowledge, equipment & skill demands - which may "cloud" that projected, (applause & glory.)

Dear Amit,

Thanks for your reply. but I am meaning guidelines for crystal,VDD connection, JTAG or SWD connection, or etc.

For example most of your products like ADC or other IC, there is reference designs.

I am looking for something like that.

Thanks

Best Regards.

Hello Hikmet,

That would be the system design guidelines link in my first reply.

As for the "most of your products like ADC or other IC, there is reference designs", do you mean external ADC's and which devices in specific? You may try to see if there are Reference Designs on the TI Designs which you can navigate from www.ti.com

Regards
Amit

Hello Hikmet,

Take a look at http://www.mikroe.com/ which is a company called MikroElectronika. They have two products with the TM4C123GH6PM installed on a daughterboard, for through hole board designs, which is easier for beginners.

It may depend on whether the OP is new to fine pitch micros, circuitry in general or just the Tiva micro.

Our approach is almost the inverse of yours and I have never had more than perhaps two days productive use out of an evaluation board.

However, starting your design/layout experience with a fine pitch relatively high speed micro is not the place to start. Could be worse though, imagine starting with bga.

Himet's suggestion of a componetized through hole version seems a good place to start if your new to layout.

Robert

Robert Adsett72 said:

Our approach is almost the inverse of yours and I have never had more than perhaps two days productive use out of an evaluation board.

One hopes you noted that our method saw an Eval Board joined to our custom, "extender board(s)."   Of course much depends upon: final application, degree of and amount of "specialization", and cost + timelines.

Let the record show that our method enabled my past firm to progress from garage (really) Start-Up to "Going Public" w/in 4 years.   I attribute much of this success to our recognition of the value of KISS - of incremental movement toward the (larger) goals - and exhaustive use of Eval Boards...

For the average, small poster here - that, "extra burden" imposed by (proper) component identification/acquistion & placement, complete board design, board assembly followed by test/verification - may (predictably) over-challenge.   And - when we consider that a "fine-pitch" MCU now resides upon a brand new (untested) pcb - mated to multiple, newly chosen components - and is further burdened by running new software - has this (really) any realistic chance of proving optimal?

To my mind - "shooting for the stars" (i.e. design a minimally sized board w/new components to run new software) is NOT the way to go!   KISS proves (repeatedly) a superior path to meet client & design objectives - the re-use of "known good" boards & components, along with the minimization of (new) complex boards - "Speeds, Eases, Enhances" new designs.    Usually - but not always - the "giant" firms which engage my small firm (often) "shoot for the stars."   (Multiple unknown/untested elements - all thrown together)   And our KISS approach (which never/ever "fits" their space requirements - most always proves superior as we (always) design for, "Eased/Accessible/Sufficient Test Points & Probings" - most always (only) an "after-thought" by "giant" staff.  

Robert - might it be true that the "excellence of you/your firm" exceeds that of the average forum user?   Cb1 guidelines may prove "safer & more suitable" for the vast majority here.   (to include cb1...)