RobG 1,892 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 43oh Store link 43oh Wiki link For my next project, I need a small control board. Since LaunchPad is too big and F2013 target board is not powerful enough, I decided to make own target board.Here's what I have so far, size 1" x 0.75", power LED, reset button, 0.05" programming header, and crystal. I intend to use it with 20 pin and 28 pin G2553, but other G series chips can be used as well.I was thinking of adding extra LEDs and a switch, similarly to LP's, but decided not to.Also, I am considering adding LDO and maybe getting rid of the crystal.Should I keep RST and TEST on the main header?Any thoughts? bluehash, deeroh, larsie and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bluehash 1,581 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ooh, that's tiny. Maybe a slot for a battery holder if your going this small. just a suggestion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattTheGeek 99 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 For my next project, I need a small control board. Since LaunchPad is too big and F2013 target board is not powerful enough, I decided to make own target board.Here's what I have so far, size 1" x 0.75", power LED, reset button, 0.05" programming header, and crystal. I intend to use it with 20 pin and 28 pin G2553, but other G series chips can be used as well. I was thinking of adding extra LEDs and a switch, similarly to LP's, but decided not to. Also, I am considering adding LDO and maybe getting rid of the crystal. Should I keep RST and TEST on the main header? Any thoughts? [attachment=1]nanoPad.png[/attachment] [attachment=0]nanoPad_b.png[/attachment] I had the same exact idea, but with 1.27mm headers. Remove the power LED, it will just waste massive amounts of power. And instead of a LDO regulator, consider a DC/DC step down (or buck converter) module. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zeke 693 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Should I keep RST and TEST on the main header? Keep it only on the programming header. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SugarAddict 227 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 STOP READING MY MIND! [2012-01-01 19:01:44] username: http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php ... Z430-F2013 ?[2012-01-01 19:01:45] Title: 403 Forbidden [2012-01-01 19:03:29] Y'know [2012-01-01 19:03:35] I should make 20 pin versions of that [2012-01-01 19:03:43] That would be kinda neat [2012-01-01 19:03:48] target board wise GOOD JOB! RobG 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SugarAddict 227 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I would suggest 2 mounting holes, or some room on the pcb for side clip mounting... Unless the Header itself is going to be the mounting for this board and another board has the holes/clips? I would not put battery on this board, it should be powered by whatever it connects to, imho. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobG 1,892 Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 STOP READING MY MIND! Ha, ha, ha, nice. Do you have an example of how clip mounting should look like? I will be removing RST and TEST pins so there will be some room. I will also move R3, R4, LED and J2 to make room for small mounting holes on top. Also, should I keep the crystal? The only battery holder that could fit is 12mm SMD, but those can damage the pads so as SA suggested, no battery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 47 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Path from MCU GND to crystal GND is unnecessarily too long. I suggest to oppositely rotate crystal + capacitors (ground pad toward to programming header). 2nd suggestion- move programming header into 0.05" raster aligned with 0.1" data headers (for easier to use into universal punched boards). BTW: If you move a bit R3 + R4 + LED1, so you can fit on board the standard 0.1" programming header. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobG 1,892 Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Made some updates. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobG 1,892 Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 I had the same exact idea, but with 1.27mm headers. Remove the power LED, it will just waste massive amounts of power. And instead of a LDO regulator, consider a DC/DC step down (or buck converter) module. I will leave the LED and let the end user decide if that should be populated or not. As for regulator, I want something small with minimal amount of parts and no coils. I am also trying to decide if I should use 0603 instead of 0805 (BTW, Avnet has a huge end of year blowout with tons of parts at reduced prices.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SugarAddict 227 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Just throwing this out there... Have you thought about using a similar layout as that of the ez430-T2013? If you can make it work routing wise just put another 14 pin header below the existing one, extending the length of the board and rotating the chip 90 ez430-T2013.zip aspelveGlolve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobG 1,892 Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Revised again. I figured most applications will not require 24 ports, so I have replaced the 28 pin chip with 20 pin. The size is now 0.75" x 0.9" and there is still some room left for things like another LED or switch. aspelveGlolve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pabigot 355 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Revised again.I figured most applications will not require 24 ports, so I have replaced the 28 pin chip with 20 pin. The size is now 0.75" x 0.9" and there is still some room left for things like another LED or switch. Basing this comment on the forum discussion as I haven't tried to read the schematics: I agree an LED that's directly connected to power is no more than a battery drain, but the board would be more attractive if it had an LED that could be hooked in using a jumper to one of the port header pins. The application can then use this to indicate an error (solid on), or activity (blink every 30 seconds or so) without being a constant power drain, or any other notification purpose, while retaining the potential of using the pin for something else if the LED isn't needed. Right now I have sensor boards strewn around the house multicasting periodic data to one of my servers, and the first indication I have that things aren't right is if I don't see a green flash every 20 seconds. As I'm not personally going to solder SMD anything (except crystals because I have to), I'd like an option to have the LED populated during assembly. IMO, an indicator (led) is a lot more value than a control (switch) on a board like this. Just a preference from the software side of the room. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobG 1,892 Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Added 2 more LEDs and 3 sets of pads to be used as LED jumpers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattTheGeek 99 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 TI last year rolled out some really cool, extremely tiny DC/DC stepdowns. I think they might do the trick. TI also rolled out the simple switcher nano modules just a few months ago. The down side to the simple switcher is that it requires 5 basic components (3 Capacitors, 2 resistors) RobG 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.