USB concerns - waste of space?


thatgui

Advanced Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,048
 If that's true, then I would support using the black USB-3.0-A ports that ZetaNeta mentioned, so that way they don't automatically make people assume they are USB 3.0.
are black ones even offered ? - afaik the color is part of the standard
 
Last edited by a moderator:

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
If that's true, then I would support using the black USB-3.0-A ports that ZetaNeta mentioned, so that way they don't automatically make people assume they are USB 3.0.
are black ones even offered ? - afaik the color is part of the standard
I assumed they were, since ZetaNeta mentioned that there were many laptops doing this.

-God Ginrai
 

Neelix

Insecticidal Maniac
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
3,268
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I suspect ZetaNeta is mistaken.  

I've seen USB3 capable laptops  that have several USB ports,  but only one which is USB3 and all the other ports are USB2.

If ZetaNeta saw black ports on a USB 3 capable laptop I'm inclined to believe he was actually looking at the USB2 ports, not the USB 3 port.

- Neelix
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site

Neelix

Insecticidal Maniac
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
3,268
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I suspect ZetaNeta is mistaken.  


I've seen USB3 capable laptops  that have several USB ports,  but only one which is USB3 and all the other ports are USB2.


If ZetaNeta saw black ports on a USB 3 capable laptop I'm inclined to believe he was actually looking at the USB2 ports, not the USB 3 port.


- Neelix
Looks to me like ZetaNeta is right: http://blog.laptopmag.com/down-with-port-flaps-and-covers-keep-my-usb-3-0-ports-blue

-God Ginrai

Huh...  Go figure...

I stand corrected.  

- Neelix
 

Binky

Death's Steed
Staff member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
6,996
Location
16A (TO)
We should still use blue for USB3 ports though...

Standards are there for a purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TrashyMG

Sarcasm Dispenser
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
11,064
We should still use blue for USB3 ports though...


Standards are there for a purpose.
Except what we are getting isn't a regular sized USB port for USB3.. it's the micro USB3 OTG style:

big_2011011922282432831351.jpg



So I don't think colo(u)r really will matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
We should still use blue for USB3 ports though...

Standards are there for a purpose.
 Actually, it's not a standard. I just downloaded the USB 3.1 specification and took a look. Here's what it had to say about the color coding (relevant bit bolded for emphasis):

USB 3.1 Specification said:
Since both the USB 2.0 Standard-A and USB 3.1 Standard-A receptacles may co-exist on a host,

color coding is recommended for the USB 3.1 Standard-A connector (receptacle and plug) housings

to help users distinguish it from the USB 2.0 Standard-A connector.
 
Except what we are getting isn't a regular sized USB port for USB3.. it's the micro USB3 OTG style:

big_2011011922282432831351.jpg


So I don't think colo(u)r really will matter.
Not for the microUSB-3.0 port, no. However, if we want to use a USB-3.0-A jack for the USB-2.0-host, then we should make sure not to use a blue one.

-God Ginrai
 

TrashyMG

Sarcasm Dispenser
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
11,064
if we want to use a USB-3.0-A jack for the USB-2.0-host, then we should make sure not to use a blue one.
What benefit would there be to using a USB-3.0-A jack on a USB2.0 host port? the extra pins in that connector wouldn't be used and the connector itself would most likely be a little more pricy than USB 2.0 counterparts.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
if we want to use a USB-3.0-A jack for the USB-2.0-host, then we should make sure not to use a blue one.
What benefit would there be to using a USB-3.0-A jack on a USB2.0 host port? the extra pins in that connector wouldn't be used and the connector itself would most likely be a little more pricy than USB 2.0 counterparts.
 
Since the next generation of SD card slot, UHS-II uses more contacts than the current Pyra design, UHS-I, and that the next generation of USB ports, USB 3.0, require additional contacts, I suggested that the potential for these be included when designing the interconnect between the processor board and the peripheral board.

I.e. so that the current design for the connector between the two boards had adequate spare/unused pins to be future-proof for future SoC and peripheral board needs.
 
Oh, you're right. That could be useful. So... if we used USB-3.0-A ports for the USB-host, then it may be possible to have multiple USB 3.0 ports if and when we could upgrade to a new daughter board that has support for multiple USB 3.0? If that's true, then I would support using the black USB-3.0-A ports that ZetaNeta mentioned, so that way they don't automatically make people assume they are USB 3.0.

-God Ginrai
-God Ginrai
 

TrashyMG

Sarcasm Dispenser
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
11,064
^Okay... Assuming there is enough I/Os or forethought done in the daughter-board design to support such a thing.
 

Grench

Forum Addict!
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
6,623
if we want to use a USB-3.0-A jack for the USB-2.0-host, then we should make sure not to use a blue one.

What benefit would there be to using a USB-3.0-A jack on a USB2.0 host port? the extra pins in that connector wouldn't be used and the connector itself would most likely be a little more pricy than USB 2.0 counterparts.
 
Since the next generation of SD card slot, UHS-II uses more contacts than the current Pyra design, UHS-I, and that the next generation of USB ports, USB 3.0, require additional contacts, I suggested that the potential for these be included when designing the interconnect between the processor board and the peripheral board.


I.e. so that the current design for the connector between the two boards had adequate spare/unused pins to be future-proof for future SoC and peripheral board needs.
 
Oh, you're right. That could be useful. So... if we used USB-3.0-A ports for the USB-host, then it may be possible to have multiple USB 3.0 ports if and when we could upgrade to a new daughter board that has support for multiple USB 3.0? If that's true, then I would support using the black USB-3.0-A ports that ZetaNeta mentioned, so that way they don't automatically make people assume they are USB 3.0.

-God Ginrai
-God Ginrai

^Okay... Assuming there is enough I/Os or forethought done in the daughter-board design to support such a thing.
Since these are 'future proofing' for the cheaper board to build - it would be quickly more expensive to put higher $ ports on a board that isn't that expensive to re-design to fit the new SoC 3 years from now.

I was more interested in, if possible, leaving extra room on the interconnect port between the two boards on the off chance that a future CPU board could work with the lower spec USB and SD card connections on the peripheral board.  I.e. so that if they chose to offer CPU board only upgrades, that the interconnect could remain the same.

The reality is that a future CPU board (expensive) will likely need it's own peripheral board (much less expensive) and would need to be sold as a pair.

For the Pyra a USB 2.0 port without the additional wires is all that the CPU board can actually speak to - and that port should be adequate to the need.  Adding expense for the additional traces that go nowhere and more expensive ports with connections that aren't connected is a bit silly.

I'm excited with the port configuration that was announced - let's leave 'cool enough' alone and get a product out.  OK?  Spending all of this time arguing for adding unused pins to a port without anything to connect it to isn't productive.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
The reality is that a future CPU board (expensive) will likely need it's own peripheral board (much less expensive) and would need to be sold as a pair.
 Honestly, if that's the case, then there is absolutely no benefit in having a daughter board for the CPU. The whole point was to have a separate board so that the keyboard, face buttons, ports, etc could all remain without having to need a new board.

I'm excited with the port configuration that was announced - let's leave 'cool enough' alone and get a product out.  OK?  Spending all of this time arguing for adding unused pins to a port without anything to connect it to isn't productive.
There's nothing wrong with expressing an interest in this idea. It's up to EvilDragon and Co. whether they will do it.

-God Ginrai
 

Yoyobuae

Very Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
839
The reality is that a future CPU board (expensive) will likely need it's own peripheral board (much less expensive) and would need to be sold as a pair.
 
Honestly, if that's the case, then there is absolutely no benefit in having a daughter board for the CPU. The whole point was to have a separate board so that the keyboard, face buttons, ports, etc could all remain without having to need a new board.
Well, the 3G module is on the peripheral board, right? Then it's good to have the daughter board separate. That way it's easier to make peripheral boards with various types of 3G modules, and only decide which one to put on each Pyra at the end of the assembly process. Could keep peripheral boards in stock and use them as need arises.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
The reality is that a future CPU board (expensive) will likely need it's own peripheral board (much less expensive) and would need to be sold as a pair.
 Honestly, if that's the case, then there is absolutely no benefit in having a daughter board for the CPU. The whole point was to have a separate board so that the keyboard, face buttons, ports, etc could all remain without having to need a new board.
Well, the 3G module is on the peripheral board, right? Then it's good to have the daughter board separate. That way it's easier to make peripheral boards with various types of 3G modules, and only decide which one to put on each Pyra at the end of the assembly process. Could keep peripheral boards in stock and use them as need arises.
Yea, but it wouldn't be worth the extra space to fit 2 PCBs in the device for that one use-case.

-God Ginrai
 

Yoyobuae

Very Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
839
ED also mentioned that it helps with development: easier to make prototype peripheral boards which they can start testing via using a dev board.

Also if 4G upgrade becomes an option later on, it's easier to update the easier to design/produce peripheral boards.

Also the daughter board could be used to power a complete different kind of device (ie. tablet, mini PC, console). This one is a bit unlikely, though.
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
14,372
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
I assume also that's why the battery is evidently kicked down towards the front in the Pyra prototype board compared with the Pandora - to allow the extra depth for the processor daughter board in a contiguous area.

Actually looking at the Pandora board considering this, this needs to have the battery in the center or close to it as it uses the extra depth for the full-size USB port at the top and the headphone port at the bottom.  It might be an idea to switch some ports to the upper side of the board to enable alternative (and maybe better) placements for the battery, although the keymat designs I've seen kind of limit where you can put ports on the board upper.
 

thatgui

Advanced Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,048
Actually, it's not a standard. I just downloaded the USB 3.1 specification and took a look. Here's what it had to say about the color coding (relevant bit bolded for emphasis):

USB 3.1 Specification said:
Since both the USB 2.0 Standard-A and USB 3.1 Standard-A receptacles may co-exist on a host,

color coding is recommended for the USB 3.1 Standard-A connector (receptacle and plug) housings

to help users distinguish it from the USB 2.0 Standard-A connector.
Thanks for clearing that up. 
Also if 4G upgrade becomes an option later on, it's easier to update the easier to design/produce peripheral boards.
Afaik, with the antenna on the peripheral board, another mobile data chip will definately need a new peripheral board

I assume also that's why the battery is evidently kicked down towards the front in the Pyra prototype board compared with the Pandora - to allow the extra depth for the processor daughter board in a contiguous area.
and to have room for the (large) heatsink/heatspreader
 
Top