15 years ago a 2x5 pin 0.1" pitch through hole programming header wasn't excessively large, these days it's a bit of a joke, worse if you use a surface mount part. It would be good to have a more compact 'standard' surface mount programming header. I've used Molex Picoblade vertical headers and connectors reasonably sucessfully but these probably aren't robust enough for high volume operation (it's only rated at 30 mating cycles though I've had a lot more out of it). Has anyone any better solutions? Come on Altera (and the rest), give us a standard. Nial.
New 'standard' compact programming header needed!
Started by ●May 13, 2010
Reply by ●May 13, 20102010-05-13
On 5/13/2010 3:20 AM, Nial Stewart wrote:> 15 years ago a 2x5 pin 0.1" pitch through hole programming header wasn't > excessively large, these days it's a bit of a joke, worse if you use a > surface mount part. > > It would be good to have a more compact 'standard' surface mount programming > header. > > I've used Molex Picoblade vertical headers and connectors reasonably sucessfully > but these probably aren't robust enough for high volume operation (it's only > rated at 30 mating cycles though I've had a lot more out of it). > > Has anyone any better solutions? > > > Come on Altera (and the rest), give us a standard. > > > > Nial. >Some of the newer ARM devkits we've been using lately have come with 2x5 0.05" through hole instead. 75% of your surface area back is a pretty decent victory. -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology Email address is currently out of order
Reply by ●May 13, 20102010-05-13
With our EEBlaster (http://www.entner-electronics.com/tl/index.php/ eeblaster.html), we support a 2x3 2mm pitch header which uses just about 1/3 of the area of the 2x5 header. We think this is a good compromise of size, price, reliability and availability. We have the pinout made public on the mentioned link, so everyone can use it, either together with our EEBlaster or with a self-made adapter-cable. Best regards Thomas Entner www.entner-electronics.com
Reply by ●May 13, 20102010-05-13
On May 13, 6:20 am, "Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:> 15 years ago a 2x5 pin 0.1" pitch through hole programming header wasn't > excessively large, these days it's a bit of a joke, worse if you use a > surface mount part. > > It would be good to have a more compact 'standard' surface mount programming > header. > > I've used Molex Picoblade vertical headers and connectors reasonably sucessfully > but these probably aren't robust enough for high volume operation (it's only > rated at 30 mating cycles though I've had a lot more out of it). > > Has anyone any better solutions? > > Come on Altera (and the rest), give us a standard. > > Nial.I've only once used anything other than the standard connectors for programming where the devices needed to be very miniature and we had some bucks to spend on the issue. The approach we took was to use a 1 mm pitch surface mount two piece connector and created a flex cable to bring this connector out to a standard 0.1" header. Then we used all the standard cables for programming, debug and even used this port in automated testing (it had some additional capabilities). A good connector for this is also Molex, called "Conan" (not the barbarian or the comedian). I expect you could go as low as 9 pins on this connector. Digikey carries them. Male: 91910-21109LF, female: 91930-21109LF. The male is available in different heights with a mated height from 4.15 mm to 7.52 mm. The receptacle has a fixed height of 3.28 mm, which is lower than the shortest header so that is likely what you want on the target board. The outline is about 9 x 6 mm. One of the really nice things about these connectors is that they have a detent "click" when mated and do not tend to come apart from vibration. I have used them myself for daughtercard mounting. They serve both as a mounting method and as an electrical connector. I have seen similar connectors that are smaller in all dimensions, but not with a positive mated feel. Using one of these as a "standard" programming header wouldn't be a big problem except for the expense of making the adapter. A flex circuit would cost quite a few bucks for the NRE. I suppose a cheaper alternative would be a paddle board PCB. That could be inexpensive although the flex cable is much more versatile. Rick
Reply by ●May 13, 20102010-05-13
Nial Stewart wrote:> 15 years ago a 2x5 pin 0.1" pitch through hole programming header wasn't > excessively large, these days it's a bit of a joke, worse if you use a > surface mount part. > > It would be good to have a more compact 'standard' surface mount programming > header.I use a 2x4 pin 2mm header for JTAG programming of Xilinx CPLDs. This seems to work quite well, but maybe for chipscope or similar testing, you need a couple more pins. Jon
Reply by ●May 14, 20102010-05-14
> Some of the newer ARM devkits we've been using lately have come with 2x5 0.05" through hole > instead. 75% of your surface area back is a pretty decent victory.Rob, 1.27mm pitch sounds a bit flimsy but if ARM are using them for programming headers they must be happy enough with reliability and robustness. Do they use a shrouded part? You wouldn't have a part number would you (or an ARM kit number), as usual Digikey has too many options. Nial.
Reply by ●May 14, 20102010-05-14
"Thomas Entner" <thomas.entner@entner-electronics.com> wrote in message news:25e512b7-8076-495a-b1ee-95e080e01ff5@k17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...> With our EEBlaster (http://www.entner-electronics.com/tl/index.php/ > eeblaster.html), we support a 2x3 2mm pitch header which uses just > about 1/3 of the area of the 2x5 header. We think this is a good > compromise of size, price, reliability and availability. We have the > pinout made public on the mentioned link, so everyone can use it, > either together with our EEBlaster or with a self-made adapter-cable. > Best regards > Thomas Entner > www.entner-electronics.comThat certainly looks a good option Thomas, top of the contenders so far! Nial.
Reply by ●May 14, 20102010-05-14
> I use a 2x4 pin 2mm header for JTAG programming of Xilinx CPLDs. This seems to work quite well, > but maybe for chipscope or similar testing, you need a couple more pins. > JonJon, I think for Altera's SignalTap you only need the JTAG signals so Thomas has pipped you with a 2x3mm header rather than 2x4mm header! Nial
Reply by ●May 14, 20102010-05-14
On 5/14/2010 1:53 AM, Nial Stewart wrote:>> Some of the newer ARM devkits we've been using lately have come with 2x5 0.05" through hole >> instead. 75% of your surface area back is a pretty decent victory. > > > Rob, 1.27mm pitch sounds a bit flimsy but if ARM are using them for > programming headers they must be happy enough with reliability and > robustness. > > Do they use a shrouded part? > > You wouldn't have a part number would you (or an ARM kit number), as usual > Digikey has too many options. > > > Nial. >We're just trying this plan out on our boards for the first time, so I'll have to let you know how it turns out. This time we're using an unshrouded connector, since we've got giant DC/DC converters next to them providing mechanical cover. Digikey part S9015E-05-ND. -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology Email address is currently out of order
Reply by ●May 14, 20102010-05-14
Nial Stewart wrote:> It would be good to have a more compact 'standard' surface mount programming > header. > I've used Molex Picoblade vertical headers and connectors reasonably sucessfully > but these probably aren't robust enough for high volume operation (it's only > rated at 30 mating cycles though I've had a lot more out of it).30 only ? damn...> Has anyone any better solutions?I don't know if mine is better but after having used other programming means than JTAG, I have come to these conclusions : - the target should have the female connector, less likely to be damaged. OTOH, the probe has the male pins and they can be easily damaged so I plan interchangeable/disposable headers. It's better to spend a fraction of dollar on a new probe header than to fix an existing board :-/ - My next projet will use 2mm or 1.27mm connectors with the usual 2x5 configuration for JTAG. No idea which one I'll finally choose. I'll also make a small adapter for the 2.54mm probe. - spring-loaded test probes are also great : they're 10 or 100x more expensive per pin but there is no part to solder on the target, no hole to drill or height problem. Well, it's extreme, right... - Do never forget to key the connectors ! it is a safe to sacrifice at least one pin to prevent reverse connexions or shifted connexions.> Come on Altera (and the rest), give us a standard.don't count on them to "give" a "good" standard ;-) they're in for the money, they follow the money...> Nial.yg -- http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org
