[HN Gopher] Raspberry Pi Enters Microcontroller Game with $4 Pico
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Raspberry Pi Enters Microcontroller Game with $4 Pico
        
       Author : dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp
       Score  : 185 points
       Date   : 2021-01-22 14:41 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
        
       | leoncvlt wrote:
       | All right, let's say you know absolutely nothing about the world
       | of microcontrollers but you think this looks cool and cheap. What
       | webpages or resources would you recommend to get started and
       | learn more? Do you first to need to get into electronics and
       | circuits? But before that, get a foundation on how electricity
       | works? And even before that, get a good grasp on how to create
       | the universe?
        
       | nayuki wrote:
       | More info and related products:
       | https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-silicon-pico-n...
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | jascii wrote:
       | Does anyone know if you can keep the GPIO "programmable logic"
       | part powered on while putting the cores in low power mode? That
       | could make for some interesting applications.
        
         | ramary wrote:
         | Yeah that would be really cool, can imagine this being useful
         | for very simple if this then that logic in dealing with
         | peripherals. e.g. handling a broader range of sensor input and
         | peripheral interrupts without having to turn the core on to do
         | processing.
        
         | jsmith45 wrote:
         | There are two low power modes. Technically either should be
         | able to let the PIO continue to run. I'll explain all three
         | power modes.
         | 
         | NORMAL: You get to select what is clocked here, except for the
         | CPU. CPU will turn off clocking of some of its components if
         | you are running a sleep instruction like WFE/WFI.
         | 
         | SLEEP: If both processors are in a sleep state, and no active
         | DMA requests are running it automatically switches to this
         | mode. You can once again configure what components are clocked
         | here. So you could leave say just RTC and PIO powered up. This
         | is less of a true low power mode, and more of just a way to
         | automatically switch to a different set of clocked components
         | if the bus is idle, so as to further reduce power consumption.
         | 
         | DORMANT: Ring and crystal oscillators stopped, zero dynamic
         | power used in default configurations. Only a pin or RTC
         | interrupt can wake the system from this state. Note that any
         | externally supplied clocks will continue to be routed, and PLLs
         | will run if not powered down. Thus technically this mode can be
         | used to fully stop the CPUs while letting other accessories run
         | from an external clock. The nominal intended usage is to
         | continue to let the real time clock run, but the PIO could be
         | run too/instead.
        
           | jascii wrote:
           | Thank you for the clear and concise explanation!
        
       | tachyonbeam wrote:
       | I'm happy to see an ARM-based microcontroller, but I my two
       | questions would be:
       | 
       | 1. Why didn't they use the same GPIO header as a full-sized
       | Raspberry Pi? That would allow people to reuse some of the same
       | headers. Seems like a missed opportunity there?
       | 
       | 2. Since it has no WiFi and it costs more, this compares
       | unfavorably with the good old ESP8266 in some important respects.
       | Why would you pick the Pico?
       | 
       | EDIT: I'm being downvoted to hell. I'm sure that the new Pico
       | will find buyers, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it sells
       | out based on brand recognition alone. I'm just trying to ask some
       | legitimate questions as to what this has to offer over the
       | competition in the microcontroller space, which is a crowded
       | market, and how it fits into the existing RPi ecosystem.
        
         | helsinkiandrew wrote:
         | The Pico has more GPIO pins and larger PROM etc. - it looks
         | like more of a replacement/competitor for the Arduino boards at
         | the moment.
         | 
         | I'd guess that in a few versions/years they'll come out with an
         | embedded Wifi onboard.
        
         | jascii wrote:
         | 1. That would make the device larger and wouldn't provide
         | compatibility anyhow. 2. The street price of ESP8266 seems to
         | be $6.49, which is more then $4.00. I imagine the rpi board
         | uses less current, and the programable logic in the gpio's
         | gives some interesting opportunities.
        
           | RicoElectrico wrote:
           | Actually, the most popular ESP32 (DevkitC) board can be had
           | for $4 or so: https://aliexpress.com/item/4001076883280.html
        
           | sargun wrote:
           | Or, the ESP32-C3, which is <$2.
        
             | alexhutcheson wrote:
             | That's just the chip, not the board.
        
               | sargun wrote:
               | The dev board (WROOM) is an additional $2.
        
               | alexhutcheson wrote:
               | Link? The dev boards I'm familiar with are $10. Not that
               | I really care for hobby purposes - I'm not buying 100s of
               | them.
        
               | sargun wrote:
               | There's no publicly released pricing AFAIK, since the
               | board is still in preproduction. I think the dev board is
               | more expensive -- and targeted to be $8. $8 for a board
               | with WiFi is pretty good.
        
             | jascii wrote:
             | I haven't benchmarked them, but the ESP32-C3 only has a
             | single core, right? I also assume the wifi and bluetooth
             | functionality will increase current use.
        
           | tachyonbeam wrote:
           | Would it make the device larger? The RPi GPIO is 40 pins
           | (2x20). This board has two 20 pin headers (40 pins total).
           | You could have the RPi GPIO off to one side and it would take
           | the same total area. Maybe it's not as fun to route the
           | multilayer PCB to achieve this, but it would fit better with
           | the existing RPi brand/ecosystem.
           | 
           | As for the ESP8266 (not ESP32), you can find them on eBay
           | below $3 shipped. The ESP8266 is already quite fast and
           | capable for a microcontroller (it's overkill for many
           | applications). I agree that more IO pins could be a
           | differentiating factor.
        
         | kingosticks wrote:
         | 2. If you need wireless, you need an ESP board. If you don't,
         | you might prefer the more performant Pico. The last section of
         | the article also gives some reasons.
        
       | swsieber wrote:
       | There's an interesting thread over on reddit about supporting
       | Rust on this - apparently the multi-core architecure is different
       | enough from a normal CPU to cause issues:
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/l1uwyu/would_it_be_po...
       | 
       | Though in the mean time running code on just one of the cores
       | shouldn't take a lot of work.
        
       | epx wrote:
       | My dream board would be a full Raspberry with an Arduino-like uC
       | included on the same board, for easy I/O.
        
         | jrockway wrote:
         | That sounds like a Beaglebone Black. It has "programmable
         | realtime units" built in, which are basically microcontrollers.
         | They are well-integrated with the host computer; there is a
         | mailbox passing messages between the host machine and the PRUs.
         | No need to invent a serial protocol for communicating -- just
         | put your c struct in there.
        
           | na85 wrote:
           | +1 for the Beaglebone Black, a great little board that
           | doesn't get as much publicity as the Raspberry and other
           | boards.
        
             | NoNameHaveI wrote:
             | Plus, Beagle is 100% open source. Want to mod and etch your
             | own PCB? You can.
        
               | avian wrote:
               | Texas Instruments AM335x the BeagleBone uses is also
               | fully documented. There's a huge PDF manual publicly
               | available that describes every functionality. It's such a
               | welcome change from Raspberry Pi's mostly undocumented
               | Broadcom SoCs.
        
         | pjc50 wrote:
         | I think this was (one of) the things the RP2040 was designed to
         | do; they know that a lot of people strap an Arduino to the Pi
         | as an IO expander or to handle real-time elements, so they've
         | built their own.
         | 
         | They already did a peripheral chip for the RPi. Now they have
         | their own microcontroller. I suspect in a few revisions they'll
         | have their own host processor to replace the Broadcom one ...
         | 
         | It's a great achievement for a very small team.
        
           | analog31 wrote:
           | >>> a lot of people strap an Arduino to the Pi as an IO
           | expander or to handle real-time elements,=
           | 
           | Including me. I actually prefer this to the GPIO, though it
           | adds one more component. An advantage is that I can move my
           | hardware projects between RPi and other computers in the
           | house including my nice comfy and fast desktop workstation.
           | With a bit of care, my Python support software runs the same
           | on RPi and Windows with no code changes.
           | 
           | Also, if you keep things within the Arduino ecosystem, it's
           | easy to upgrade or downgrade your microcontroller as needed,
           | with only minor changes to your embedded code. What I'd like
           | to know is if the development environment for this board is
           | as nice (or better, can always hope) than the Arduino
           | environment.
        
         | alpaca128 wrote:
         | That's an interesting idea. I think this could work great in
         | the Pi Zero format - compact, wifi + mass storage if needed and
         | with the right wiring you could even flash the controller
         | remotely via wifi.
         | 
         | Could be a nice mix for projects where the size of another PCB
         | would be problematic. The target audience would probably be
         | smaller and I doubt the RPi Foundation would be interested
         | considering their focus on education, but I would probably buy
         | one.
        
         | vorpalhex wrote:
         | There are several DIY drone boards that have this kind of
         | setup. Usually it is an arduino mounted to a Raspberry pi with
         | an i2c channel for communication, but they seem to be getting
         | more and more popular.
        
       | war1025 wrote:
       | Would this be a good stepping stone for someone wanting to learn
       | more about microcontroller type stuff?
       | 
       | I bought an Arduino starter pack a few years ago, and it was
       | neat, but I never ended up doing much with it beyond the first
       | week or so.
       | 
       | I guess this would maybe suffer the same fate.
       | 
       | What projects do people do with microcontrollers that don't just
       | end up being silly gimmicks?
        
         | yummypaint wrote:
         | If you're into music production making your own MIDI
         | controllers, electronic drum pads, sequencers, filters,
         | compressors, etc can quickly save thousands of dollars. Plus
         | there is nothing like performing on your own hardware.
        
         | matheusmoreira wrote:
         | Good question. I'd probably try to automate my home a little
         | bit...
        
         | mumblemumble wrote:
         | The single most useful thing I've built with a hobbyist board
         | is a pomodoro timer.
         | 
         | I also built my own wifi speaker using a Raspberry Pi Zero W
         | and an open source implementation of the AirPort protocol, but
         | we've stopped using it because it was flaky and needed regular
         | reboots. Bluetooth turned out to be (barely) less annoying.
        
         | emilecantin wrote:
         | I've done a few "smart-home"-type projects.
         | 
         | One of them is an e-ink display outside my office door that
         | either displays today's date, or a warning sign stating that
         | I'm in a meeting.
         | 
         | The warning is triggered by a switch on another microcontroller
         | that sits on my desk (an M5 Stack, so it has a nice enclosure &
         | screen).
        
           | war1025 wrote:
           | So flipping my original question around a little, how did you
           | get into learning these things?
           | 
           | I've always wished I had taken a hardware course or two while
           | in University. I can't seem to think of anything practical
           | enough to keep my motivation while I deal with learning about
           | all the actual hardware bits.
        
             | emilecantin wrote:
             | Honestly, I just used ESPHome for all of this
             | (https://esphome.io/).
             | 
             | I mean, I've written code for microcontrollers before, but
             | it's hard to beat something where all the building blocks
             | are already done for you; leaving you only the job or
             | assembling them in the product you want.
             | 
             | If you know "normal" programming (I do web dev), it's
             | relatively easy to get an Arduino and start copy-and-
             | pasting example code until you've got something cool. The
             | syntax itself isn't too complex, and most of the really
             | hard stuff already has a library built for it.
             | 
             | Arduino code can also be used on the ESP8266 / ESP32, which
             | is an amazing, <$2 (shipped!) microcontroller that's Wifi-
             | enabled.
        
       | wiremine wrote:
       | Related conversation from yesterday:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25856291
        
       | beervirus wrote:
       | This is pretty tempting. I don't know exactly how stripped-down
       | MicroPython is yet, but I'm guessing it's going to be a lot
       | easier for me to deal with than learning C like I'd have to with
       | a lot of microcontrollers.
        
         | geerlingguy wrote:
         | Yes! And CircuitPython from Adafruit.
         | 
         | I have been turned off from some Arduino projects in the past
         | due to the C/C++ requirements, but MicroPython apparently runs
         | on many microcontrollers and makes it pretty simple if you know
         | basic Python.
         | 
         | Once you get a design working, if you need the efficiency and
         | power gains from C, then you can drop down to that level. But
         | with the Pico having a 133 MHz processor, the overhead for many
         | projects isn't too bad, and it's still going to be a lot more
         | efficient than running something equivalent on a Pi Zero.
        
           | pjmlp wrote:
           | My first PC was a 386 SX running at 20 MHz, capable of
           | running plenty of high level languages, when not doing games.
           | 
           | Most modern microcontrollers are quite alright for something
           | like Python indeed.
        
       | gchadwick wrote:
       | Whilst there are certainly other boards with more features/higher
       | specs at similar prices I think the pico has a few things going
       | for it
       | 
       | 1. It's at cheap ebay/aliexpress prices but is a first party
       | board supported by the chip manufacturer, not a third party
       | clone.
       | 
       | 2. The full raspberry pi ecosystem has a good range of hardware
       | and software, the pico will hopefully see the same.
       | 
       | 3. The internal architecture has some fun features. The DMA
       | engine supports chaining DMA channels and one set of DMA
       | operations can program and trigger another channel. Plus you can
       | trigger transactions on when they're needed by the endpoint or on
       | a timer. You can program in complex behaviours with this and just
       | set it off and go without needing further CPU control.
       | 
       | More unique than the DMA is the PIO, 8 programmable state
       | machines that have FIFOs and port access. This allows you to add
       | support for protocols you don't have hardware for. This avoids
       | bit banging and gives precise real-time control. You can do
       | things like drive VGA and there's even an HDMI demo (possibly a
       | bit too hacky to be used in production though).
       | 
       | I've just had one arrive today, going to spend the weekend seeing
       | what I can do with just DMA and PIO whilst the CPU sits idle,
       | maybe dealing with the occasional interrupt.
        
         | comboy wrote:
         | What could be the reason to use DMA on a hobby micro-controller
         | board? Honest question, I'm just curious. I can imagine some
         | high reliability production systems that may prefer micro vs
         | CPU, but why would you bother doing any more advanced graphics
         | or anything like that on a microcontroller? I mean I played
         | with VGA on arduino but that was because there were no cheap
         | SBCc back then.
        
           | timonoko wrote:
           | VHF radio transmitter? You construct some complex wave
           | pattern and then push it out high-speed via DMA.
        
         | Unklejoe wrote:
         | > one set of DMA operations can program and trigger another
         | channel.
         | 
         | I once worked around a very unfortunate hardware shortcoming in
         | a DMA engine by doing exactly this. Each channel supported a
         | list of descriptors, so I used the last descriptor to actually
         | perform DMA operations on the configuration registers of the
         | other channel.
         | 
         | The possibilities are endless with this kinda stuff
        
           | stinos wrote:
           | _The possibilities are endless_
           | 
           | So is the time wasted when there are bugs in the docs :P
           | Don't remember the exact chip, but it was on the first job I
           | had and it took me weeks to find out why the thing didn't
           | want to do what I told it to. Turned out some names of
           | registers were swapped in the docs. But indeed, once I
           | figured that out, it was really nice to work with and things
           | like interleaving data from multiple ADCs just worked with
           | basically no CPU interaction.
        
         | jarmitage wrote:
         | Thanks for this summary.
         | 
         | I am excited about the DMA and PIOs having used BeagleBoard
         | PRUs, but what about the quality of the ADCs/DACs?
         | 
         | Isn't all the talk of hard real-time applications and so on
         | somewhat moot if those aren't high quality enough?
         | 
         | (afraid I haven't had time to read the datasheet yet!)
        
           | akiselev wrote:
           | From the devboard datasheet:
           | 
           |  _> The RP2040 ADC does not have an on-board reference and
           | therefore uses its own power supply as a reference. On Pico
           | the ADC_AVDD pin (the ADC supply) is generated from the SMPS
           | 3.3V by using an R-C filter (201 ohms into 2.2mF)_
           | 
           | Which doesn't sound promising and I don't see a DAC in the
           | RP2040 datasheet.
        
             | jarmitage wrote:
             | Right. I wonder if the Arduino version will be better for
             | this, or whether we might need to wait for future boards
             | from RPi.
        
             | mlyle wrote:
             | It's good and bad. Nice that they've filtered AVCC pretty
             | heavily-- 360Hz corner frequency-- lots of microcontroller
             | boards don't.
             | 
             | Less nice that the ADC scale will be affected by power
             | supply offset, though that all depends upon how "good" the
             | board 3V3 is. The bandgap and error amplifier on the DC-DC
             | converter IC is good at least-- max +/- 1%.
        
         | Abishek_Muthian wrote:
         | 4. It's available ~'everywhere'.
         | 
         | RPi foundation has done a great job at making it's product
         | available to buy at the time of announcement in over 50
         | countries and I think that's underrated.
         | 
         | It shows 5 different websites for me to buy in India, which is
         | not usually the case here for new hardware except few
         | exceptions like Nvidia Jetson; if at all they ever make it to
         | the country. Also RPi foundation/partners seems to be actively
         | working with the Govt. to keep the prices competitive.
         | 
         | To give you a comparison, PinePhone costs >$200 (+tax) to get
         | it here that is if at all it doesn't get blocked at the customs
         | due to licensing requirements for telecommunication hardware,
         | taxes for CBU(Completely Built Unit) smart phones, blockade on
         | shipments from the country to the North. That's a tragedy
         | considering huge number of Linux enthusiasts in the country and
         | that alternate smartphone OS can indeed help Govt.'s self
         | reliance goals.
         | 
         | P.S. That was not to diss on Pine64's efforts, but to show the
         | state of enthusiast hardware availability in India.
        
           | captn3m0 wrote:
           | +1. It is amazing seeing how well they've managed this.
           | 
           | There were educational launch videos out from the authorised
           | Indian resellers on the day of launch, even.
        
             | [deleted]
        
           | worik wrote:
           | "...doesn't get blocked at the customs due to licensing
           | requirements for telecommunication hardware, taxes for
           | CBU(Completely Built Unit) smart phones, blockade on
           | shipments from the country to the North...."
           | 
           | OMG. I had forgotten. What a mess. Politics is a drag
        
         | vorpalhex wrote:
         | Is there a good guide that you recommend on the PIO or DMA
         | features?
        
           | gchadwick wrote:
           | I've just been reading the datasheet here: https://datasheets
           | .raspberrypi.org/rp2040/rp2040_datasheet.p...
           | 
           | It does have some examples and the Pico SDK has various PIO
           | programs you can look at for inspiration. The getting started
           | page links to a few projects including the HDMI/DVI:
           | https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/pico/getting-
           | start...
        
             | tyingq wrote:
             | Note that the HDMI/DVI code overclocks the Cortex M0 from
             | its normal 133Mhz to 252Mhz. So it's a cool hack, but I
             | think it would have wonky behavior. https://github.com/Wren
             | 6991/picodvi/blob/34bc82555860de4b35e...
        
               | duskwuff wrote:
               | On the upside, it looks as though the production silicon
               | has a lot of performance headroom. The 800x600 mode
               | overclocks it all the way to 400 MHz!
        
               | tyingq wrote:
               | That is cool, and at $4, I suppose the risk is pretty low
               | :)
        
             | trebligdivad wrote:
             | It's obvious whoever designed that, did it so that they
             | could do fun things with it; very flexible PIO and DMA with
             | lots of neat corners; and mention of fun things like 8080
             | bus interfacing and the like.
        
         | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
         | > [PIO] allows you to add support for protocols you don't have
         | hardware for.
         | 
         | PHY level support, yes. But nothing higher than that. You would
         | still need to implement the protocol in software for the most
         | part. So at 133Mhz, it's probably fast enough to toggle a CAN
         | transceiver correctly, but would have very little comprehension
         | of bus arbitration or CRC or what makes a message valid (RTR,
         | IDE, DLC, etc).
         | 
         | It's very cool, but the example they used of making a simple
         | waveform for the serial driven LEDs is more what they were
         | going for.
         | 
         | That example is pretty much already taken care of with an SPI
         | or PWM that runs off DMA though. You can easily make a waveform
         | for those LEDs. I've never understood why the enthusiasts use
         | bit banging and special hardware.
        
           | jmiskovic wrote:
           | Didn't study Pico but I don't think PIO can interface CAN
           | bus.
           | 
           | The physical layer uses differential wired-AND scheme where
           | any device can pull it into dominant state but recessive
           | state is possible only if no device is driving the bus. In
           | most cases CAN requires a dedicated HW transceiver, I would
           | be pleasantly surprised if Pico can pull it off without
           | external components.
        
             | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
             | Yes. Did you notice where I wrote _"fast enough to toggle a
             | CAN transceiver"_.
             | 
             | The point is the PIO may be great at wiggling pins, but
             | that doesn't mean you can "support hardware protocols" you
             | don't have peripherals for. It means it gets you a pin
             | wiggler, and the rest of the protocol would have to be
             | software.
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | sokoloff wrote:
             | And a 120 ohm termination at the end of the bus.
        
               | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
               | This is not a required item. It is suggested that the
               | termination is 120ohms, but depends entirely on the
               | length of the bus and number of modules. You _can_ have
               | short runs of can with no transceiver and no termination.
        
               | zootboy wrote:
               | CAN uses a dominant/recessive transmission method,
               | similar to I2C. The termination resistors are absolutely
               | required, as they are what drive the bus back to the
               | recessive state.
               | 
               | Perhaps you were thinking of RS-485, which actively
               | drives both bus states and therefore can get away with
               | unterminated buses at low bitrates / short runs.
        
               | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
               | No, I was not thinking RJ485 where termination is
               | optional.
               | 
               | You are forgetting that CAN can work at short distances
               | without being a differential bus at all.
               | 
               | I mention this where I wrote "no transceiver _AND_ no
               | termination".
        
           | monocasa wrote:
           | I think CAN is the special case here, since it more or less
           | requires hard real time feedback within a bit cell. Almost
           | all of the other weird protocols don't do that, so you can
           | have the simple scan in/out handling the phy like you said
           | and are no longer dedicating a full core 80% of your time to
           | bit twiddling.
        
           | emilecantin wrote:
           | It's a game-changer in the hobbyist marine-electronics world.
           | The marine electronics field is littered with various weird
           | proprietary protocols that are _almost_ the same as open
           | standards in other industries, but not quite. Examples
           | include:
           | 
           | - NMEA0183, which is electrically RS-422 (similar to the
           | ubiquitous RS-232, but only sometimes)
           | 
           | - NMEA2000, which is basically CAN
           | 
           | - Seatalk, which looks like NMEA0183 but is electrically
           | inverted (1 is 0 and vice versa) and also uses weird byte
           | lengths (9-bit?)
           | 
           | - Seatalk-ng, which is basically NMEA2000 with a few more
           | message types
           | 
           | A $4 device that can translate arbitrary weird PHY protocols
           | into a bitstream on a USB port is awesome in this world.
        
             | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
             | I am beyond skeptical this will be adequate for NMEA/CAN
             | for the very reason myself and others explain in the rest
             | of the thread.
             | 
             | This will get you wiggling output pins, not a replacement
             | for dedicated protocol hardware or a actual programmable
             | logic.
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | > Whilst there are certainly other boards with...
         | 
         | This _IS_ the other boards!
         | 
         | I think if you look here:
         | 
         | https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-silicon-pico-n...
         | 
         | Scroll down and you'll see the RP2040 has been released on many
         | boards simultaneously.
         | 
         | - Adafruit Feather RP 2040
         | 
         | - Adafruit ItsyBitsy RP 2040
         | 
         | - Arduino Nano RP2040 Connect
         | 
         | - Pimoroni PicoSystem
         | 
         | - Pimoroni Pico Explorer Base
         | 
         | - SparkFun Thing Plus - RP2040
         | 
         | - SparkFun MicroMod RP2040 Processor
         | 
         | - SparkFun Pro Micro - RP2040
        
       | bchip wrote:
       | I wish they would of added wifi and bluetooth to the board. This
       | could of replaced esp32s.
        
         | VoxPelli wrote:
         | Eg Arduino will launch a board with that, the core here is the
         | new chip, not the Pico board, lots of manufacturers will build
         | boards with the chip
        
       | geerlingguy wrote:
       | Note that Arduino is coming out with a new Nano board for the
       | same chip (new RP2040) with 16MB of flash and wireless built in.
       | No word on pricing yet, though:
       | https://blog.arduino.cc/2021/01/20/welcome-raspberry-pi-to-t...
        
         | alpaca128 wrote:
         | That's great news, the 2MB flash are not quite enough for some
         | projects and this could fit the bill for me.
        
         | jack_riminton wrote:
         | Wireless is the key feature for me opens up so many more
         | possibilities
        
           | matthewfelgate wrote:
           | Wireless is key for me for my hobbyist projects.
        
           | fermienrico wrote:
           | By "Wireless", which specific protocol do you mean?
        
             | jack_riminton wrote:
             | I don't
        
       | Unklejoe wrote:
       | Does anyone know if the chip can be purchased from distributors
       | like Mouser or Digikey? If not, will it be eventually?
       | 
       | This is the first thing I look at before deciding to invest in
       | learning a new chip. I specifically look for something that is
       | guaranteed to be available for a long time and not change.
        
         | zargon wrote:
         | This is the first thing I wanted to know too. From
         | raspberrypi.org:
         | 
         | > Are you planning to make RP2040 available to customers?
         | 
         | > We hope to make RP2040 broadly available in the second
         | quarter of 2021.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | Tempest1981 wrote:
       | I built a small project using a Raspberry Pi Zero. Wanted to use
       | it in my car. One frustration is that it takes 30+ seconds to
       | boot and show signs of life on power-on.
       | 
       | Wondering how much faster I can make this, or a Pico? Before I
       | lose all the benefits of Linux.
        
         | chadaustin wrote:
         | The AVR/Arduino boards boot instantly which is one of their big
         | advantages here. I imagine the Pico will be the same.
        
         | wamburu wrote:
         | Have you tried TinyCore http://tinycorelinux.net ? Might be
         | faster.
        
         | regularfry wrote:
         | You want to take a look at buildroot-based approaches. They're
         | not quite instant-on, but they're tolerable.
         | https://github.com/showmewebcam/showmewebcam is a good example.
        
       | SamBam wrote:
       | This looks great. In seems from a rough glance at the feature set
       | that there are plenty of boards that do more for not much more
       | money, but my guess is that this is designed mostly for the
       | beginner/educational set, where everything can be nicely
       | standardized and not the Cambrian Explosion of the *duino boards.
       | Is that about right?
       | 
       | Speaking of education, does anyone have a favorite mechanical
       | device (toy car, robot, etc) that is compatible with a
       | microcontroller that can be used for teaching little kids? (Month
       | 10 of learning-from-home dragging on here...)
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | "but my guess is that this is designed mostly for the
         | beginner/educational set, where everything can be nicely
         | standardized and not the Cambrian Explosion of the *duino
         | boards"
         | 
         | That was my take on it. I first saw it and thought of my
         | adurino nanos. Then reading the specs, I wondered why not use
         | an ESP32 with wireless etc. I think they are only $3 more.
         | Standardization was all I was left with.
        
           | regularfry wrote:
           | It's also a nice and relatively straightforward first step
           | into custom silicon, which is probably going to turn out to
           | be quite an important strategic move for them.
        
             | giantg2 wrote:
             | I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess it could. I thought
             | their whole point was to use existing chips that were low
             | cost to promote education. Jumping into custom chips seems
             | like an odd move for that, unless they want to monetize.
        
               | regularfry wrote:
               | They've got scale now. I think that's the difference.
        
         | detaro wrote:
         | the PIO part as far as I know does not have a match in anything
         | else in that market segment. I was sceptical too at first, but
         | it seems like this actually does add something new to the
         | market. More examples will be around, but e.g. the first demo
         | going around driving two DVI screens is already pretty neat for
         | what's possible, and other devices would struggle with.
        
           | matthewfelgate wrote:
           | Do you have a link to the demo with two DVI screens?
        
             | detaro wrote:
             | https://github.com/Wren6991/picodvi
        
           | davemp wrote:
           | PIO feels like a lateral progression from the arm+fpga socs
           | that have been floating around for awhile. So you could
           | already get socs with even more powerful configurable logic
           | behind their IO. Most FPGAs support partial reconfiguration
           | so they can be reconfigured dynamically as well.
           | 
           | PIO is still pretty cool from an ease of use and cost
           | perspective though.
        
         | Bigpet wrote:
         | Seems to be clocked a lot higher than the lower cost arduino
         | models. And has a little more memory.
         | 
         | So it might be worse suited to battery-powered applications,
         | unless you do some power managment.
         | 
         | Not that I know what you would necessarily do with more of that
         | compute.
        
         | DanBC wrote:
         | Have a look at kits for BBC Micro:Bit.
         | 
         | EG, this one gives you a nice breakout board and a few sensors
         | and switches. It also gives you an instruction book. You'll
         | also need to buy the actual Micro:Bit too. This kit has a
         | website for more projects here:
         | https://tinkercademy.com/microbit/
         | 
         | You program the micro:bit in MakeCode in a webbrowser. That
         | also has an emulated device so you can see what it's like
         | without having the actual board.
         | 
         | And you can program the Micro:Bit with Python.
         | 
         | It looks spendy, and it is, but the colour-coding of the cables
         | and the keyways of the sensor PCBs make it friendly for
         | children.
         | 
         | There are lots of kits for micro:bit
         | https://www.elecfreaks.com/micro-bit/kits.html
         | 
         | You may want to wait for Version 2 to be released.
         | https://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-95670/l/introdu...
        
           | slezyr wrote:
           | > You may want to wait for Version 2 to be released
           | 
           | You can already buy it from Ali Express.
        
       | ElectroNomad wrote:
       | Can anyone suggest BLE-only microcontroller?
       | 
       | I wanted to build a smart-lock, but all the boards either also
       | have Wi-Fi on-board (that eats a lot of power) or don't have
       | anything at all.
        
         | tpolzer wrote:
         | The nrf52840 has a reasonable programming interface, good power
         | consumption and can be bought as a USB breakout dongle for 10$.
        
         | montecarl wrote:
         | I've just started to get into microcontrollers, but I have been
         | playing with boards based on the NRF52840[0]. I'm using them to
         | build an air quality monitor to measure CO2[1], volatile
         | organic compounds[2], temperature and humidity.
         | 
         | I'd recommend the Adafruit NRF52840 Feather[3] or if you want a
         | smaller version (that doesn't include a LiPo battery charger)
         | get the ItsyBitsy nRF52840 Express[4].
         | 
         | I haven't used the Arduino or CircuitPython programming
         | environments, I've just been using Arm GCC and Nordic's SDK.
         | 
         | [0] https://www.nordicsemi.com/Products/Low-power-short-range-
         | wi...
         | 
         | [1] https://www.adafruit.com/product/4867
         | 
         | [2] https://www.adafruit.com/product/3709
         | 
         | [3] https://www.adafruit.com/product/4062
         | 
         | [4] https://www.adafruit.com/product/4481
        
       | roland35 wrote:
       | Hackaday has good reviews of similar small microcontroller
       | boards.
       | 
       | - STM32 "Blue Pill": cheap, uses common STM32 ARM parts, but
       | generally available on places like ebay/alibaba
       | 
       | - ESP32: has wifi and bluetooth, less good documentation but
       | great performance/$
       | 
       | - Raspberry Pico!
        
         | ashtonkem wrote:
         | There is some great open source stuff for the ESP32, including
         | ESPHome[0]. These are pretty popular for adding functionality
         | to Home Assistant where off the shelf parts aren't available.
         | The ability to go on low power standby until some condition is
         | met appears to be one of the best selling points.
         | 
         | 0 - https://esphome.io/
        
         | fermienrico wrote:
         | > less good documentation but great performance/$
         | 
         | Truth couldn't be far from that. Its completely the opposite -
         | ESP32 toolchain and docs are superb:
         | https://docs.espressif.com/projects/esp-idf/en/latest/esp32/
         | 
         | And there is ESP32.net: http://esp32.net/
        
           | roland35 wrote:
           | maybe it has changed since I last checked it out then! I had
           | problems getting started - but it was probably just me.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-01-22 23:02 UTC)