Intel Edison - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: reason
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 07:44:53 am
content: Hi everyone, just saw the Intel try to enter the hobby microcontrollers market with this producthttps://communities.intel.com/community/makers/edison/getting-started/overview, its pricey but comes packed with integrated wi-fi and bluetooth.It will be interesting to see a review of this product from Dave

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 08:28:01 am
content: More info here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/intel-edison/But to me, it seems they (Intel) don't have their stuff together just yet.

author: reason
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 08:48:34 am
content: didnt know the topic already exists, its already selling, breakout boards and the MCU board, this thing comes with a lot of memory , the price is kinda ok considering the extras that comes with. the neat things it has an arduino compatible breakout board

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 08:53:59 am
content: The problem is the GPIO speed not the headers, the Galileo is even worse at 230Hz on most GPIOsMy Cypress pioneer dev kit at $25 has Arduino headers and can use them way better than the Edison or GalileoAlthough I don't have an Edison and it seems more competent than the Galileo.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 11:37:17 am
content: What is it designed for?Sounds interesting but I stopped reading at the Arduino IDE part. With a real IDE, it may be worth exploring.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 08:34:00 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 23, 2014, 11:37:17 amto mark a KPI checkbox on some Intel managers spreadsheet

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2014, 11:40:09 pm
content: Quote"Internet of Things", of course. At least it has a credible amount of hardware and a real internet-capable connection, unlike many of the "It's small and has a communication interface! Ideal for IoT!!" marketing of some vendors. I've never quite understood all the people spending $30 for an Arduino (with 32k of program memory) and another $70 or so for a WiFi Shield of some kind.

author: reason
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 24, 2014, 06:50:56 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 23, 2014, 11:37:17 amArduino IDE is more than enough for most hobby work , if you need more professional stuff there are other solutions, but i think its only device in this size that comes with 1gb ram , 4gb for storage, wi-fi and bluetooth, on it you can run everything like home brew linux, android, custom firmware, whatever. I'm glad that the times for spending $70 or more just for a wi-fi shield are about to end. for many it could be the main choice because of this.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2014, 07:17:58 am
content: Quote from: reason on September 23, 2014, 07:44:53 amQuote from: westfw on September 23, 2014, 11:40:09 pmTwo very opposite quotes there.It looks like Intel wants a piece of the raspberry pie. If they don't market it below the pies price they don't get it and won't get it.

author: PointyOintment
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2014, 12:01:37 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 23, 2014, 11:37:17 amIt runs full Linux; you can write whatever Linux app you want.Quote from: Kjelt on September 24, 2014, 07:17:58 amSparkFun's rebuttal

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2014, 07:54:23 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on September 23, 2014, 08:53:59 amGalileo v2 has 12 native GPIOs right? Are they still slow?

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2014, 08:13:16 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 27, 2014, 07:54:23 pmNot sure, I only have a Rev 1 boardBut I bet they are faster than the cypress i2c solution they used in the Rev 1 board.If truly native and the board runs at 400MHz (and I found mine running a bit over 405MHz) then it should be able to do up to 200MHz on the pins if they are all on the same address.Here is a link that includes the code I used to read the time stamp counter:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/intel-quark-soc-running-windows-iot-on-intel-galileo-(rev-1)/Of course Microsoft doesn't yet support the Gen 2 boards so I'm not going to get one because I really don't want to use the arduino IDE.The Edison IO is restricted by the Quark processor running at 100MHz so the Edison module can drive the I/O at 50MHz tops.No news yet if the Edison will be supported by Microsoft IoT windows.

author: johnnyfp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2014, 09:13:50 pm
content: QuoteWhat makes you say that? I can't see anywhere that says the Edison is restricted by the Quark MCU for IO. As far as I can tell the Quark MCU is yet not in use or available for use until Intel provide some drivers for it for the Yocto Embedded linux to use.Plug time. I've made up one of theseEdison Simple Breakout boardso have direct connection to the IO and can test and see how fast I can get the IO to actually output, but in all honesty do you really need more that 50Mhz switching speed on a GPIO?Would not the SPI or SDIO be better suited to doing anything at a higher speed?

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2014, 09:48:19 pm
content: I still can't find a diagram of the actual Edison and how things are connected.So the Quark is disabled right now?Found some more info here, earlier I did hear that the Quark handled the I/O, but since there is no diagram I can't tell either way.http://linuxgizmos.com/edison-iot-module-ships-with-atom-plus-quark-combo-soc/Quote

author: johnnyfp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2014, 09:52:01 pm
content: Well according to an Intel Employee on thier forumQuotehttps://communities.intel.com/message/252124#252124

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2014, 10:27:34 pm
content: QuoteNo, but you need a lot more that the 230Hz of the v1 Galileo. "at least as fast as an Arduino" (~4MHz) would be good.(You have to do ... terrible things ... to get close to that 4Mhz on an Arduino. Using digitalWrite() you are looking at less than 200KHz, IIRC. But the point is that you CAN do such things. On Gv1, the 230Hz pin-toggle rate was limited by the hardware design...)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 12:14:37 am
content: A datasheet on how the Edison is wired up internally would be nice. I just can't seem to find it.

author: johnnyfp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 12:15:44 am
content: Yeah good luck.There are a lot of missing or not yet published documents for the Edison.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:35:56 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on September 27, 2014, 08:13:16 pmHigher speed microcontrollers usually have decoupled I/O or even a decoupled I/O bus placing limitation on the toggle rate. The earlier ARM microcontrollers did not even have interlocks so if you tried to toggle an I/O pin too quickly, the I/O became erratic.Quote from: johnnyfp on October 08, 2014, 09:13:50 pmYou probably do not need 50 MHz or faster bit-bang I/O but 230 Hz is too slow and the dedicated interfaces may have better things to do.The thing I really find annoying is if I wanted to upgrade from an 8 or 16 bit microcontroller to one of the current Intel solutions, I wouldstillneed another microcontroller (or FPGA) with a different ISA to handle low latency I/O. If I upgrade to ARM and still need a second microcontroller, at least it could use the same instruction set and likely even the same development environment.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 03:16:01 am
content: That's the Galileo Gen 1 that is limited by the I2C bus for GPIOs.But in any event I don't think I'll even try to mess with the Edison at the current price offering and lack of documentation.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 12:47:39 pm
content: The amusing thing is that most if not all PC chipsets have GPIOs that can work at the base PCI frequency (33MHz); even the Galileo has 16 GPIOs in its SoC that can toggle at full speed, but for some idiotic reason they're not actually available for use.

author: Scrts
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:21:05 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on October 09, 2014, 12:47:39 pmPCI required extremely tight timing. It was damn difficult to achieve that precise timing on the FPGA, so forget having it in simple microprocessors if it doesn't have dedicated PCI peripheral. On the other hand, PCI is dead. PCIe is the way to go.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:27:38 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on October 09, 2014, 12:47:39 pmGalileo Gen 2 gives native control to the GPIOs, too bad I got the earlier oneAlso as far as I know Gen 2 is not yet supported by windows on devices, if that is the purpose for it then wait until is supported or stick with sketches.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2014, 03:20:24 am
content: I have been playing with my Edison for a bit now (couple weeks). It's rubbish. The tools for truly professional application aren't there, and the lack of documentation and object base makes it useless for "hobby types".It's only documentation is conflicting, in error and useless.This device was ill conceived, pushed to market too quickly and has no real application, other than novelty.Who cares if can run native x86, there is no IDE yet and no documentation, or object base to build from.Why should I have to re-invent the wheel just to use this thing?Also I measured it's draw at 280mA (1 ish watt @ nominal cell voltage) while on the network. Hardly usable for an embed device, running from a single 18650 Li cell, and that isn't including supporting hardware or GPIO connected hardware.USELESS JUNK!!!ARM cortex A8 has broader saturation, better availability, more dev tools and far better power efficiency.Also why no colck REF input of V ref input? So much for my idea about rubidium GPS sync and precision timing....Shame on the Intel corporate team that forced the engineers to push out such a steaming pile of shit....P.S. why in the blue hell would you build it with an internal 1.8v bus and then a 1v "precision internal V ref" and then no internal A/D.....so much UN-necessary bullshit is going to have to be waded through to properly reference this to an external 10-bit a/d.....or 12-bit or my dream of 24 bits......there goes my precision PSU/PoL/Metrics project dreams....

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 03:09:13 am
content: I had no idea Windows for Devices existed. Both that and x86 embedded seem like high-heels on a race horse to me, but OK... While I'm skeptical to say the least, the hobbyist market is pretty resourceful and creative with new tech. Curious to see what becomes of this.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 06:55:10 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on October 13, 2014, 03:20:24 amSince it is named after Thomas Edison, does it at least glow in the dark?

author: johnnyfp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 06:56:07 am
content: No leds on it. So no.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:00:40 am
content: I meant the processor, for 1W you could at least expect some glow

author: johnnyfp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:02:07 am
content: Well it keeps my cup of tea warm. Does that count?

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:03:09 am
content: Quote from: johnnyfp on October 16, 2014, 07:02:07 amCertainly, it's the best application for this chip I heard so far you should write an application note

author: johnnyfp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:15:38 am
content: An234: Edison application notePower up the edison by pluging into the simple edison breakout board and supplying 3.5v to vsysWait for the edison to boot.Place cup of tea on top to keep warm.If you require extra heat, enable wifi and bluetooth, they are .1ghz shy of a microwave oven.As always don't try this at home.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 04:16:33 pm
content: I have a couple of Edisons, a Galileo v1, a Sharks Cove board, and a Minnowboard MAX on order. I have tons of ARM stuff and tons of FPGAs and Raspberry Pis and BeagleBone Black's in piles falling over all the time.True, the Intel hardware is lacking a certain "je ne sais quoi" that more popular boards have. I think there could be a place for them, though. There are lots of places that use embedded platforms running Windows CE or Linux on x86 hardware that could use this stuff pretty readily. I don't know the entire scope of the hobbyist community, and after using it a while I can say that it isn't of much use to me as it is now.Quote from: TunerSandwich on October 13, 2014, 03:20:24 amBy default, the Galileo and the Edison run Linux, and there are lots of software chains and IDEs in existence for that. They're x86 processors (though in the case of the Quark, with a limited instruction set) so the normal compilers should do the trick in terms of creating binaries. The Arduino IDE can create binaries for it also, of course.In fact, Intel hasa pretty good list of downloadsfor all this stuff, so saying that none of this exists for the Edison is Just Plain Wrong. I'm not saying that the Edison is great hardware by any means, but the tools and resources are available.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2014, 07:45:33 am
content: That's not the case Rigby. The on die quark is so far "disabled". If I am going to compile in Arduino IDE....then why would I need this SoC? I would use an Arduino. Also it runs a beat down Yocto Linux kernel, which is beyond me. Why not Fedora, or something a little more developed?NONE of the downloads are ported to run on the Edison. Which is why I made the comment of "why do I have to reinvent the wheel". (The SDK is basically Eclipse....which is just the wrong tool for this hardware).Also If they want the hobby market, most of those end users, aren't going to know what to do with this thing. As a professional I know what to do with it, but why would I spend my development time to re-invent the wheel, on a crippled piece of hardware? If I am going to spend that kind of time, I would rather use something with some real throughput and no interrupts.The resources aren't there. If they would give entry level users a .NET/VB micro framework, then they could do something out of the box. Rather than spending a month learning how to compile industry standard tools, into a non industry standard SoC.This product simply makes no sense, in any market. Hopefully it matures into something, BUT that's too little too late. I can grab a Rubix-A10 mate it to an Arduino and immediately build and implement a usable device in an afternoon. Again the Edison just doesn't have a market.As you said it isn't of much use as is. There are lots of options out there that ARE useful TODAY.Intel pushed this out far too early, and it's lack of on board GPU makes it a bit "broken" compared to it's competition. Also there is the horrendous idle power draw, which no software is going to fix. It's just a bad move all around.I will hang onto a few of them and see where they go....but that's just for fun and academic purposes. Intels claims for the device are "reduce your development time to market". They are targeting start-up developers, and the device simply doesn't deliver, coincidental to it's marketing hype.....

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2014, 11:19:25 am
content: The comment about "a race horse with high heels on" was a good chuckle.I think the better analogy is a cheap hooker, with high heels on.....it makes her a tad bit more attractive, but when you remove the heels.....you realize what you got stuck with.Now here is a product (see link), that entry level users, and professionals can actually use, on day one....to "MAKE" something. Granted it's once again not a real professional end of line solution, but I can make it blink, without having to sift through Intels mind numbing (and horribly organized) "support" pages. Which are full on conflicting information and lack the actual specifications professionals need. By the way the Edison dev board is EXTREMELY picky about what type of USB (micro) cable/connector you use to flash "firmware". Try 2 hours of re-compiling and debugging just to realize Intels USB connector is shit...For example, the new core M SoC's already have a 750 page specification document, and they aren't even available yet. Also I can get a socket and pop one in and go to town breaking things, immediately. The way it should be...Either way here is a product that fills the niche' that Edison promised to fill.....and it actually works, but sadly won't warm my cup of tea (can't have it all I suppose)http://smartrubix.com/rubix-specifications/

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2014, 11:44:02 am
content: Here were some bits and bobs that were supposed to make the Edison into a nice little Precision PSU/DC/POL. Little bit of PMbus going back out to the network for control and data-logging.The Rubix A-10 is next to the Edison Dev board (with an Arduino UNO clone under it). Just to get an Idea of size etc.....That DC CV PoL was up and running in a few hours on the Rubix......and never was on the Edison (lazy!!!!)P.S. the seebeck is in there as a bit of a joke.....I figured why not mount it on top of the Edison and grab some of that watt back and make something "glow"

author: andy_shev
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 07:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on October 18, 2014, 07:45:33 amYou might be interested inhttps://edison.internet-share.com/w/index.php?title=Using_a_vanilla_Linux_kernel_with_Intel_Edison&redirect=no