Hello,
I am interested in getting started with the Jetson Nano for a new design, but I would like to first make sure that the carrier design files are open source. Is this true? If so, where would I get a download of the schematics, bom, and potentially layout?
Hi admins12g9, the schematics, BoM, and design files for the reference carrier from the Jetson Nano Developer Kit will be released along with the production module in June, so you will be able to access the source then. Thanks.
Hello,
Thanks dusty for that info. Is there any way to start designing with the SoM now? Is there any pinout or hardware requirement documentation out there?
Also what kinds of changes could be coming to the SoM with the production version? Is it safe to design for this version?
The hardware documentation hasn’t been released yet, because there are some minor changes being made to the module design, which don’t impact performance or functionality, but which do change the module’s pin-out. So don’t design against the version of the module currently in the devkit.
Thank you! We will stay tuned for the production version then.
Now is July. Are the Jetson Nano DevKit carrier board bill of materials (BOM), OrCAD and Allegro files are available?
Hi Joey, yes they have previously been posted, are here: [url]https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/dlc/Jetson-Nano-Carrier-Board-Reference-Design-Files[/url]
So what’s up with the Ant vs the Ref design? What really is the CSI A pinout?
See this link:
[url]http://www.ajawamnet.com/WTF-Over.jpg[/url]
![http://www.ajawamnet.com/WTF-Over.jpg[/url]](http://www.ajawamnet.com/WTF-Over.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
Note the discrepancy between the Ant and the official ref design schematic.
And that official ref design - looks like a very inexperienced engineer did that. At least the Ant thing is readable and well laid out. Is it possible to get someone that has experience in schematic capture make that a bit easier to read? Again look at the Ant github thing for an idea of what I’m talking about. I do a lot designs and work with a lot of engineers and the Ant thing is great, the Nvidia thing looks like what I get from jr. engineers on their first bigger design they do.
Also - will you be releasing the ref carrier PCB design files? Be interesting to see how you routed some of that…
1 Like
The Ant Micro design was created against the preliminary version of the module. It shouldn’t be referenced going forward for new designs. The official datasheet and design files reference the production module.
OK… so will there be a cleaned up version of the official Schematic or will I just have to do it myself? I’d suggest Orcad format since most other EDA tools can bring those in…
Also will the source PCB files be released - at least to be able to get a head start on the footprints?
Oh yea - there’s another issue… that USB 3.0 hub. RTS5411S-GRT
Unobtainium … Large companies like yours can maybe get it. getting parts from realtek fro small companies - not so much… their Rep here in Maryland can’t even get us an NDA to even start getting info let alone parts.
When you google a part number and Octopart comes up as one of the first things - might as well go back to the drawing board and do it yourself…
Even they don’t list stock:
https://octopart.com/rts5411-grt-realtek-84688356
They do of the GR variant from some obscure distys:
https://octopart.com/rts5411-gr-realtek-82212187
but with our issues with counterfeit parts mitigation it’d be a tough sell for an MR request.
Er, we’ve been prototyping with whatever version of the Nano that ships with the Development Kit for a couple of months now, are you saying that this entire design is now a wash? As is any carrier board design based on Ant micro’s reference design?
Is the “preliminary version” of the Nano SODIMM module at least pinout compatible with the production module?
The Ant Micro design as-is has incompatabilities with the production version of the module. See this post for more info:
The official hardware documentation is correct for the production module.
Dusty - that reply did not answer the question
Ok so what are the incompatibilities? I saw the post - it states:
"The micro SD card slot is on the underside of the devkit’s module, and not on the devkit carrier itself.
Likewise, the eMMC on the production module is onboard the module. "
Ok so both modules (devkit and production) have either the eMMC or SDCARD on board - and not on the carrier…
Ok cool… but then you go on to say:
“Hence the carrier is abstracted from the particular storage being used by the module.”
Ok so is this a pin out difference on the module? A mechanical/mounting issue?
Then you further state:
" However, the initial revision of the devkit that is shipping now has some incompatibilites with the production module."
OK - so what are those incompatibilities? Pinout differences?
And is the Jetson_Nano_Module_Pinmux_Config_Template.xlsm dated 6/7/19
for the production module?
Yes, the module pinmux spreadsheet is for the production module.
The eMMC storage is on-module and the SD card slot is also on the underside of the module (the module that comes with devkit), so the module pin-out isn’t affected by storage.
There were pin-out changes to the production module - its recommended to contact Ant Micro to see what updates may be required in their design. Custom designs using the preliminary version of the module weren’t supported by NVIDIA, hence the hw documentation available is produced around the production module. There was not hw documentation made available for the initial developer kit because it wasn’t recommended to design around that.
Oh no… We’ve been prototyping around the current Nano Development Kit and Jetson Nano Preliminary Datasheet based on this thread above, wow is this bad.
So to understand fully, a) the production module and related schematics won’t be available until at least August now, b) the new production module now is not pin-out compatible with the original Nano Preliminary Datasheet, and c) the Ant Micro design is not compatible with the Jetson Nano Production Module?
Ok - so check this out:
[url]http://www.ajawamnet.com/compare_ANT_vs_PROD-ref-schematic_vs_PINMUX_Config_Template.xlsx[/url]
That link to that spreadsheet compares:
1- the Ant micro SODIMM pinout; extracted from their schematic symbol
2- the Production SODIMM pinout; extracted from the recently released ORCAD schematic
3- the pinout from the Jetson_Nano_Module_Pinmux_Config_Template.xlsm released in June
Some differences …
Between the ANT and the production pinout it seems a lot of flipping of the diff pairs for things like CSI
But there’s also some differences between the Production schematic symbol and the PINMUX template:
For instance, pin 2 on the SODIMM pinout is GND2, whereas pin 2 on the Jetson_Nano_Module_Pinmux_Config_Template.xlsm is CSI_B_D0_N
Also on the Production schematic symbol, it shows CANRX on pin 143 of the SODIMM, but the PINMUX fails to show anything
Pins 167 and 169 on the Production schematic symbol (PEX_RX0_) are missing in the PINMUX spreadsheet
Look at the link I posted - you may find even more discrepancies than what I saw …
Not so sure about spinning a board based on any of this yet… and we really need to get into prototyping.
Dusty - did you have a chance to verify the discrepancies listed in the spreadsheet linked to in my previous post?
[url]http://www.ajawamnet.com/compare_ANT_vs_PROD-ref-schematic_vs_PINMUX_Config_Template.xlsx[/url]
Hi ajawamnet, let me ask one of our Nano hw engineers about the questions you have in the schematics vs pinmux template - thanks.