Itsy Specs Updated
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:53:48 -0800
From: Deborah Wallach [kerr@pa.dec.com]
To: sa1100-linux@pa.dec.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Itsy schematics and updated Linux software available
In order to promote collaboration and to advance the state of pocket computing research, Compaq Computer Corporation's Research Laboratories are making available the schematics and manufacturing information for the Itsy V1.5 Pocket Computer. The Itsy is a flexible research platform, based on the StrongARM 1100, intended to enable hardware and software research in pocket computing. It is a small, low-power handheld device with a highly flexible interface, designed to encourage the development of innovative research projects, such as novel user interfaces, new applications, power management techniques, hardware extensions, etc. The information we are making available includes the hardware specifications, a low level monitor, and the Linux source code for the Itsy.
More information on the distribution
Deborah Wallach
Western Research Laboratory
Compaq Computer Corporation
Kudos to them for opening up the hardware and software designs (open in the "now I know what they did" sense but not the GNU sense, although Stallman himself insists on creating an arbitrary (and in my mind artificial) distinction between hardware IP and software IP, but I digress)...
Anyway, good for them for sharing, but they are using an LCD and touch screen that is unavailable commercially. What good is that?
If they were serious, they should redesign it to use an available module, or offer modules for sale from their site for a reasonable charge.
Although realistically, given what I suspect is a lot of surface mount components and very small trace widths, and probably multi-layer PC boards, I doubt many people will be throwing together one of these in their basement...
It would be nice if they offered an "unsupported" Itsy kit with all necessary parts, but I guess I can't complain about people giving me information.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.