Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #10019 > unrolled thread

R Pi 0

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  R Pi 0 "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 11:19 +0000
    Re: R Pi 0 Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> - 2015-11-26 11:56 +0000
      Re: R Pi 0 "M.O.B. i L." <mobil@orbin.se> - 2015-11-26 23:58 +0100
      Re: R Pi 0 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 23:10 +0000
        Re: R Pi 0 Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-11-26 23:26 +0000
        Re: R Pi 0 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-11-27 05:26 +0100
        Re: R Pi 0 Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-27 12:26 +0000
        Re: R Pi 0 "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-28 12:24 +0000
          Re: R Pi 0 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-28 14:00 +0000
            Re: R Pi 0 Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-11-29 08:45 +0000
              Re: R Pi 0 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-29 11:32 +0000
                Re: R Pi 0 Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-11-30 08:00 +0000
    Re: R Pi 0 andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-11-26 17:48 +0000
      Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 13:33 -0500
        Re: R Pi 0 Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2015-12-13 14:56 -0500
          Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 18:57 -0500
            Re: R Pi 0 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-14 05:28 +0000
              Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 01:09 -0500
                Re: R Pi 0 Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-14 08:08 +0000
                  Re: R Pi 0 Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-12-14 18:57 +0000
                    Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-14 19:18 +0000
                Re: R Pi 0 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-14 08:11 +0000
                  Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 11:30 -0500
                    Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-14 17:12 +0000
                    Re: R Pi 0 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-15 08:07 +0000
                      Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-15 08:40 +0000
                        Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 16:44 +0100
                          Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-15 20:13 +0000
                      Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 09:55 +0100
                        Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-15 12:12 +0000
                          Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 15:15 +0100
                            Re: R Pi 0 cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-12-15 16:55 +0000
                              Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-16 04:55 +0100
                                Re: R Pi 0 cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-12-17 21:00 +0000
                            Re: R Pi 0 Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-12-15 23:11 +0000
                              Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-16 05:00 +0100
                                Re: R Pi 0 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-12-16 12:05 +0100
                                  Re: R Pi 0 Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-12-16 11:14 +0000
                                    Re: R Pi 0 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-12-16 13:18 +0100
                                      Re: R Pi 0 Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-12-16 14:10 +0000
                        Re: R Pi 0 Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2015-12-15 19:37 +0000
            Re: R Pi 0 Marco Bakera <pintman@bakera.de> - 2015-12-14 16:47 +0100
              Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 11:32 -0500
      R Pi 0 removemefirst.mark.lewis@p73.f12.n3634.z1.fidonet.org (mark lewis) - 2015-11-27 00:38 +1200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#10127

On 14/12/15 18:57, Rob Morley wrote:
> An embedded device will have been stripped down to the bare minimum (or
> built from scratch) because it doesn't need a lot of that stuff.

Or alternatively, an embedded device won't have been stripped down to 
the bare minimum because it was cheaper to add RAM than pay a competent 
coder to do that correctly.

-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10117

On 14/12/2015 06:09, rickman wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 12:28 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
>> []
>>>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
>>>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
>>>
>>> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by
>>> "embedded computer"?
>>
>> Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.
>
> Only useful if you can multi-thread your application.

Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other 
tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! 
And if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/ 
faster than the earlier models.

-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10122

On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 14/12/2015 06:09, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/14/2015 12:28 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
>>> []
>>>>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
>>>>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
>>>>
>>>> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by
>>>> "embedded computer"?
>>>
>>> Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.
>>
>> Only useful if you can multi-thread your application.
>
> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
> faster than the earlier models.

In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are 
short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10124

On 14/12/15 16:30, rickman wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 14/12/2015 06:09, rickman wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2015 12:28 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>>>> On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
>>>>>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by
>>>>> "embedded computer"?
>>>>
>>>> Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.
>>>
>>> Only useful if you can multi-thread your application.
>>
>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>> faster than the earlier models.
>
> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>
A lot depends on how far you customise a standard installation to do 
your embedded task.

Run syslogd, or not?

For one not particularly typical example.

-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10130

On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>> faster than the earlier models.
>
> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?

It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather 
than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend 
developing your own software for the task in hand.

I know which I would prefer to do!

Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....
-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10133

On 15/12/15 08:07, David Taylor wrote:
> On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>>> faster than the earlier models.
>>
>> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
>> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>
> It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather
> than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend
> developing your own software for the task in hand.
>
> I know which I would prefer to do!
>
> Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....

I think there is a tendency to use something like Busybox to do most 
embedded stuff.

Plus whatever custom app you want.

Mind you, looking at this machine there's well over 200 processes 
running, most of which seem pretty arcane..various daemons most of which 
probably wouldn't be required ion a single app platform.

Ok a lot of them are kthreadd spawns, which probably take no extra 
memory and so on.

It would be intersting to bring the machine up (or take it down) to non 
GUI mode and see what's left that isn't kthreadd stuff.


I am guessing it wont actually be that much, especially if systemd was 
ripped out ;-)



-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10139

In article <n4ojlh$54v$1@news.albasani.net>,
The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 15/12/15 08:07, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> []
>>>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>>>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>>>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>>>> faster than the earlier models.
>>>
>>> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
>>> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>>
>> It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather
>> than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend
>> developing your own software for the task in hand.
>>
>> I know which I would prefer to do!
>>
>> Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....
>
>I think there is a tendency to use something like Busybox to do most 
>embedded stuff.
>
>Plus whatever custom app you want.
>
>Mind you, looking at this machine there's well over 200 processes 
>running, most of which seem pretty arcane..various daemons most of which 
>probably wouldn't be required ion a single app platform.
>
>Ok a lot of them are kthreadd spawns, which probably take no extra 
>memory and so on.
>
>It would be intersting to bring the machine up (or take it down) to non 
>GUI mode and see what's left that isn't kthreadd stuff.
>
>
>I am guessing it wont actually be that much, especially if systemd was 
>ripped out ;-)

I have such a machine I am logged into right now. A rpi-B (not b+), 
with 88 kernel threads (the [] ones in top). plus 14 system and
8 of mine.

systemd-udevd, acpid, systemd, systemd-journald, xinetd, syslogd, 
klogd, init, haveged, systemd-logind, wpa-supplicant, dhcpcd, sshd
and udevd, plus 2x sshd+bash and 4 daemons for my apps.

systemd brings up 4, the wifi/net 3, general devices 3. All of these
are have very clear reasons for their usage.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10144

On 15/12/15 15:44, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <n4ojlh$54v$1@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15/12/15 08:07, David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>>> []
>>>>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>>>>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>>>>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>>>>> faster than the earlier models.
>>>>
>>>> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
>>>> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>>>
>>> It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather
>>> than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend
>>> developing your own software for the task in hand.
>>>
>>> I know which I would prefer to do!
>>>
>>> Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....
>>
>> I think there is a tendency to use something like Busybox to do most
>> embedded stuff.
>>
>> Plus whatever custom app you want.
>>
>> Mind you, looking at this machine there's well over 200 processes
>> running, most of which seem pretty arcane..various daemons most of which
>> probably wouldn't be required ion a single app platform.
>>
>> Ok a lot of them are kthreadd spawns, which probably take no extra
>> memory and so on.
>>
>> It would be intersting to bring the machine up (or take it down) to non
>> GUI mode and see what's left that isn't kthreadd stuff.
>>
>>
>> I am guessing it wont actually be that much, especially if systemd was
>> ripped out ;-)
>
> I have such a machine I am logged into right now. A rpi-B (not b+),
> with 88 kernel threads (the [] ones in top). plus 14 system and
> 8 of mine.
>
> systemd-udevd, acpid, systemd, systemd-journald, xinetd, syslogd,
> klogd, init, haveged, systemd-logind, wpa-supplicant, dhcpcd, sshd
> and udevd, plus 2x sshd+bash and 4 daemons for my apps.
>
> systemd brings up 4, the wifi/net 3, general devices 3. All of these
> are have very clear reasons for their usage.
>
> -- mrr
>
That's very handy info - thanx.


-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10135

In article <n4ohjp$gff$1@dont-email.me>,
David Taylor  <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>[]
>>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>>> faster than the earlier models.
>>
>> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
>> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>
>It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather 
>than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend 
>developing your own software for the task in hand.
>
>I know which I would prefer to do!
>
>Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....

I am tempted to use the pi0, but I need IP connectivity there.

What hardware drivers for the already present hardware is there?
IP over I2C? I know about the serial stuff, but a bus or ring with
many devices on is a lot more attractive.

I don't need a lot of speed. telnet/ssh, snmp, and/or home-grown
udp-based reporting, syslog messages etc. Even 4800 baud will do the
trick, but I must have IP. 

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10136

On 15/12/15 08:55, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <n4ohjp$gff$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Taylor  <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> []
>>>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>>>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>>>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>>>> faster than the earlier models.
>>>
>>> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
>>> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>>
>> It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather
>> than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend
>> developing your own software for the task in hand.
>>
>> I know which I would prefer to do!
>>
>> Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....
>
> I am tempted to use the pi0, but I need IP connectivity there.
>
> What hardware drivers for the already present hardware is there?
> IP over I2C? I know about the serial stuff, but a bus or ring with
> many devices on is a lot more attractive.
>
> I don't need a lot of speed. telnet/ssh, snmp, and/or home-grown
> udp-based reporting, syslog messages etc. Even 4800 baud will do the
> trick, but I must have IP.
>
> -- mrr
>
maybe an arduino would suit you better?

https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoEthernetShield

I have to say that what a Pi does well, it does very well, but its got a 
lot of stuff you don't need or want for a basic embedded app, and lacks 
a lot of stuff you actually do want, like ethernet hardware.

Its surprising how little of an OS you need to even drive a multitasking 
app on a simple processor.

PIC style chips are designed to do what you seem to be wanting - accept 
lots of input data, chew it a bit and spit it out via ethernet, usb or WHY.



-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10138

In article <n4p03n$sud$1@news.albasani.net>,
The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 15/12/15 08:55, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <n4ohjp$gff$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Taylor  <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2015 16:30, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2015 3:11 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>>> []
>>>>> Quad core for the application alone, yes.  But what about all the other
>>>>> tasks the OS is running, as Bob mentioned.  More memory often helps! And
>>>>> if you are compiling your C program on the RPi the RPi2 is a /lot/
>>>>> faster than the earlier models.
>>>>
>>>> In embedded applications most of those tasks don't run.  If you are
>>>> short on horsepower, why run tasks that don't support the job at hand?
>>>
>>> It may be less overall effort just to use the OS "as-supplied" rather
>>> than spending time customising the OS and having less time to spend
>>> developing your own software for the task in hand.
>>>
>>> I know which I would prefer to do!
>>>
>>> Of course, if the small size or low cost of the R Pi 0 is required....
>>
>> I am tempted to use the pi0, but I need IP connectivity there.
>>
>> What hardware drivers for the already present hardware is there?
>> IP over I2C? I know about the serial stuff, but a bus or ring with
>> many devices on is a lot more attractive.
>>
>> I don't need a lot of speed. telnet/ssh, snmp, and/or home-grown
>> udp-based reporting, syslog messages etc. Even 4800 baud will do the
>> trick, but I must have IP.
>>
>> -- mrr
>>
>maybe an arduino would suit you better?
>
>https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoEthernetShield

I have looked at the arduino, but I prefer to have the general
linux computer available. With the rpi-b I get that for around $50, 
power, case, cabling and sd card. This one has ethernet, and they
really run reliably and well. 

>I have to say that what a Pi does well, it does very well, but its got a 
>lot of stuff you don't need or want for a basic embedded app, and lacks 
>a lot of stuff you actually do want, like ethernet hardware.
>
>Its surprising how little of an OS you need to even drive a multitasking 
>app on a simple processor.
>
>PIC style chips are designed to do what you seem to be wanting - accept 
>lots of input data, chew it a bit and spit it out via ethernet, usb or WHY.

No, I want a rather full computer near the observation point, one that
can run autonomously in prinicple forever (in case there are issues
with management or connectivity) but can network reasonably well. 

This networking is pretty basic though. 

So the question remains, is there an IP driver for some of the builtin
stuff on the rpi0; except running ppp over the serial interface. 

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10140

In article <rtj5kc-934.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
Morten Reistad  <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> What hardware drivers for the already present hardware is there?
>>> IP over I2C? I know about the serial stuff, but a bus or ring with
>>> many devices on is a lot more attractive.

[ ... ]

>
>So the question remains, is there an IP driver for some of the builtin
>stuff on the rpi0; except running ppp over the serial interface. 

You can apparently fairly easily connect an inexpensive Ethernet adapter 
based on the ENC28J60, over SPI:

  http://raspi.tv/2015/ethernet-on-pi-zero-how-to-put-an-ethernet-port-on-your-pi

These seem to be fairly inexpensively available on eBay, from China:

  http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=ENC28J60&_sop=15

>-- mrr

// Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10147

In article <n4pgm2$417$1@dont-email.me>,
Christian Brunschen <cb@elaine.df.lth.se> wrote:
>In article <rtj5kc-934.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
>Morten Reistad  <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What hardware drivers for the already present hardware is there?
>>>> IP over I2C? I know about the serial stuff, but a bus or ring with
>>>> many devices on is a lot more attractive.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>>
>>So the question remains, is there an IP driver for some of the builtin
>>stuff on the rpi0; except running ppp over the serial interface. 
>
>You can apparently fairly easily connect an inexpensive Ethernet adapter 
>based on the ENC28J60, over SPI:
>
>  http://raspi.tv/2015/ethernet-on-pi-zero-how-to-put-an-ethernet-port-on-your-pi
>
>These seem to be fairly inexpensively available on eBay, from China:
>
>  http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=ENC28J60&_sop=15

Thanks. Seems just what I need. Now to get pi0's in volume.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10156

In article <fv37kc-2a6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
Morten Reistad  <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>In article <n4pgm2$417$1@dont-email.me>,
>Christian Brunschen <cb@elaine.df.lth.se> wrote:
>>You can apparently fairly easily connect an inexpensive Ethernet adapter 
>>based on the ENC28J60, over SPI:
>> 
>http://raspi.tv/2015/ethernet-on-pi-zero-how-to-put-an-ethernet-port-on-your-pi
>>
>>These seem to be fairly inexpensively available on eBay, from China:
>>
>>  http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=ENC28J60&_sop=15
>
>Thanks. Seems just what I need. 

Happy to help!

>Now to get pi0's in volume.

.. or at all? They seem to be rather sold out wherever I look. 
Best of success!

>-- mrr

// Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10145

Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> So the question remains, is there an IP driver for some of the builtin
> stuff on the rpi0; except running ppp over the serial interface. 

You just need to point pppd at the GPIO serial port, which is /dev/ttyAMA0
http://elinux.org/RPi_Serial_Connection

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10148

In article <+kg*oEcNv@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Theo Markettos  <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> So the question remains, is there an IP driver for some of the builtin
>> stuff on the rpi0; except running ppp over the serial interface. 
>
>You just need to point pppd at the GPIO serial port, which is /dev/ttyAMA0
>http://elinux.org/RPi_Serial_Connection

I already have tested that. Works, but need a dedicated serial on
the other end, so does not scale very well. 

The ether-on-spi means I can deploy cheap ethernet switches, and
have a LAN. 

The commenter said 85 MB in 3 min 45, which is just above 3 megabits/sec. 
More than enough for simple administration and telemetry.

I'll order some tomorrow. 

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10150

On 16-12-15 05:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
> The ether-on-spi means I can deploy cheap ethernet switches, and
> have a LAN.
>
> The commenter said 85 MB in 3 min 45, which is just above 3 megabits/sec.
> More than enough for simple administration and telemetry.
>
> I'll order some tomorrow.

You could also order a combined microUSB-to-ethernet & 3 port USB hub 
adapter for about $6 on e.g. dx.com and get plug & play 100 Mbit/s in a 
neater package.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10151

A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> On 16-12-15 05:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> The ether-on-spi means I can deploy cheap ethernet switches, and
>> have a LAN.
>>
>> The commenter said 85 MB in 3 min 45, which is just above 3 megabits/sec.
>> More than enough for simple administration and telemetry.
>>
>> I'll order some tomorrow.
>
> You could also order a combined microUSB-to-ethernet & 3 port USB hub 
> adapter for about $6 on e.g. dx.com and get plug & play 100 Mbit/s in a 
> neater package.

Incredible...
Now find one with built-in Audio as well and we have a complete Pi for
half the price :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10152

On 16-12-15 12:14, Rob wrote:
> A. Dumas wrote:
>> You could also order a combined microUSB-to-ethernet & 3 port USB hub
>> adapter for about $6 on e.g. dx.com and get plug & play 100 Mbit/s in a
>> neater package.
>
> Incredible...
> Now find one with built-in Audio as well and we have a complete Pi for
> half the price :-)

HDMI audio is the same! If you want analogue, I guess this pushes it 
beyond half, but also much better quality audio: 
https://shop.pimoroni.com/products/phat-dac

(You'd still lack CSI/DSI interfaces.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10153

A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> On 16-12-15 12:14, Rob wrote:
>> A. Dumas wrote:
>>> You could also order a combined microUSB-to-ethernet & 3 port USB hub
>>> adapter for about $6 on e.g. dx.com and get plug & play 100 Mbit/s in a
>>> neater package.
>>
>> Incredible...
>> Now find one with built-in Audio as well and we have a complete Pi for
>> half the price :-)
>
> HDMI audio is the same! If you want analogue, I guess this pushes it 

In fact what I need is both audio in and out...  Using a USB audio
dongle for now.  Of course that fits in such a hub as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web