Prototype Alchitry IO shield board config. #226
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
So I don't know if this is the best way to do this, but my idea was to use "conn" as a general way to refer to the carrier.
Alchitry Cu and Au (carriers) use iCE40 HX8K and Xilinx XC7A35T respectively so their config files would look totally different. The AlchitryCuIOPlatform and AlchitryAuIOPlatform would both inherit from their carrier board.
To implement the IO board for the Au, I would just duplicate the Cu class, and change the "attr" fields to be appropriate to the XC7 chip, but leave everything else the same I think.
Is there a cleaner way to do this? It's gross, especially the dip-switches since they are spread over two connectors multiples times sequentially.
Schematic for x-reference if needed.
alchitry_io_sch.pdf