Products > Test Equipment

New EEVblog BM786 Multimeter

<< < (59/133) > >>

joeqsmith:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 22, 2021, 09:58:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: drussell on January 22, 2021, 02:26:35 pm ---Obviously the 786 and 789 will have different firmware since the 789 supports the LowZ AutoV, dBm, has T2, etc. I'm just curious if the one spec difference of the ACV frequency is an intentional firmware limitation or if it is related to actual filter components on the PCB, thats all.  My suspicion is that it is most likely a software limitation.
--- End quote ---

If they are smart then the firmware will be indentical, and only a single fuse bit determines what features it has.

--- End quote ---

What do you feel makes this the smart thing to do?  Makes it easier to maintain the code base?   Like the idea of promoting upgrades for beginners with a soldering iron?   Sell more meters?   

Monkeh:

--- Quote from: joeqsmith on January 23, 2021, 02:58:54 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 22, 2021, 09:58:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: drussell on January 22, 2021, 02:26:35 pm ---Obviously the 786 and 789 will have different firmware since the 789 supports the LowZ AutoV, dBm, has T2, etc. I'm just curious if the one spec difference of the ACV frequency is an intentional firmware limitation or if it is related to actual filter components on the PCB, thats all.  My suspicion is that it is most likely a software limitation.
--- End quote ---

If they are smart then the firmware will be indentical, and only a single fuse bit determines what features it has.

--- End quote ---

What do you feel makes this the smart thing to do?  Makes it easier to maintain the code base?   Like the idea of promoting upgrades for beginners with a soldering iron?   Sell more meters?

--- End quote ---

Fuse bit would be internal to the chip, not something you can solder. Potentially means you can flash the firmware image on a device, not set the fuse bits, perform a full test and calibration, and then later down the chain determine which model it is - less stock to keep of the boards, easier for replacements under warranty, and so forth. Less chance of strange and obscure bugs from different firmware builds, no 'oops we can't fit the image for this model in but all the others are fine', no need to build and ship multiple firmware images when you update it, which removes a potential human error leaving an old build in place..

Sorry, sort of a wall-o-thoughts there, but in general one image to rule them all removes a lot of problems.

joeqsmith:

--- Quote ---less stock to keep of the boards,
--- End quote ---
Could you please explain this?

Monkeh:

--- Quote from: joeqsmith on January 23, 2021, 03:41:38 am ---
--- Quote ---less stock to keep of the boards,
--- End quote ---
Could you please explain this?

--- End quote ---

If you only have one board design with one set of components and one firmware image, you may not need to keep as many assembled and tested on hand for warranty replacement, for example. Yes, it sort of mushes in with a second point from my post. I don't know that the boards are identical between versions of this meter (quite possibly not, honestly), but ticking both boxes potentially leaves you with more flexible stock. Same idea as using one case moulding with just different print on it, in some products that would be just a label stuck on covering unused button holes and so forth.

joeqsmith:
Bare boards are the same but once populated they are different sub assemblies.  The hardware and firmware are unique.  Even at final assembly, we have a case using custom colors.  I doubt there's much concern about it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod