[Oshpark] HQ ProgKey - Universal Driver Programming Key

This looks great HarleyQuin.

For detailed technical information about the pins, and suitability, you could contact https://www.peaktest.co.uk who I’m sure would suggest something suitable.

This is actually very mature technology, nice to see it being applied to torch drivers. I think that I suggested it first, but I also think plenty of others also had the same idea simultaneously. Been going on elsewhere for years.

As TK says, it has to happen, once we move on from the 8 pin MCUs.

I see Microchip Technology stock is on a wild ride at the moment. Lets hope it resolves, because since the PIC and Atmel lines were merged, where else can we go ? It’s either a good monopoly, or a failing one.

Serious question. These things, almost literally, make the world go around. Except for the ARM RISC that utterly dominates (and we allowed to be sold off for silly money).

Sophie Wilson (born Roger) is/was a genius.

Nice. I’m also in favor of compatible programming pads/vias being added to new BLF driver designs going forward. But I don’t want hardware development here to become a monoculture. We have some guys working on diverse designs, and I’d like to keep it that way. So, I’m of two minds on ‘standardization’ efforts. Hopefully a nice balance is kept between the ‘usual’ and the ‘unusual’ here.

Excellent. I’ll probably order the new ones and the key at a later date.

I was only planning on using one of the v3.5 boards in the near future anyway.

Any updates? I like the 4+2 design. I would like to add it to my Q8 driver.
This ProgKey looks much better than the one from Lexel.
But I would also like to be sure which standard is most promising.

I wouldn’t say it’s better, it’s just different.

If it’s coming to standards, I’m the wrong guy to ask. I’m one of the open source guys here, I don’t and won’t sell anything. I just share what I have if deemed interesting and I got the time. And the open source fraction usually doesn’t set the standards. :wink:

I just liked the idea that Lexel brought to the forum, instantly knew I will adopt it for my boards, and wanted to advance it by showing where a more universal approach might be preferable. I’d love it if others would come up with more thoughts and ideas.

If not, the commercial product will get released as deemed fit, the open source guys will make their own stuff and those who can only buy will have to buy what’s on the table. That’s of course a way to set a standard. Sounds familiar? Probably is. :slight_smile:

HarleyQuin

Can you please state at the beginning of your post if your programming key is kompatibel with Lexcels?
I can replug the leads, but is spacing the same?

I read the other thread a while ago and forgot the details.

Same spacing as Lexel’s: 1.3mm sideways and 1.5mm up and down.

The second post is reserved for drawings of spacing and examples for usage in board design, I just couldn’t find the time to upload it, yet.

Thank you!

Do you see a chance that these things fit?

Same pogo pin pitch, but different in the two rows.
I guess a manufacturer would use these as adapter.

Interesting
You mean this double row version:

They stick to a 1.27mm spacing in all directions
Would save the time of making they key, although these “spring loaded connectors” look really really small. Some kind of ‘handle’ would be needed anyway.
Any link to the real life product? Can they be bought in low quantities?
Just googled spring loaded connectors, looks promising, but can’t dig deeper atm.

For now our 1.5mm upper/lower spacing on the key comes from the 0.8mm pcb and half the diameter of the pogo pin. Bringing it down to the same 1.27/1.3mm would not be bad.

On the other hand a 1.27mm version might just fit our 1.5mm spacing. But the risk of malflashing increases.
I’m not that fond of pads after having tested on a board here, with 6 vias on the board the connection is way better.

Nice to see this. I’m using 0.85mm vias for my acupuncture style flashing. Switching to smaller vias and using pogo pins would save me some space. I don’t like holding pins in place though, you said 0.5mm vias sometimes lets the pins through? Is just that because the pins are fixed on your key or does the actual size vary sometimes?

Yes, the double row ones.
No I haven’t seen them as single item, only this kind with magnets in consumer products.

Because they are rated 100 000 connections a manufacturer can do a rig to flash all drivers.
I don’t know how durable the normal pogo pins are.

I was wondering if the vias have a bit more of a pad around they will work too.
Could be asymmetrical or symmetric
Kinda this way:
( 0)(0) ( 0)(0 )
( 0)(0) ( 0)(0 )
( 0)(0) ( 0)(0 )
( 0)(0) ( 0)(0 )

Added graphics for spacing, pin layout and naming in the second post.

.

@joechina
I’d see these connectors as a kind of next evolutionary step when they are readily available. But then I’d migrate to 6 vias in the appropriate spacing.

.

@MikeC
I had seen your version and at that time it needed too much space for me to implement it in the one driver where I badly would have needed it. :slight_smile:

The pogo pins: nothing wrong with them, the ones we use (the smallest ones of the bunch at BG/FT) have a rod-diameter of 0.48mm by design. I tested pushing them through 0.5mm vias and they mostly went through. I find it better when the pointy tip of the rod sits tight on the via, not in it, so the via should be smaller, like 0.4mm or 16mil.

In that case, the connection is really really good. That’s why I prefer to use 6 vias instead of a combo of vias and pads. The rod can’t escape the via to the side, does not slide through it, the springs of the pogo pins ensure some pressure and good contact even when you shake a bit.

I was truly impressed when I tried this combination.

So maybe I’ll try 0.55mm vias so they can go through every time. I agree that if you just want to flash a driver then holding is the easiest solution but I do too much flashing, testing, development and flashing again for that to be reasonable. I wanna stick’em in one by one and leave them there until I’m done.

I think a few hints about vias on pads in the application notes would be good.
It tends to wick away solder.
Also solder stop for a via direct connected to a pad.

I also got my final revision 3.2 also launched now,

too bad I got made 120 boards here where the 10 pin header wont work and solder connection markings do not fit if want flash driver from bottom side
the pins are mirrored because I made an mistake looking in my program on drivers bottom which auto mirrors

Order in 2OZ for 0.8mm board thickness from Oshpark!

https://oshpark.com/shared_projects/o1pUPNqt

I got some that cant use the header as they were produced mirrored

applying solder paste one side
soldering pins to it and applying thermal glue for 2. side reflow

Both sides soldered, fine alignment of the pind with soldering iron carefully after that picture

USB and Firewire all over again. Can we agree on HQ or Lexel or find someway to make them work together?

as far as people stick to my driver pin layout they can use his universal key,
but need to arrange the jumper wires differently to his driver
,same with his driver and my key they would need for the 10 pin connector an adapter or solder the wires on the key differently

both those scenarios are not really good, best is to stick to one solution

We will have soon a BLF lantern going into production with my driver pinout and i already started to put it on my new designs, so best is to stick to it

5x3 is the full size and 3x2 the minimum size

I also got my final revision 3.2 also launched now on Oshpark

Order in 2OZ for 0.8mm board thickness from Oshpark!
OSH Park ~

the v3.1 boards i have here can be used but with some advise
I got made 120 boards where the 10 pin header wont work when used with 1:1 wire, 4 traces need to be swapped out
and solder connection markings do not fit

  • and R are swapped and Mosi and Sck

the pins are mirrored because I made an mistake looking in my program on drivers bottom which auto mirrors

https://oshpark.com/shared_projects/o1pUPNqt

I got some that cant use the header as they were produced mirrored

Production

applying solder paste one side
soldering pins to it and applying thermal glue for 2. side reflow

Both sides soldered, fine alignment of the pind with soldering iron carefully after that picture

final key with soldered wires not connector

I’d say we use both. Lexel’s approach is narrower and more foolproof, mine is more universal and allows for more freedom in the board design. And it’s not USB and Firewire, we’re plug-compatible, so we’re really not far apart.

Lexel had asked more or less the same in the BLF SRK thread, see my more detailled answer there.

Just to summon it up:

I can’t commit to a common standard because I will not use a single standard even on all of my own boards.

I tried different approaches and I saw that I want to keep the freedom to use the best programming pattern for each driver. That’s why I chose a flexible approach, and shared the progkey to use it. I simply share what I use myself. Anyone who wants to use it, can freely do so.

This 4+4 progkey allows for much creativity, it’s universal, small, dirt cheap and easy to build.

Those who use Lexel’s drivers can use his key. That’s perfect. And I really suggest they do, because that way it’s foolproof!

And the small handful of hardcore DIYers that really build my boards: for 4 bucks and change you get 3 progkey PCBs and 100 pogo pins and you’re good to go.

This is just a big mistake
If you want you can easily fit it, just need a bit more routing work

On 17mm it may be a problem, but if you can route its possible, even with a qfn with big ground pad

the aproach to place the Key always on top of 4 MCU pads is not good, get you too many restrictions on design you got to work around

you can always place the key in the middle of the MCU or even away from it

No, it’s not a big mistake. $4 and change, please, who cares. I wouldn’t commit to a standard for my boards either, I do as I please just as HarleyQuin.