You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The last manufacturing batch was assembled with TE0715-04 and XC7ZU015. Since then, revision 04 has been replaced with revision 05. From Hardware Revision Change, it looks like there are no changes that would require carrier modification.
The question is, which SoM variant is preferred? Currently, TE0715-05-51I33-L is somewhat available, but maybe we could broaden the compatibility list. TE0715-05-51I33-A, which would be a first choice, is unavailable. We can try with TE0715-05-51I33-L, but we need to verify that "low profile" clearance is.
@sbourdeauducq@jmatyas How hard would it be to support, for example, XC7ZU012S (if at all possible), XC7ZU015, and XC7ZU030 from the point of view of software maintenance?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The last manufacturing batch was assembled with TE0715-04 and XC7ZU015. Since then, revision 04 has been replaced with revision 05. From Hardware Revision Change, it looks like there are no changes that would require carrier modification.
The question is, which SoM variant is preferred? Currently,
TE0715-05-51I33-L is somewhat available, but maybe we could broaden the compatibility list.TE0715-05-51I33-A, which would be a first choice, is unavailable. We can try with TE0715-05-51I33-L, but we need to verify that "low profile" clearance is.@sbourdeauducq @jmatyas How hard would it be to support, for example, XC7ZU012S (if at all possible), XC7ZU015, and XC7ZU030 from the point of view of software maintenance?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: