> As a "might be relevant" argument, the Begale board has an HDMI
> connector (which actually talks DVI). Whilst its not the hard use-case
> you asked for, if it meant a user not choosing Beagle over Balloon, that
> would presumably be some sort of win.
I see this as a counter argument.
Balloon is most definitely not Beagle.
If you've got an application that needs HDMI and doesn't need the extra bits Balloon provides, you maybe better off choosing Beagle.
In that case fine, we aren't trying to take market share from Beagle we're trying to fill a gap that Beagle doesn't fill.
So for the right applications there should be no choice, you'll pick Balloon because you need an embeddable board and good bit level IO, or an FPGA or great shutdown performance etc.
I'm keen we don't migrate Balloon towards Beagle, HDMI feels like a nudge in this direction.
The issue here is; is there a Use Case where HDMI level graphics are needed in conjunction with bit level IO?
Most industrial control will be happy with a VGA/WVGA LCD screen which can be provided over USB quite effectively or directly from B4.
A valid Use Case for HDMI needs to demonstrate the need to plug into a large TV etc, *and* require an FPGA or bit level IO or any of the other B4 USPs.
Regards
David
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --
> Peter Clifton
>
(text/plain)