SparkFun will be closed for Memorial Day (5/30). Orders placed after 2pm MT on Friday (5/27) will process and ship out on Tuesday (5/31).


Member Since: October 13, 2009

Country: United States

  • Ah! Got it, must have been looking at the wrong file…

    Is it possible to re-map the Serial0 UART to any of the other available pins to allow two hardware UARTs and SPI/I2C? (realizing that this reduces available pins pretty far!)

  • Cool news!

    I was looking though the “variant” files for the SAMD21 mini breakout and I can’t see where the re-mapping was done (it all appeared to be Zero defaults). Can you show us how the remap was done?

    Maybe I’m looking at the wrong package…

  • Ordered two of these, and although I’m not 100% sure, it looks like the SPI port that is implemented is not the default one that is used by the Arduino IDE.

    The Zero schematic suggests that the SPI port on pins: PB10, PB11 and PA12 is the default. Perhaps someone can confirm?

    Also, the RX/TX map to what is essentially the “second” serial port; SERIAL1. PB22 and PB23 are the default SERIAL0. The schematic suggests that SERIAL0 is connected to the EDBG header, but it’s not clear which pins would be used.

  • To re-iterate what a lot of people are saying, but some are missing, very little that SparkFun manufactures would ever be patentable, so “open source” is kind of a no-brainer!

    SparkFun makes very good “datasheet applications” of various ICs and components, but hardly anything that would ever be provided patent protection.

    Trying to patent a circuit made from off-the-shelf components would be near-impossible. The circuit itself may be covered by copyright, but it’s trivially easy to reverse engineer and change a few things and have exactly the same functionality, and not be infringing.

    Software (or firmware) is the magic sauce that give significant value to commodity boards and sensors, and that’s one kind of IP that you can control to a degree, and takes significantly more effort to reverse-engineer.

    The underlying problem here is trying to overreach with “open source”, and apply it to tech IP in general. IP protection is an absolute requirement where millions of dollars of R&D are at stake, but meaningless when it’s a board or device that can be designed by an amateur in a few hours. (I could (and have) easily design an Arduino-compatible board from scratch in a few hours in Eagle…)

No public wish lists :(