| Revision as of 18:08, 9 June 2013 editElectron9 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled8,072 edits →Edit warning noticeboard discussion: no polyfuse - no good← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:06, 10 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,546 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 6) (bot |
| (438 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{afd-mergefrom|Raspbian|Raspbian|22 December 2012}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
{{WikiProject Computing|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=High |hardware=yes |hardware-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Introductions }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Technology }} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Connected contributor|Trevj|editedhere=yes|declared=yes}} |
|
{{Connected contributor|Trevj|editedhere=yes|declared=yes}} |
|
|
{{COI editnotice}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 64K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 64K |
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 15: |
Line 20: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot I|age=31|search=yes}} |
|
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot I|age=31|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== GFLOPs in Simplified Model B Changelog == |
|
== Nomination of ] for deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
|
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 10 May 2013 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Please change the memory on the Model A to 512MB as it now has the same memory as the Model B. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 23:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{not done}} The model A still has 256MB of RAM, not 512MB! Originally the model A was planned to have 128MB of RAM but by the time of the actual launch the RPF managed to increased it to 256MB. |
|
|
::So unless you have a source that proofs that the model A now has 512MB the current information is still correct. ] (]) 00:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::{{ESp|n}} per Mahjongg, <small>(change the <code>|answered=</code> parameter to yes next time)</small>. ] (]) 01:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 20 May 2013 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
The Raspberry Pi Camera has just been released. Please update! |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ESp|xy}} —<span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{done}} ] (]) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wayland (and Weston), X successor on Pi == |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3NzM |
|
|
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3NzI |
|
|
|
|
|
Useable right now(?) from source or when: |
|
|
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM2MTM |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong numbers? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The articles currently says: |
|
|
|
|
|
''In the highest ("turbo") preset the SDRAM clock was originally 500 MHz, but this was later changed from to 600 Mhz because 500 MHZ sometimes causes SD card corruption. Simultaneously in "High" mode the core clock speed was lowered from 450 to 250 MHz.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the source of the GFLOP values in the Simplified Model B Changelog table? I would suggest that this should be cited. |
|
Higher clock speed because lower causes corruption? "changed from to"? A drop almost 50%? Could someone please check these numbers? --] (]) 12:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Raspberry Pi Pico in the Comparison Chart == |
|
== Disputed info from 121.72.118.83 on USB power and Memory clock == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should the Raspberry Pi Pico really be compared with the other Raspberry Pis? |
|
I found which seems to be disputed because the reference is a forum thread. But I still find it useful. So it's here it is should anyone need it: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Raspberry Pi Pico is really different from the rest of the Raspberry Pis, and is much more like a microcontroller than the others. I'm not sure if comparing them in the same chart makes sense (and I believe that chart is already too long). ] (]) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
:# Originally the on-board USB ports were designed for USB devices using one "unit load" (100 mA) of current. Devices using more than 100 mA were incompatible with the Raspberry Pi, and for them a ] was required. However, due to user feedback, the RPF, at the end of August 2012, decided to remove the USB ]s which largely caused this behaviour. However, the maximum current that can be delivered to a USB port on these modified boards is still limited by the capabilities of the power supply used, and the 1.1 A main polyfuse. Spontaneous rebooting and/or crashing caused by hot plugging certain USB devices was introduced as a result of this change, which further reduced the standards compliance of the Raspberry Pi's USB implementation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5830 |title=Design flaw? Polyfuses for USB current limiting |publisher=Raspberrypi.org |date= |accessdate=2012-06-22}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Although I feel similarly, unfortunately the people running the Raspberry Pi foundation decided to confusingly name the Pico as a "Raspberry Pi", even though the RP2040 is more technically a microcontroller, while the rest of the Raspberries are more technically general purpose computers. ] (]) 03:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:/../ |
|
|
|
:I actually like having it in the list because occasionally I want to decide if a PICO is good enough or even better (because benefits from programmed IO state machines) for a simple task or a ZERO is needed or better (for ethernet and full unix). Was actually signing up today because all Raspi Pi versions table was incomplete for PICO not showing any IO beyond "a UART" - no mentioning of 2nd UART, I2C, SPI, PWM, ADC, PIO and USB1.1 (however dedicated USB2 and USB3 columns exist). Although RP2040 page shows all details, being able to side-by-side compare PICO, ZERO and perhaps even compute module under Raspberry PI would be nice to have. ] (]) 00:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Related: The "Series and generations" section starts with "There are three series of Raspberry Pi" and the rest of the paragraph only explains "Raspberry Pi SBCs" and "Raspberry Pi Pico". It could be clarified there that the 3 generations are the 3 sections following (Raspberry Pi, Raspberry Pi Zero, Raspberry Pico) and the big-picture differences among the 3. As it is I am guessing that "Raspberry Pi SBCs" is meant to include the "Raspberry Pi" and "Raspberry Pi Zero" sections following... It's just confusing as it is currently written and I am not an experienced Misplaced Pages editor. ] (]) 04:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too confusing to read on mobile == |
|
:# The five overclock ("turbo") presets were changed because overclocking the core causes SD card corruption, apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC. They originally were: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having the (growing) list of models summerized in one giant table is really inaccessible especially on mobile. Horizontal scrolling to reference a particular cell relies upon remembering the vertical and horizontal headers which are out of view once you reach the cell. |
|
:## "None"; 700 MHz ARM, 250 MHz core, 400 MHz SDRAM, 0 overvolt, |
|
|
:## "Modest"; 800 MHz ARM, 300 MHz core, 400 MHz SDRAM, 0 overvolt, |
|
|
:## "Medium" 900 MHz ARM, 333 MHz core, 450 MHz SDRAM, 2 overvolt, |
|
|
:## "High"; 950 MHz ARM, 450 MHz core, 450 MHz SDRAM, 6 overvolt, |
|
|
:## "Turbo"; 1000 MHz ARM, 500 MHz core, 500 MHz SDRAM, 6 overvolt |
|
|
] (]) 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do we have any reliable sources for this? '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>]</big> 08:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
I have included the source for the overclocking information with my latest edit: https://github.com/asb/raspi-config/commit/c5e1966418922862b2a84559c567c35e6a1c4c28 |
|
|
Surely this can't be disputed now? |
|
|
] (]) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not familiar with GitHub, can someone make a call of whether or not it's reliable? And what about the text attached to a forum post? '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>]</big> 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
Alex Bradbury (asb) is the author of raspi-config and as you can see from the link I gave the overclocking settings were different when they were first introduced than they are now. They were added on 17 September 2012 and changed on 28 October 2012. This link shows that the reason for the change is due to SD card corruption, which is exactly what I said: https://github.com/asb/raspi-config/commit/a7a7b12ad0c0bf7e7fe9e1eadc4b35887230f2fb Somebody should add that to the article. I will eventually do that if nobody else can be bothered and would rather delete useful and relevant information instead. |
|
|
] (]) 11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: the sources used to support this edit say nothing about "apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC", so that is a non supported non NPOV remark. This is simply a case of tweaking overclocking settings after many more systems were tested since first release. Also the two tables are almost identical so what I did was contracting it to just the differences, but it seems that user 121.72.118.83 isn't content with that, he wants nothing less than maximum exposure. He seems to be the sock puppet of the poster that was responsible for a three month lockdown of the article, (user:121.74.158.215) because of similar behavior three months ago. Can't believe we are back to where we were three months ago! He is one stubborn guy! ] (]) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there’s probably enough material for each generation (if not model) to have its own wiki article: not just specs but history, press, noteable deployments, reception, etc ] (]) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Edit warning noticeboard discussion == |
|
|
IP reported at ]. Also see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Raspberry Pi 5 lone link == |
|
There is a reason why the IP cannot come up with a reliable source for his USB claims. Protecting USB posts with polyfuses is a common practice which doesn't even come close to being notable. One wonders why the IP has it in for the Raspberry Pi; competitor, perhaps? --] (]) 17:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:If the polyfuses were removed such that the power supply system is compromised it's not a good approach. At least {{nowrap|500 mA}} variants should be used to be within the USB2 specification. ] (]) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
The thing that confuses me is that the RPi 4 has its own link but not the 5. ] (]) 14:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |
What is the source of the GFLOP values in the Simplified Model B Changelog table? I would suggest that this should be cited.
The Raspberry Pi Pico is really different from the rest of the Raspberry Pis, and is much more like a microcontroller than the others. I'm not sure if comparing them in the same chart makes sense (and I believe that chart is already too long). Stevenruidigao (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Having the (growing) list of models summerized in one giant table is really inaccessible especially on mobile. Horizontal scrolling to reference a particular cell relies upon remembering the vertical and horizontal headers which are out of view once you reach the cell.
there’s probably enough material for each generation (if not model) to have its own wiki article: not just specs but history, press, noteable deployments, reception, etc 146.199.169.199 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
