Eval boards

[Anonymous]

* Which eval boards are supported on each SDK? I haven't found a clear list anywhere.

* Is a better eval board available for the BCM20732 than the BCM920732TAG_Q32? This board has the pins broken out to tiny 20 mil diameter pads. I soldered to them with kynar wire, but even attaching small logic analyzer clips has already damaged the board. It's not really very usable.

I saw some documents in docsafe for a BCM920732EVAL_Q32_P3 board that actually uses 100 mil headers. Is this board available?

[MichaelF_56]

The existing BCM920732_LE_KIT (20732-based) development board is supported by SDK version 1.1

The new BCM92073X_LE_KIT (20737-based) development board is supported by the latest SDK, version 2.0.1

In addition to supporting more onboard EEPROM (needed for OTA firmware updates) and an onboard DC-DC, the new board also provides additional headers to support 2 serial ports and GPIO (this was lacking on the previous board).

Our franchised distributors have these boards coming in, so you may want to get in touch with one of them locally:Distributors

There the board is described here in the 1-pager:WICED SMART 1-Page Overview

[Anonymous]

So.. is the BCM920732EVAL_Q32_P3 available? My current design uses the BCM20732 and I'm trying to get stuff working in the few weeks before new PCBs arrive.

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Hello Gfreese,

The the BCM920732EVAL_Q32_P3 is not available for purchase.

Let me know if you have further questions.

JT

[Anonymous]

Does the 2.x SDK lack support for the 20732 in general? Or does it just lack support for that particular eval board? I'm curious if I can use the 2.x SDK for my custom boards that have a 20732 device.

[MichaelF_56]

SDK 2.x will not work with existing BCM20732S devices as the firmware is different compared to the newer BCM20736S/37S devices. However, if you take the source code you developed for the BCM20732S and compile it within and SDK 2.x/newer TAG board environment, it should work fine (internally we did this type of testing with the sample apps and ran into no problems).

[Anonymous]

Ah, bummer. It looks like I'll be sticking with the 1.x SDK for a while then. Still- good to know that moving to the 2.x will be easy when we redesign with the 20737.

Many thanks