Fat D
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:22 pm

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:35 pm

Those three requirements are strictly distinct from the terms of the HAT label though, which is why I am asking in the first place.

Gswg
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:30 am
Location: Swindon
Contact: Website

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:56 pm

When will there be a marketing campaign / official HAT logo etc. that can be used by those spending time etc. to adhere to the HAT spec?

I think the original idea was a good one but needed / needs a little more "branding" and enforcement with a benefit to those who adhere? All this needs effort however - (remember Sun's attempt to enforce Java VM certifications?)

Maybe the whole HAT thing is something which may be forgotten about - there are several variables (flat flexi cut outs etc.) and confusion which doesn't make it easier.

Gordon@iqaudio.com

jamesh
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 26886
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:57 pm

You;ll have to wait for Pi Towers to recover from its Xmas hangover for answers I'm afraid.
Principal Software Engineer at Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd.
Contrary to popular belief, humorous signatures are allowed.
I've been saying "Mucho" to my Spanish friend a lot more lately. It means a lot to him.

gordon77
Posts: 5134
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:00 pm

jamesh wrote:You;ll have to wait for Pi Towers to recover from its Xmas hangover for answers I'm afraid.
All Pi-eyed ? ;)

jdb
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 2428
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:49 pm

Gswg wrote:When will there be a marketing campaign / official HAT logo etc. that can be used by those spending time etc. to adhere to the HAT spec?

I think the original idea was a good one but needed / needs a little more "branding" and enforcement with a benefit to those who adhere? All this needs effort however - (remember Sun's attempt to enforce Java VM certifications?)

Maybe the whole HAT thing is something which may be forgotten about - there are several variables (flat flexi cut outs etc.) and confusion which doesn't make it easier.

Gordon@iqaudio.com
Hi. I'm one of the first to recover from the Christmas hangover(s).

The primary goal of the HAT specification is minimal user set-up and configuration. This is essential in an environment where users are learning about how computing hardware works, not how to set up computing hardware.

Videocore DT-blob parsing is now functional in BRANCH=next firmware - Phil Elwell has been working on this and is now in "public beta". This is the key piece of software that allows HAT overlays to be loaded on-boot with no user interaction.

In terms of specification enforcement - this is something currently undergoing internal discussions. We want boards confirming to the HAT spec to be self-contained to a certain degree - I specifically do not want an authoritative list of what is a HAT and what the Raspberry Pi foundation "supports" as doing this will increase our maintenance overhead for 3rd-party products. Having the hardware describe itself (through the EEPROM data) was the reason including the EEPROM was made mandatory.

Now that the HAT specification has been in the wild for a number of months and hardware manufacturers have come back with boards utilising this form factor, there will inevitably be omissions/ambiguities that need to be resolved and fed back into the HAT specification.

One avenue that may condense out of the specification review is provision of a suite of hardware/software checklists or QA steps that ultimately allow manufacturers to self-certify add-ons as HAT-compatible. By publishing this list of QA tests as a development package, interested parties can replicate results.

In terms of branding/logo - again something still under discussion. It is likely that the "official" name for a HAT and/or any logos used in promotional material or on product web pages will be trademarked in the same fashion as the Raspberry Pi name and logo is. How this acts in conjunction with self-certification is still something that needs to be decided.
Rockets are loud.
https://astro-pi.org

Gswg
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:30 am
Location: Swindon
Contact: Website

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Fri Jan 02, 2015 4:59 pm

Welcome back, Happy New Year and thanks for the inside status update.

Great to hear it's all being discussed - will be nice to see more on the subject in the coming months.

Gordon@iqaudio.com

hippy
Posts: 8113
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: UK

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:54 pm

jdb wrote:In terms of branding/logo - again something still under discussion. It is likely that the "official" name for a HAT and/or any logos used in promotional material or on product web pages will be trademarked in the same fashion as the Raspberry Pi name and logo is. How this acts in conjunction with self-certification is still something that needs to be decided.
That should work and provide legal enforceability of the spec, albeit indirectly.

If, say, "Raspberry Pi HAT" were a registered trademark, a zero-cost license can be granted to allow use of that trademark for spec compliant boards in much the same way that Farnell and RS are allowed to use the "Raspberry Pi" registered trademark for the boards they manufacture.

Anyone producing a board using the "Raspberry Pi HAT" registered trademark but not spec compliant can then be run into the ground for trademark infringement or passing off.

Gswg
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:30 am
Location: Swindon
Contact: Website

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:24 pm

Oops, another example?

http://www.element14.com/community/docs ... del-b-plus

- it's stackable, not allowed as part of HAT spec?
- it doesn't meet the HAT form factor asis unless you plug in the EXTRA board?
- Selectable HAT EEPROM i2c address?

Please don't think I'm pointing fingers. We have our own non-compliant board (Pi-AMP+) and we'll have more too for the B+ but we're not calling them HATs.

ShiftPlusOne
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:36 pm
Location: The unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:45 pm

Just spoke to James Adams and Gordon about this.

If you can make something that is HAT-compliant AND stackable, that's not a problem. Having an EEPROM with a selectable address isn't an issue either. The dimensions of that board do seem problematic and in the picture, the EEPROM seems to be missing entirely. Maybe having dimensions smaller than the spec isn't going to be a problem, that's something that will need some pondering.

Regarding kits, there isn't a problem with selling them as "HAT kits".

Overall, they're aware that there's ambiguity in the spec and are still collecting feedback and seeing what the best approach is. It will all be cleared up over time.

shawaj
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:36 am

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:28 am

So we can sell something as a kit of parts and call it a HAT kit?

That goes against what I have previously been told so I am very keen to clarify that point.

Guessing no EEprom means no hat though?

Thanks
Support The MagPi by purchasing printed copies from one of our retailers - http://themagpi.com/en/buy

Please share with anyone who is interested!

jamesh
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 26886
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:50 am

shawaj wrote:So we can sell something as a kit of parts and call it a HAT kit?

That goes against what I have previously been told so I am very keen to clarify that point.

Guessing no EEprom means no hat though?

Thanks
I'm presuming the end result of the kit MUST adhere to the HAT spec, otherwise it wouldn't be a HAT kit....it would just be a kit.
Principal Software Engineer at Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd.
Contrary to popular belief, humorous signatures are allowed.
I've been saying "Mucho" to my Spanish friend a lot more lately. It means a lot to him.

shawaj
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:36 am

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:36 pm

Previously I was told that any soldering required at all meant you couldn't call it a HAT at all.

Is this no longer the case then?
Support The MagPi by purchasing printed copies from one of our retailers - http://themagpi.com/en/buy

Please share with anyone who is interested!

Fat D
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:22 pm

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:57 pm

That is why it is a HAT kit, not a HAT. It is a kit from which you can make a HAT, but only the finished device is a HAT.

shawaj
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:36 am

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:49 pm

Yes, and as I have said a number of times, I have previously been told that you couldn't use HAT in the name of any product which requires assembly - regardless of whether you called it a HAT or a HAT kit

Hence asking for clarification, as this new position is a u-turn on what was said before!
Support The MagPi by purchasing printed copies from one of our retailers - http://themagpi.com/en/buy

Please share with anyone who is interested!

ShiftPlusOne
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:36 pm
Location: The unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:36 pm

There's no "new position" it was just the direction that they're leaning towards. Personally, I don't think 'HAT kit' is a good idea, since to the untrained eye, "HAT kit" and "HAT" might be the same thing. Maybe something like unassembled HAT would avoid people accidentally buying the wrong thing.

shawaj
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:36 am

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:44 pm

What's the best way to get a decision on this from the foundation on the assembly criteria and naming?

Don't mind what the answer is really, just keen to get clarification.

Thanks
Support The MagPi by purchasing printed copies from one of our retailers - http://themagpi.com/en/buy

Please share with anyone who is interested!

ShiftPlusOne
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:36 pm
Location: The unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:06 pm

I'll see if I can get a definitive, official, no-backsies, pinkie promise position on it for you tomorrow.

But I'm wondering.... why does it matter at all? If you want to make a board that meets the HAT spec, but sell it as a kit, what's stopping you wrong doing that? The only difference will be what you put in the title.

shawaj
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:36 am

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:13 am

Just want to know where we stand with regard to calling things HATs.

Obviously the foundation think protecting that name to some extent has value to it and I would be keen to meet the criteria if possible :-)
Support The MagPi by purchasing printed copies from one of our retailers - http://themagpi.com/en/buy

Please share with anyone who is interested!

ShiftPlusOne
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:36 pm
Location: The unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:13 am

Alright, I've managed to get an official position on this:
As long as what the user ends up building is HAT compliant and all the necessary components are included, you can call it a "HAT kit". The EEPROM does not have to come pre-programmed, but a way to program is must be provided.
I still recommend adding some wiggle room into your business plan, but the above is from the reluctant horse's mouth (I don't mean to call James and Gordon horses, but you get the idea).

User avatar
joan
Posts: 15003
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:53 am

ShiftPlusOne wrote:Alright, I've managed to get an official position on this:
As long as what the user ends up building is HAT compliant and all the necessary components are included, you can call it a "HAT kit". The EEPROM does not have to come pre-programmed, but a way to program is must be provided.
I still recommend adding some wiggle room into your business plan, but the above is from the reluctant horse's mouth (I don't mean to call James and Gordon horses, but you get the idea).
Surely anybody can call anything a HAT kit, or has HAT or HAT kit been trademarked?

I'd have thought the problem would be associating a Raspberry Pi mark with HAT kit.

PiGraham
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: Waterlooville

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:14 am

Gswg wrote:Oops, another example?

http://www.element14.com/community/docs ... del-b-plus

- it's stackable, not allowed as part of HAT spec?
- it doesn't meet the HAT form factor asis unless you plug in the EXTRA board?
- Selectable HAT EEPROM i2c address?

Please don't think I'm pointing fingers. We have our own non-compliant board (Pi-AMP+) and we'll have more too for the B+ but we're not calling them HATs.

That does seem to make "HAT specification" almost meaningless.
Stackable up to eight boards and HAT (Hardware Attached on Top) compliant means a huge amount of expansion.
Stacking was specifically excluded from the HAT spec.

User settable eeprom address surely defeats a key goal of the HAT spec - no user config.

I think stacking is a very good idea, but not if everyone invents their own way to do it.

Gswg
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:30 am
Location: Swindon
Contact: Website

Re: HAT spec enforcement?

Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:10 pm

I may be simplifying the whole discussion but for me this is the crux....

If we want to spec HAT to make it easy for people to use add-on boards (and specifically the configuration of them) then enforce it. Consumers will be able to understand that HAT has a benefit and rely on the fact that a HAT board IS a HAT board.

If HAT is not enforced then the poor punter is going to get confused and find that HAT boards are not created equal, so there's a big unknown and more confusion with no benefit to the consumer.

If we don't care what goes on top or how then IMHO it's useless trying to enforce anything but similarly we're giving away the simple configuration benefit it's supposed to provide in the first place.

So what's it to be?

Return to “HATs and other add-ons”