Schematics for RPi 2, B+, and A+

[BillOtto]

Does anyone know links for the schematics for the Raspberry Pi 2, the B+ (complete V1.2, not the 1-pager), and the A+ modules?

Mechanical drawings for the B+ and A+ would be appreciated also.

[mahjongg]

No schematics beyond the Schematics for the Raspberry Pi Model A, B, A+ and B+ exist (for users): https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentati ... /README.md

For the 2B, it will be exactly like the B+, except that RAM in now external, and the internal core voltage regulation is now done outside the SoC. Also I heard the reset (START) logic is different, but that is about all.

The A+ is the same as the B+, but without the LAN9514.

Not publishing further schematics is probably enforced by Lawyer's from Element14/RS, so its no good asking for them.

mechanical drawings of the B+ are here: https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentati ... rawing.pdf

The A+ is simply the same as the B+, without the part beyond the right pair of mounting holes, so it is the same as the HAT.

[hippy]

Not publishing further schematics is probably enforced by Lawyer's from Element14/RS, so its no good asking for them.

I thought it had been said that it was because Eben had got fed up of people asking for things then not appreciating them when delivered, complaining it wasn't enough, so nothing to do with Element14/RS. The other long running reason has been because the Foundation has to protect its IP to protect its revenue stream.

It would be good if there could one day be an official definitive Foundation statement on why schematics won't be released, as the reason why they aren't and won't be released seems to change every time someone starts a new thread asking for them.

[mahjongg]

what was unclear about my use of "probably", it means I was saying it was just my take on things, not an official statement from the RPF!

however I don't think that "Eben being childish", is a reasonable assumption. do you have a link to where he said that? I don't believe it!

But, I don't know more than you do, my reason just seems consistent with other interactions between the RPF and its partners.

yes, i too think it is (at least) partly to protect the IP of both the RPF, and its partners. it seems a logical POV.

[hippy]

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=110143&start=25#p756922

The above is a case in point - the Foundation goes to some lengths to improve the situation for people, and all they get back is a load of 'not good enough' Same thing happened when the initial release was made of all the ARM side code that was previously closed source. Eben spent weeks getting the permissions to release that, with lots of haggling with Broadcom lawyers etc. And what did he get? Abuse because it wasn't enough. He decided there and then, screw you. If you are not going to even say thanks then why bother doing it. There are better things for him to spend his time on.

And the results are what you see before you.

Sad? Maybe, but it's his project, which he has spent an awful lot of time on, and if he wants to eject his toys from the baby carrying device, that up to him!

[mahjongg]

Whatever is said in that thread just makes me sad, even if they say what they say about "the real reason" Eben has given at a birthday party, I'm not convinced its the real reason, IMHO i'm still convinced that distributing the full schematics may get the RPF in conflict with Element14 and ST. that makes more sense....

[hippy]

I'm not convinced its the real reason

Me neither. Perhaps someone will one day come out with a straight and honest answer and tell us what it is.

[DougieLawson]

The most likely answer is commercial confidentiality and non-disclosure.

[hippy]

The most likely answer is commercial confidentiality and non-disclosure.

That seems hard to believe when we are told that the latest schematics would be virtually identical to the schematics which have been released. It's hard to imagine what IP or confidentiality were being protected.

Lack of schematics would not stop someone determined to reverse engineer the circuit from doing so, even determining the board tracking; the real obstacle to cloning a PI is in obtaining the SoC and value of doing so.

It is of course the right of whoever has control over the schematics not to release them. It would just be nice to have an official explanation as to why they won't, rather than leaving that unanswered and leaving people to bounce round their best guesses and suggestions as to why that may be.

[Wattie]

I agree with Dougie, and I am happy to assume keeping things close to your chest is a natural second line of defence after relying on the inability to source key components.

I see a Gooseberry phenomenon where many people are trying to elbow in on the success of the Raspberry, either by producing something which stands on top of the hard work already done on development, by mentioning Raspberry Pi in marketing materials for hits, RSS feeds etc., and even by coming to Raspberry forums for assistance.

I don't see any obvious attack against what looks like parasitic trading, and I think that's a credit to the way the foundation has handled itself. Not releasing IP is understandable. Swatting off irritating and repeated requests for IP for tangential reasons is unfortunately one of the side effects of success.