Here’s another one for you GMod (or whoever is interested)…
As I was laying out modules this weekend for a project I’m working on, it became obvious that I can’t do everything I want because I have too many “I” modules and too few sockets. The best solution for this problem would be to modify the module driver to make it work on an “X” socket using SoftwareI2C. (Module makers, PLEASE make all “I” modules “IX” modules!!!). Having a module as the one I’ve drawn would make this an easy conversion. The idea is that you would insert this between the mainboard and the module and could solder wires to map the upstream socket to the downstream socket.
I changed my mind about part of the design after sketching but didn’t want to take the time to change… I would put the pin labels on top or bottom and put the top & bottom rows of pads close enough together that they could be jumpered with just solder if it’s going to be straight-thru.
Why not size the holes for standard 2-row header pins? Then you could easily jumper the ones that are wired straight through, and use standard F-F jumper wires for pins that need to be remapped? And if someone doesn’t want the headers, they can just leave them off.
Actually, that’s a great point…you could actually eliminate several of the pinouts and just run the GND, 5V, and 3V3 direct from socket to socket. That would effectively prevent any possibility of mis-mapping the pins. Any reason not to do it that way?
Yeah, although many would argue that even us fools would goof it up somehow!
And if you’re doing this sort of work to make modules chain together, you’re past the plug and play aspect of Gadgeteer anyhow. As long as the end user can plug them in properly with the use of these helper modules, I’m all for it.
Here you go. Routing this thing is more complex than it first would seem, because the left-side socket is all backwards. On top of that, I needed to keep vias out of the label area, because with some PCB houses, at least, they won’t silkscreen over vias.
I didn’t put a socket type on it, because, let’s be honest here, this thing is so far out of Gadgeteer spec that it really has no business even having the logo on there.
Looks great! I agree it doesn’t make sense to put a socket type on it. However, I fear that the “Gadgeteer_in/out” text is going to be too small to be readable without a magnifying glass. I’d recommend you put a big * next to one to be consistent with “downstream” labeling in DaisyLink or just a big “IN” and an “OUT” label. You may want to add a white box next to each socket so the user could label them. Maybe the incoming socket I would label “I” and the outgoing “X” just for future reference.