[arm-allstar] arm-allstar Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9

[Joshua Nulton]

Barry I honestly do think it is a fine design and after Doug explained in
further detail I am confident that it is a step in the right direction. If
nothing else it does address the issue of the potted CM108's and adding a
cheap Arduino means we can at least put to use all those sound cards
ordered or sent by mistake. I can understand the idea of wanting to keep it
as cheap as possible to satisfy the masses, personally I do agree with the
fact that a typical ham will not spend the money on a finer setup for the
most part, so in theory this is keeping Allstar at a very low entry cost.
Like Doug said a URI @ $70 or a couple solder joints @ $4. I want more of
course, and this costs money. Most hams are probably trying to figure how
to bring the costs down even further than they already are, it stuns me
considering the lowest cost commercially available Allstar node/repeaters
start around $500. But if we are to consider cost to be at the threshold of
barriers to entry I think this is a solid decision and commend those who
thought it through better than I.

Nothing I said was meant in a critical manner regarding the decision, nor
the work that went into making this peripheral a reality. Thank you all. I
am interested in your work a bit more Barry, and will contact you via email
if you don't mind. :)

Thank you again ARM Allstar team!
Joshua KG5EBI

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:38 AM, <arm-allstar-request at hamvoip.org> wrote:

> Send arm-allstar mailing list submissions to
>         arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arm-allstar-request at hamvoip.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arm-allstar-owner at hamvoip.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of arm-allstar digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Recommended Nano version --was:  Why Arduino? (David McGough)
>    2. Re: GPIO vs Nano (Barry Buelow)
>    3. Re: GPIO vs Nano (Roselito de los Reyes)
>    4. Re: GPIO vs Nano (George Csahanin)
>    5. Re: GPIO vs Nano (Doug Crompton)
>    6. Re: GPIO vs Nano (George Csahanin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:42:37 -0500 (EST)
> From: David McGough <kb4fxc at inttek.net>
> To: N7JCT via arm-allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] Recommended Nano version --was:  Why
>         Arduino?
> Message-ID:
>         <Pine.LNX.4.44.1612061525300.6831-100000 at goliath.inttek.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> The recommended Nano board is the 5V, 16MHz clone version, using the
> ATmega328p and CH340g USB-UART. They're available from -hundreds- of
> sources and are locally available everywhere I've checked. The Arduino is
> OPEN SOURCE hardware/software, not proprietary. They'll be available in
> some compatible format for a long, long time to come. See this link to
> ebay as an example:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=nano+ch340g
>
> As has already been mentioned, see these links for interfacing examples.
> Note that this is still a project in development and the hardware methods
> are continuing to be refined.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/radiofarmprojects/home/
> hamvoip-nano-interface
> https://hamvoip.org/hamradio/Nano_Allstar_Interface/Hamvoip%20Nano%20GPIO%
> 20Interface%20Schematic.pdf
>
>
> 73, David KB4FXC
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, "N7JCT via arm-allstar" wrote:
>
> > Thanks to everyone for the responses.  I understand now that using the
> > Arduino is simply a choice and that there is nothing to prevent the use
> > of the included GPIO.  I'm encouraged to continue on using the Pi GPIO.
> > Doug's got a great pro/con chart for describing why he's using Arduino
> > for his particular application, that's pretty cool.
> >
> > Doug also pointed out that the Arduino requires proper interfacing to
> > I/O, as does the Pi.  That said, for those going the Arduino route,
> > consider the Ruggeduino.  It's got all the protection built in so should
> > make for a very clean implementation.
> >
> > What I'm doing only requires COR in and PTT out.  So I'm going to stick
> > with the Pi GPIO for my own use to keep things simple, keep it cheap,
> > because I can, and because now I can see there is no advantage in using
> > the Arduino for the simple stuff I'm doing.
> >
> > Thanks again for explaining it for me everyone.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Thor
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > arm-allstar mailing list
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> > http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >
> > Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:56:48 -0600
> From: Barry Buelow <iabarryyy at gmail.com>
> To: arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] GPIO vs Nano
> Message-ID: <02af2514-1e03-d026-0dae-87fbee44d892 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> All,
>
> I originally built a pcb that plugs into the GPIO of the RPi. It had
> room for 2x FOBs (minus plastic cases) and buffers for PTT-COS. I have
> experience with complex board design (avionics) and expected some
> coupling from the RPi to the board, but it was significantly higher than
> I expected. The audio always had "worms" and it was quite difficult to
> knock down the spikes on the +5 and +3.3. The short answer is that the
> IO board was too close and there was no simple way to get more
> isolation. It was also clear that if there were some undesirable event
> on the radio, the path to Gnd was via the RPi. An aside comment for now:
> building a system with several floating ps is a really bad idea.
>
> Over the past few months, I've shown Dave and Doug my work and received
> comments. The NanoDB is not a bullet proof interface. Doug always argues
> for cheap :-), but he wants the features of a more expensive unit.  The
> NanoDB is rather minimalist in design. I had a 74HC14 buffer between the
> inputs (COS, CTC) and the Nano, but took it out. The amount of
> protection it offered was inadequate if there were a big event (as was
> re-enforced at an IEEE EMI class a few months ago). The 74HC14, with
> jumpers, also allowed the IO to invert signals to have LEDs indicate the
> correct state regardless of COS=1 or COS=0 from the radio. I still like
> that idea, but it can be accomplished in the Nano Sw.
>
> What drives my designs is the desire to have no external ugly blight of
> wires and components necessary in normal installs.  Why would anyone
> want a design that requires external 2N2222 + bias resistors hanging in
> midair off of a DB25?  My goal was to have the NanoDB work for 90% of
> the simple nodes. It allows use of the potted FOB to build a cheap
> system.  I'd be very interested to hear about cases where it did NOT
> work as a future rev might address some issues.
>
> I have also contemplated a more elaborate mechanical design which
> accommodates IO for 2 radios, 2 FOBs, and integrates into a nice
> extruded metal case with room for a pair of DB-9s on the rear. Think
> bigger $.  Dave suggested an integrated USB HUB. Those are fine pitch
> parts which exclude home bench soldering and small quantity builds are
> more expensive.  Maybe someday.
>
> I think the NanoDB will be a contribution to Allstar, which was my
> original intent.
>
> Barry w0iy
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:04:20 +0000
> From: Roselito de los Reyes <tolitski at hotmail.com>
> To: ARM Allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] GPIO vs Nano
> Message-ID:
>         <BY1PR02MB1259C32AA28F651BDA51C029D4820 at BY1PR02MB1259.
> namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thank you for your beautiful work Barry
>
>
> Lito KI9H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: arm-allstar <arm-allstar-bounces at hamvoip.org> on behalf of "Barry
> Buelow via arm-allstar" <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:56 PM
> To: arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> Cc: Barry Buelow
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] GPIO vs Nano
>
> All,
>
> I originally built a pcb that plugs into the GPIO of the RPi. It had
> room for 2x FOBs (minus plastic cases) and buffers for PTT-COS. I have
> experience with complex board design (avionics) and expected some
> coupling from the RPi to the board, but it was significantly higher than
> I expected. The audio always had "worms" and it was quite difficult to
> knock down the spikes on the +5 and +3.3. The short answer is that the
> IO board was too close and there was no simple way to get more
> isolation. It was also clear that if there were some undesirable event
> on the radio, the path to Gnd was via the RPi. An aside comment for now:
> building a system with several floating ps is a really bad idea.
>
> Over the past few months, I've shown Dave and Doug my work and received
> comments. The NanoDB is not a bullet proof interface. Doug always argues
> for cheap :-), but he wants the features of a more expensive unit.  The
> NanoDB is rather minimalist in design. I had a 74HC14 buffer between the
> inputs (COS, CTC) and the Nano, but took it out. The amount of
> protection it offered was inadequate if there were a big event (as was
> re-enforced at an IEEE EMI class a few months ago). The 74HC14, with
> jumpers, also allowed the IO to invert signals to have LEDs indicate the
> correct state regardless of COS=1 or COS=0 from the radio. I still like
> that idea, but it can be accomplished in the Nano Sw.
>
> What drives my designs is the desire to have no external ugly blight of
> wires and components necessary in normal installs.  Why would anyone
> want a design that requires external 2N2222 + bias resistors hanging in
> midair off of a DB25?  My goal was to have the NanoDB work for 90% of
> the simple nodes. It allows use of the potted FOB to build a cheap
> system.  I'd be very interested to hear about cases where it did NOT
> work as a future rev might address some issues.
>
> I have also contemplated a more elaborate mechanical design which
> accommodates IO for 2 radios, 2 FOBs, and integrates into a nice
> extruded metal case with room for a pair of DB-9s on the rear. Think
> bigger $.  Dave suggested an integrated USB HUB. Those are fine pitch
> parts which exclude home bench soldering and small quantity builds are
> more expensive.  Maybe someday.
>
> I think the NanoDB will be a contribution to Allstar, which was my
> original intent.
>
> Barry w0iy
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> arm-allstar mailing list
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> arm-allstar Info Page<http://lists.hamvoip.org/
> cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar>
> lists.hamvoip.org
> This list is for support, announcements, and general information about ARM
> Allstar projects at hamvoip.org including but not limited to the
> BeagleBone Black and ...
>
>
>
>
> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 17:41:06 -0500
> From: George Csahanin <george at dyb.com>
> To: ARM Allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
> Cc: Barry Buelow <iabarryyy at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] GPIO vs Nano
> Message-ID: <47C79E2D-B14F-4F02-9963-ADC7F0E616F5 at dyb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
> Barry, I see the thought process, the 'duino is cheap. After reading the
> explanation a while ago that also 'sprains that this can be used as a gpio
> expansion for other than Pi the light went on. Got it.
>
> Is the 'duino code "out there"? Pretty useful devices. I evolved a nano
> into a replacement head for the Micom-2 HF radio. I like the I/O
> abilities...
>
> GeorgeC
> W2DB 2360
>
> George Csahanin
> Media General
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 6, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Barry Buelow via arm-allstar <
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I originally built a pcb that plugs into the GPIO of the RPi. It had
> room for 2x FOBs (minus plastic cases) and buffers for PTT-COS. I have
> experience with complex board design (avionics) and expected some coupling
> from the RPi to the board, but it was significantly higher than I expected.
> The audio always had "worms" and it was quite difficult to knock down the
> spikes on the +5 and +3.3. The short answer is that the IO board was too
> close and there was no simple way to get more isolation. It was also clear
> that if there were some undesirable event on the radio, the path to Gnd was
> via the RPi. An aside comment for now: building a system with several
> floating ps is a really bad idea.
> >
> > Over the past few months, I've shown Dave and Doug my work and received
> comments. The NanoDB is not a bullet proof interface. Doug always argues
> for cheap :-), but he wants the features of a more expensive unit.  The
> NanoDB is rather minimalist in design. I had a 74HC14 buffer between the
> inputs (COS, CTC) and the Nano, but took it out. The amount of protection
> it offered was inadequate if there were a big event (as was re-enforced at
> an IEEE EMI class a few months ago). The 74HC14, with jumpers, also allowed
> the IO to invert signals to have LEDs indicate the correct state regardless
> of COS=1 or COS=0 from the radio. I still like that idea, but it can be
> accomplished in the Nano Sw.
> >
> > What drives my designs is the desire to have no external ugly blight of
> wires and components necessary in normal installs.  Why would anyone want a
> design that requires external 2N2222 + bias resistors hanging in midair off
> of a DB25?  My goal was to have the NanoDB work for 90% of the simple
> nodes. It allows use of the potted FOB to build a cheap system.  I'd be
> very interested to hear about cases where it did NOT work as a future rev
> might address some issues.
> >
> > I have also contemplated a more elaborate mechanical design which
> accommodates IO for 2 radios, 2 FOBs, and integrates into a nice extruded
> metal case with room for a pair of DB-9s on the rear. Think bigger $.  Dave
> suggested an integrated USB HUB. Those are fine pitch parts which exclude
> home bench soldering and small quantity builds are more expensive.  Maybe
> someday.
> >
> > I think the NanoDB will be a contribution to Allstar, which was my
> original intent.
> >
> > Barry w0iy
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > arm-allstar mailing list
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> > http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >
> > Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 19:28:22 -0500
> From: Doug Crompton <wa3dsp at gmail.com>
> To: ARM Allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] GPIO vs Nano
> Message-ID:
>         <CAMp6vsv=jR-=ipufwz7ijmhi4WPwB+nmn0_VHrzwNFrVaq0stA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> George to play with and program your Nano or any other Arduino device
> download the Arduino IDE available for Windows, Linux or Mac.
>
> https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Software
>
> There are many examples that you can download to the Nano and try.
>
> When in place RPi Allstar code will automatically download the software to
> the nano when it is in use so no need to have the IDE SW other than to play
> and learn.
>
>
>
>
> *73 Doug*
>
> *WA3DSP*
>
> *http://www.crompton.com/hamradio <http://www.crompton.com/hamradio>*
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:41 PM, "George Csahanin via arm-allstar" <
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
>
> > Barry, I see the thought process, the 'duino is cheap. After reading the
> > explanation a while ago that also 'sprains that this can be used as a
> gpio
> > expansion for other than Pi the light went on. Got it.
> >
> > Is the 'duino code "out there"? Pretty useful devices. I evolved a nano
> > into a replacement head for the Micom-2 HF radio. I like the I/O
> > abilities...
> >
> > GeorgeC
> > W2DB 2360
> >
> > George Csahanin
> > Media General
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Dec 6, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Barry Buelow via arm-allstar <
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I originally built a pcb that plugs into the GPIO of the RPi. It had
> > room for 2x FOBs (minus plastic cases) and buffers for PTT-COS. I have
> > experience with complex board design (avionics) and expected some
> coupling
> > from the RPi to the board, but it was significantly higher than I
> expected.
> > The audio always had "worms" and it was quite difficult to knock down the
> > spikes on the +5 and +3.3. The short answer is that the IO board was too
> > close and there was no simple way to get more isolation. It was also
> clear
> > that if there were some undesirable event on the radio, the path to Gnd
> was
> > via the RPi. An aside comment for now: building a system with several
> > floating ps is a really bad idea.
> > >
> > > Over the past few months, I've shown Dave and Doug my work and received
> > comments. The NanoDB is not a bullet proof interface. Doug always argues
> > for cheap :-), but he wants the features of a more expensive unit.  The
> > NanoDB is rather minimalist in design. I had a 74HC14 buffer between the
> > inputs (COS, CTC) and the Nano, but took it out. The amount of protection
> > it offered was inadequate if there were a big event (as was re-enforced
> at
> > an IEEE EMI class a few months ago). The 74HC14, with jumpers, also
> allowed
> > the IO to invert signals to have LEDs indicate the correct state
> regardless
> > of COS=1 or COS=0 from the radio. I still like that idea, but it can be
> > accomplished in the Nano Sw.
> > >
> > > What drives my designs is the desire to have no external ugly blight of
> > wires and components necessary in normal installs.  Why would anyone
> want a
> > design that requires external 2N2222 + bias resistors hanging in midair
> off
> > of a DB25?  My goal was to have the NanoDB work for 90% of the simple
> > nodes. It allows use of the potted FOB to build a cheap system.  I'd be
> > very interested to hear about cases where it did NOT work as a future rev
> > might address some issues.
> > >
> > > I have also contemplated a more elaborate mechanical design which
> > accommodates IO for 2 radios, 2 FOBs, and integrates into a nice extruded
> > metal case with room for a pair of DB-9s on the rear. Think bigger $.
> Dave
> > suggested an integrated USB HUB. Those are fine pitch parts which exclude
> > home bench soldering and small quantity builds are more expensive.  Maybe
> > someday.
> > >
> > > I think the NanoDB will be a contribution to Allstar, which was my
> > original intent.
> > >
> > > Barry w0iy
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > arm-allstar mailing list
> > > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> > > http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> > >
> > > Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > arm-allstar mailing list
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> > http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >
> > Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 23:38:54 -0500
> From: George Csahanin <george at dyb.com>
> To: ARM Allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
> Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] GPIO vs Nano
> Message-ID: <B6D63210-DA52-49A6-9092-4070C30958B0 at dyb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
> Oh I have the arduino code for Mac, winders and Linux...and the simulator
> from ZL land... very familiar...
>
> Looking forward to the gpio stuff.
>
> George Csahanin
> Media General
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 6, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Doug Crompton via arm-allstar <
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
> >
> > George to play with and program your Nano or any other Arduino device
> > download the Arduino IDE available for Windows, Linux or Mac.
> >
> > https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Software
> >
> > There are many examples that you can download to the Nano and try.
> >
> > When in place RPi Allstar code will automatically download the software
> to
> > the nano when it is in use so no need to have the IDE SW other than to
> play
> > and learn.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *73 Doug*
> >
> > *WA3DSP*
> >
> > *http://www.crompton.com/hamradio <http://www.crompton.com/hamradio>*
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:41 PM, "George Csahanin via arm-allstar" <
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Barry, I see the thought process, the 'duino is cheap. After reading the
> >> explanation a while ago that also 'sprains that this can be used as a
> gpio
> >> expansion for other than Pi the light went on. Got it.
> >>
> >> Is the 'duino code "out there"? Pretty useful devices. I evolved a nano
> >> into a replacement head for the Micom-2 HF radio. I like the I/O
> >> abilities...
> >>
> >> GeorgeC
> >> W2DB 2360
> >>
> >> George Csahanin
> >> Media General
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Barry Buelow via arm-allstar <
> >> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I originally built a pcb that plugs into the GPIO of the RPi. It had
> >> room for 2x FOBs (minus plastic cases) and buffers for PTT-COS. I have
> >> experience with complex board design (avionics) and expected some
> coupling
> >> from the RPi to the board, but it was significantly higher than I
> expected.
> >> The audio always had "worms" and it was quite difficult to knock down
> the
> >> spikes on the +5 and +3.3. The short answer is that the IO board was too
> >> close and there was no simple way to get more isolation. It was also
> clear
> >> that if there were some undesirable event on the radio, the path to Gnd
> was
> >> via the RPi. An aside comment for now: building a system with several
> >> floating ps is a really bad idea.
> >>>
> >>> Over the past few months, I've shown Dave and Doug my work and received
> >> comments. The NanoDB is not a bullet proof interface. Doug always argues
> >> for cheap :-), but he wants the features of a more expensive unit.  The
> >> NanoDB is rather minimalist in design. I had a 74HC14 buffer between the
> >> inputs (COS, CTC) and the Nano, but took it out. The amount of
> protection
> >> it offered was inadequate if there were a big event (as was re-enforced
> at
> >> an IEEE EMI class a few months ago). The 74HC14, with jumpers, also
> allowed
> >> the IO to invert signals to have LEDs indicate the correct state
> regardless
> >> of COS=1 or COS=0 from the radio. I still like that idea, but it can be
> >> accomplished in the Nano Sw.
> >>>
> >>> What drives my designs is the desire to have no external ugly blight of
> >> wires and components necessary in normal installs.  Why would anyone
> want a
> >> design that requires external 2N2222 + bias resistors hanging in midair
> off
> >> of a DB25?  My goal was to have the NanoDB work for 90% of the simple
> >> nodes. It allows use of the potted FOB to build a cheap system.  I'd be
> >> very interested to hear about cases where it did NOT work as a future
> rev
> >> might address some issues.
> >>>
> >>> I have also contemplated a more elaborate mechanical design which
> >> accommodates IO for 2 radios, 2 FOBs, and integrates into a nice
> extruded
> >> metal case with room for a pair of DB-9s on the rear. Think bigger $.
> Dave
> >> suggested an integrated USB HUB. Those are fine pitch parts which
> exclude
> >> home bench soldering and small quantity builds are more expensive.
> Maybe
> >> someday.
> >>>
> >>> I think the NanoDB will be a contribution to Allstar, which was my
> >> original intent.
> >>>
> >>> Barry w0iy
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> arm-allstar mailing list
> >>> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> >>> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >>>
> >>> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> arm-allstar mailing list
> >> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> >> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >>
> >> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > arm-allstar mailing list
> > arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> > http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
> >
> > Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-allstar mailing list
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of arm-allstar Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
> ******************************************
>