Download Schematic Laptop

You have two GND nets: GND and GND1. And the same problem for both of them. So this is not the same error but two errors.

If KiCad behavior would depend on laptop at which it runs it would be vary bad about that program.

Read:

I was wondering if someone got the schematics for an HP Pavilion DV7 (motherboard DA0LX3MB8F0 REV:F). In the only websites it appears to be aviable, i have to pay for a subscription service, and i dont want to pay for only one schematic.

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://tiurll.com/2y3ibw 🔥

I am aware of a conversation you had with Louis Rossmann from the Right to Repair movement in the comment section of this video: Let's talk about the Framework laptop that {claims to} support right to repair - YouTube

3 months have passed since then and you have finalised the product. Maybe we can get an official response from Framework now?

This is a huge step in the right direction, as Louis Rossmann says. It's unfortunate that they aren't able to produce the full schematic, however, releasing that to the public would most likely violate several NDAs they might have with Intel and other vendors.

As Louis points out, though, in the grand scheme of things this really doesn't make that big a difference. I looked at the schematic myself, and indeed it doesn't offer a whole lot of information - thus making it redundant when board level repair is needed.

Apparently the reason as to why they haven't released all schematics is different to what every other manufacturer/lobbyist says(e.g. china making fake copies of their product) although Louis isn't allowed to disclose the reason, not because he's obligated legally but because he said he would keep this private with the person at Framework, maybe Linus, since he's a major investor in the company could shine some light on this?

I personally suspect framework might be using designs that may already exist in other laptops for some parts of their laptop and they're trying to prevent a potential lawsuit from another laptop manufacturer that might be using those designs. Although of course it's only speculation on my part.

I'll probably have to watch Louis's video, but giving a quick glance at the schematics, most of everything needed to repair the stuff that may break and can actually be repaired without specialised hardware is there. The capacitor size, resistors, etc etc... Pretty much everything needed. It's a bit all over the place so you'd have to spend some time to find what is where on the board, but other than that... It's a hell of a lot more than what other manufacturers are wiling to give out at least.

There are a few reasons companies do not publish schematics, non of them are concerned about companies copying them really:

1) When they contract a factory to make a charging circuit they have no proof that company has not copied the exact same design they sold to 10 other vendors. They are scared of copywriter troll law firms farming through released schematics finding things that have been copied then approaching the company that was copied and getting a contract to sue them (yes in other industries this is how most copywrite cases happen...!)

2) the raw schematics are full of third party IP that is not all public, depending on the parts you are using the vendor of that micro-controller, cpu socket, etc might not have chosen to publicly share the information (including pinout) of thier part. If you just publish your schematic in full then you end up leaking info like operating voltages, switching frequencies etc from third parties that might well be confidential info that your contract with them does not permit you to share... intel is likly the worst offender here as they are very secretive about their sockets and what every pin on the socket does.

It looks like framework have published cut down schematics to avoid the IP issues with their partners.

It does not really matter how large you are unless you design every single part you attach to the board your going to end up in a situation were you cant share full schematics since the vendors you are buying these parts form will have shared info with you that is under strict NDA. Sure capacitors and resistors don't fall into this but as soon as you start to work with power stages, and other IC not to mention cpu chipsets and the cpu/socket sharing information that the vendor of these parts have shared with you will get you in a lot of legal hot water... the only way framework could build a laptop were they legally could share all the schematics would be if they only purchased parts with public schematics but unless they move to some extremely old cpu (something like the original Intel 8086) they are not going to find a chip that they can use were the needing information on how to integrate it is already public.

Repairable and Modular are very different things. A laptop made out of 100 little models is not repairable unless you can repair those modules. Its like people saying a NVMe is more reparable than a soldered NAND when repairing the NVMe drive (aka replacing the soldered NAND on it) requires very hard to find software to re-configure the NVMe controller chipset. And just replacing the NVMe drive and throwing away a perfectly working NVMe controller in the process is directly in contract to the right to repair movement.

if vendors start to think they can get around right to repair by making lots of small modules then we will end up in an even less relatable state with each module encased in resin so that as soon as the vendor stops selling these modules you are stuck.

Sure, modules approach even aside, properly repairable definitely needs to be a go-to approach though also at least for specific SKUs and ranges, upgradability would be awesome as well. As much as components. I mean we've seen laptops that you could thinker with like a desktop. I'm aware to many companies they may not pose interest, but it could be eventually if made well and for some tier of products.

I think it' s very important for the right to repair movement that we do not try to mix upgradability/modularity in with repairability.

It is way way to easy for companies to show that making something upgradable/modular has draw backs (be that power draw, cost, size, weight etc) this makes it trivial for them to argue against right to repair.

I see a Lot of comments from YouTubers etc who mix these concepts up and thus end up making the right to repair movement less successful, it leads the political establishment to think right to repair means modular. And that makes is very easy for vendors to show up and tell them that if they support this bill then they need to say goodby to thier nice laptop since all devices after this will be suitcase sized at minimum and they will believe that since they believe right to repair is about use-upgradable/modules as this is what the general public think of right to repair.

I'm specifically talking about the mainboard. It's not about the schematics of the chips and such, but rather which chip is being used and what the connectors are. Those things would be something that they could inhouse design (the full on mainboard) and have links to the chips. It wouldn't really be about any NDA as well. My suspicion is is that they partially contracted out the design of the mainboard, with the chips and such (again due to cost) so there are likely portions of the schematics that would fall under and NDA. It's at least the most reasonable explanation thing that I can think of. If it's true though, then eventually we could see more detail diagrams (whether they get the NDA lifted or start designing their own board)

That's really... not a lot of schematics. More a block diagram. Very important things like the CPU power stages are completely missing. A full laptop-schematic pdf has somewhere between 70 and 100 pages. ff782bc1db