For a while now, i've been heavily researching a CAN-to-Ethernet
Gateway (with potential to put a Zigbee transceiver on it. Forget the
mesh routing protocol; i think i'll just make a static entry table
identifying the MACs of each transceiver). Anyways, i don't want to
drift into a Zigbee discussion. Keep it on the Coldfire MCF5282
(w/ethernet, CAN, serial), running on either uCLinux (Arcturus
Networks) or uC/OS (Netburner).

Just the other day, i bought a Netburner promo kit from a components
distributor which is running uC/OS on a Coldfire 5282, but haven't
powered it up yet.

I am curious to hear from others who have used the Coldfire for CAN
and/or Ethernet, AND have used the uC/OS(II) RTOS or uCLinux. I can go
either way whether i choose uCLinux or uC/OS, since both products are
very tempting. Except of course, the full Netburner suite is 1/3 the
price of the uCLinux-based system. But it looks like they do the same
thing.

Mike V. wrote:

> For a while now, i've been heavily researching a CAN-to-Ethernet
> Gateway (with potential to put a Zigbee transceiver on it. Forget the
> mesh routing protocol; i think i'll just make a static entry table
> identifying the MACs of each transceiver). Anyways, i don't want to
> drift into a Zigbee discussion. Keep it on the Coldfire MCF5282
> (w/ethernet, CAN, serial), running on either uCLinux (Arcturus
> Networks) or uC/OS (Netburner).
> 
> Just the other day, i bought a Netburner promo kit from a components
> distributor which is running uC/OS on a Coldfire 5282, but haven't
> powered it up yet.
> 
> I am curious to hear from others who have used the Coldfire for CAN
> and/or Ethernet, AND have used the uC/OS(II) RTOS or uCLinux. I can go
> either way whether i choose uCLinux or uC/OS, since both products are
> very tempting. Except of course, the full Netburner suite is 1/3 the
> price of the uCLinux-based system. But it looks like they do the same
> thing.

port is selling an Ethernet-CAN-Gateway, but with ARM based controller and
SJA 1000. We have done porting the software to MCF5282 as well, using
uClinux as OS. You should look in your distribution under
linux/drivers/char/can4linux if the CAN driver is already included. 
If you want to have a gateway to higher layer protocols like CANopen,
consider the CiA http://www.can-cia.org standard DSP309. 
-- 

with best regards / mit freundlichen Grüßen

   Heinz-Jürgen Oertel
+===================================================================
| Heinz-Jürgen Oertel  port GmbH  http://www.port.de
| mailto:o...@port.de
| phone +49 345 77755-0     fax   +49 345 77755-20
| Regensburger Str. 7b,     D-06132 Halle/Saale,  Germany 
| CAN Wiki    http://www.CAN-Wiki.info
| Newsletter: http://www.port.de/engl/company/content/abo_form.html
+===================================================================

Have use the net-burner for a number of ehternet to serial-device
interfaces.  Started with one of there boards and then fabricated a custom
implementation to get rid of all the cables.

It has been reliable and easy to develop under.

Brian
"Mike V." <v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8...@posting.google.com...
> For a while now, i've been heavily researching a CAN-to-Ethernet
> Gateway (with potential to put a Zigbee transceiver on it. Forget the
> mesh routing protocol; i think i'll just make a static entry table
> identifying the MACs of each transceiver). Anyways, i don't want to
> drift into a Zigbee discussion. Keep it on the Coldfire MCF5282
> (w/ethernet, CAN, serial), running on either uCLinux (Arcturus
> Networks) or uC/OS (Netburner).
>
> Just the other day, i bought a Netburner promo kit from a components
> distributor which is running uC/OS on a Coldfire 5282, but haven't
> powered it up yet.
>
> I am curious to hear from others who have used the Coldfire for CAN
> and/or Ethernet, AND have used the uC/OS(II) RTOS or uCLinux. I can go
> either way whether i choose uCLinux or uC/OS, since both products are
> very tempting. Except of course, the full Netburner suite is 1/3 the
> price of the uCLinux-based system. But it looks like they do the same
> thing.

Mike V. wrote:
> For a while now, i've been heavily researching a CAN-to-Ethernet
> Gateway (with potential to put a Zigbee transceiver on it. Forget the
> mesh routing protocol; i think i'll just make a static entry table
> identifying the MACs of each transceiver). Anyways, i don't want to
> drift into a Zigbee discussion. Keep it on the Coldfire MCF5282
> (w/ethernet, CAN, serial), running on either uCLinux (Arcturus
> Networks) or uC/OS (Netburner).
>
> Just the other day, i bought a Netburner promo kit from a components
> distributor which is running uC/OS on a Coldfire 5282, but haven't
> powered it up yet.
>
> I am curious to hear from others who have used the Coldfire for CAN
> and/or Ethernet, AND have used the uC/OS(II) RTOS or uCLinux. I can go
> either way whether i choose uCLinux or uC/OS, since both products are
> very tempting. Except of course, the full Netburner suite is 1/3 the
> price of the uCLinux-based system. But it looks like they do the same
> thing.

We use uC/OS(II) on the 5282 and it works well.  Depending on what OS
features you need, you should know that the uC/OS supplied by Netburner is
an old version and is missing many of the current OS features.

-- 
Scott
ExoTech R&D, Inc.

>
>We use uC/OS(II) on the 5282 and it works well.  Depending on what OS
>features you need, you should know that the uC/OS supplied by Netburner is
>an old version and is missing many of the current OS features.

NetBurner started using uC/OS before version II was availible.

The Netburner version has been siginificantly enhanced from the 1.0 origional uC/OS.
	Semaphores, Queus, Mailboxes, Delays,Fifos etc...
	Task creation, deletion and run time priority changes etc...
	Non blocking counted critical sections. (Prevents priority inversion)
	Stack checking.
	Task status reporting.
	All of the networking and serial I/O plays well with the RTOS and blocks where expected.

I believe that the only feature missing from Netburners uC/OS that is in v II are  the wait functions based on the
"Real Time Clock"
Since not all customers using the Netburner system decide to include an  hours:minutes:seconds real time clock
we did not implment this function in our version of the RTOS.  However if this is needed it's about 5 lines of code.

The real value of the Netburner solutions is the time saved by having the TCP/IP, setup tools, network based
configuration and flash update tools all preconfigured.
The RTOS is only a small part of the code base you get with a netburner solution.  The RTOS is less than 10% of the
system code based on bytes of code.
Not a real good metric, but it's one I can quickly check while I'm typing a response.


Paul

Mike V. said...
 
> I am curious to hear from others who have used the Coldfire for CAN
> and/or Ethernet, AND have used the uC/OS(II) RTOS or uCLinux. I can go
> either way whether i choose uCLinux or uC/OS, since both products are
> very tempting. Except of course, the full Netburner suite is 1/3 the
> price of the uCLinux-based system. But it looks like they do the same
> thing.

Is the uCLinux-based system actually 3 times the cost of the Netburner 
approach?  If you're building your own hardware, the Netburner license 
alone is $24,500 for the 5282.


Casey

"A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory."
                                     -Steven Wright

>
>port is selling an Ethernet-CAN-Gateway, but with ARM based controller and
>SJA 1000. We have done porting the software to MCF5282 as well, using
>uClinux as OS. You should look in your distribution under

Sounds like an overkill. With a real RTOS you could do it single-chip.
With uCLinux you'll need external Flash and SDRAM.

---
42Bastian
Do not email to b...@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@epost.de instead !

> 
> Is the uCLinux-based system actually 3 times the cost of the Netburner 
> approach?  If you're building your own hardware, the Netburner license 
> alone is $24,500 for the 5282.
> 

The uCLinux-based development kit is around $1295 (?), while the
Netburner kit is something like $500. If you go thru the Future Active
distributor, then Netburner designed something similiar. With Future,
it sells for $250, and you can in fact get it as a complimentary
evaluation kit in some cases.

I just wished the eval kit from Future is available for bulk purchase,
since it's so small and you can essentially put it in a plastic case
if you can find one that fits.

As for uCLinux, i see there is a COldfire port, and it was last
updated at around April 4, 2004 (?). Seems you can port just about any
reasonable Linux middleware for it such as CAN (unless the port
already provides it), SSL, etc.

Mike V. said...
> > 
> > Is the uCLinux-based system actually 3 times the cost of the Netburner 
> > approach?  If you're building your own hardware, the Netburner license 
> > alone is $24,500 for the 5282.
> > 
> 
> The uCLinux-based development kit is around $1295 (?), while the
> Netburner kit is something like $500. If you go thru the Future Active
> distributor, then Netburner designed something similiar. With Future,
> it sells for $250, and you can in fact get it as a complimentary
> evaluation kit in some cases.

The Netburner kit is fairly inexpensive.  But if you use it to develop 
software for custom hardware of your own design, you can't sell your 
product without paying for the $24.5k license.  That makes the uCLinux 
option look a lot less expensive...



Casey

"A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory."
                                     -Steven Wright

42Bastian Schick wrote:

>>
>>port is selling an Ethernet-CAN-Gateway, but with ARM based controller and
>>SJA 1000. We have done porting the software to MCF5282 as well, using
>>uClinux as OS. You should look in your distribution under
> 
> Sounds like an overkill. With a real RTOS you could do it single-chip.
> With uCLinux you'll need external Flash and SDRAM.
> 
> ---
> 42Bastian
You are right for the very basic CAN/Ethernet only. How about implementing
an CGI capable HTTP server as well, storing some Java applets. How about
coding some control application on the device, using TCP/IP or whatever
only for high-level supervising and monitoring. Its not RAM or FLASH what
significantly raises the price, its more housing, power supply, industrial
temperature range ....

-- 

with best regards / mit freundlichen Grüßen

   Heinz-Jürgen Oertel
+===================================================================
| Heinz-Jürgen Oertel  port GmbH  http://www.port.de
| mailto:o...@port.de
| phone +49 345 77755-0     fax   +49 345 77755-20
| Regensburger Str. 7b,     D-06132 Halle/Saale,  Germany 
| CAN Wiki    http://www.CAN-Wiki.info
| Newsletter: http://www.port.de/engl/company/content/abo_form.html
+===================================================================