> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am interested in ARM based boards, i have plans buying a kit,
>
> please guide me the suitable kit.
>
> also it must support LINUX OS.
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We have released eight new low cost ARM7 development boards:
>>
>> SAM7-P64 - $59.95 development board with AT91SAM7S64
>> http://www.olimex.com/dev/sam7-p64.html
In comp.arch.embedded J Jackson <jj@comp.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
: In comp.sys.arm A. P. Richelieu <a.p@richelieu.com> wrote:
: : "J Jackson" <jj@comp.leeds.ac.uk> skrev i meddelandet
: : news:dg9c6p$geq$1@iss-nntp.leeds.ac.uk...
: : > In comp.sys.arm An Schwob in the USA <schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
: : > : None of them. Use a PC if you want to run any Linux, that's a system
: : > : ready to face all the memory requirements of Linux. These devices are
: : > : stand alone microcontrollers with the memory on chip. The memory
: : > : requirements of Linux are downright a joke for embedded memory.
: : > : Linux = external memory = more complex board = higher price.
: : > : The money you think you save by using Linux you will spend big time in
: : > : additional hardware.
: : >
: : > Ok I'll byte.
: : >
: : > First off, I think you were right a few years ago, and now there multichip
: : > boards that support linux and are beginning to get fairly cheap.
: : >
: : > The big question is how long before we get the Linux SOC? 3/5/8 years?
: ^^^
: : > Full linux not uClinux.
: : >
: : >
: : Whats wrong with the current crop of ARM9s & PowerPCs?
B*ll*cks, I'm always doing that....
: Nothing but they systems on a chip
That should read : Nothing but they are NOT systems on a chip
: : Ethernet, USB Host, USB Client, LCD controllers, Serial ports, Audio ports
: : etc.
: : --
: : A. P. Richelieu
Reply by J Jackson●September 17, 20052005-09-17
In comp.sys.arm Alex Gibson <news@alxx.net> wrote:
: "J Jackson" <jj@comp.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:dg9c6p$geq$1@iss-nntp.leeds.ac.uk...
: > In comp.sys.arm An Schwob in the USA <schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
: > : None of them. Use a PC if you want to run any Linux, that's a system
: > : ready to face all the memory requirements of Linux. These devices are
: > : stand alone microcontrollers with the memory on chip. The memory
: > : requirements of Linux are downright a joke for embedded memory.
: > : Linux = external memory = more complex board = higher price.
: > : The money you think you save by using Linux you will spend big time in
: > : additional hardware.
: >
: > Ok I'll byte.
: >
: > First off, I think you were right a few years ago, and now there multichip
: > boards that support linux and are beginning to get fairly cheap.
: >
: > The big question is how long before we get the Linux SOC? 3/5/8 years?
: > Full linux not uClinux.
: >
: Been around for a while (forgot to include etrax based board in my other
: post)
: Etrax from Axis http://developer.axis.com
: More recent chips can run a default 2.6 linux kernel
: The ETRAX 100LX Multi Chip Module includes the ETRAX 100LX SoC plus 4 MB
: Flash, 16 MB SDRAM, Ethernet Transceiver, etc. This chip is ideal for
: Ethernet-connected Linux systems.
: http://developer.axis.com/doc/hardware/mcm/4+16/MCM_datasheet.htm
: http://developer.axis.com/products/etrax100lx/index.html
: a.. 4 asynchronous serial ports
: a.. 2 synchronous serial ports
: a.. 2 USB ports Host 1.1
: a.. 2 Parallel ports
: a.. 4 ATA (IDE) ports
: a.. 2 Narrow SCSI ports (or 1 Wide)
Yep I know multichip solutions are around - I was wondering aloud how
long before we have a single chip solution - a Linux PIC.
That will potentially cause a step change in applications.
: http://developer.axis.com/doc/index.html
: http://developer.axis.com/products/etrax100lx/18354_etrax_lx.pdf
: http://developer.axis.com/doc/hardware/mcm/4+16/MCM_datasheet.htm
: http://www.acmesystems.it/ A nice small board
: Alex
Reply by J Jackson●September 17, 20052005-09-17
In comp.sys.arm A. P. Richelieu <a.p@richelieu.com> wrote:
: "J Jackson" <jj@comp.leeds.ac.uk> skrev i meddelandet
: news:dg9c6p$geq$1@iss-nntp.leeds.ac.uk...
: > In comp.sys.arm An Schwob in the USA <schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
: > : None of them. Use a PC if you want to run any Linux, that's a system
: > : ready to face all the memory requirements of Linux. These devices are
: > : stand alone microcontrollers with the memory on chip. The memory
: > : requirements of Linux are downright a joke for embedded memory.
: > : Linux = external memory = more complex board = higher price.
: > : The money you think you save by using Linux you will spend big time in
: > : additional hardware.
: >
: > Ok I'll byte.
: >
: > First off, I think you were right a few years ago, and now there multichip
: > boards that support linux and are beginning to get fairly cheap.
: >
: > The big question is how long before we get the Linux SOC? 3/5/8 years?
^^^
: > Full linux not uClinux.
: >
: >
: Whats wrong with the current crop of ARM9s & PowerPCs?
Nothing but they systems on a chip
: Ethernet, USB Host, USB Client, LCD controllers, Serial ports, Audio ports
: etc.
: --
: A. P. Richelieu
Reply by J Jackson●September 16, 20052005-09-16
In comp.sys.arm An Schwob in the USA <schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
: J Jackson wrote:
: > In comp.sys.arm An Schwob in the USA <schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
: > : None of them. Use a PC if you want to run any Linux, that's a system
: > : ready to face all the memory requirements of Linux. These devices are
: > : stand alone microcontrollers with the memory on chip. The memory
: > : requirements of Linux are downright a joke for embedded memory.
: > : Linux = external memory = more complex board = higher price.
: > : The money you think you save by using Linux you will spend big time in
: > : additional hardware.
: >
: > Ok I'll byte.
: >
: > First off, I think you were right a few years ago, and now there multichip
: > boards that support linux and are beginning to get fairly cheap.
: >
: > The big question is how long before we get the Linux SOC? 3/5/8 years?
: > Full linux not uClinux.
: ;-) I think you will be right in a few years from now ;-)
Thanks for the full informative answer.
: There are ARM embedded devices with on-chip memory starting below $3
: today. Most likely next year we will see the first 32-bit micros with
: embedded flash popping up below $2. My point is that the boards from
: Olimex are made for this kind of devices, all memory on chip. It is
: possible today to implement 2 MBytes of Flash and 8 MBytes of SRAM onto
: a chip in a 90 nm technology, the problem being that 90 nm Flash is not
: available for embedded Flash devices yet. Such a chip would still be
: around or bigger than 100 mm2. As flash always lags behind in the
: latest processes,
That I wasn't ware of - very interesting.
: .... to have a device as described above with reasonable
: die size (less than 50 mm2) it needs to be in 65 nm or smaller and with
: embedded Flash. My guess would be we are talking 5 years from now.
: Unfortunately OSs have the tendency to grow as well. Don't know whether
: Linux will fit in such a tight environment with 8 MB SRAM in 5 years?
So a single chip Linux in 5 years. It's a bit further out than I'd
guessed. Ok can I tap you knowledge one more time, what about
a 2 chip linux system - one chip being the flash? We must be only a year
or two off?
: Getting to the point, if you don't need many of the drivers / device
: stacks for Linux, you REALLY should consider other Embedded operating
: systems ranging from uCOS-II, Nucleus, CMX, Thread-X to bigger ones
: like PSOS, VX-Works...
: The initial investment in the OS will see a return of invest fast in
: smaller memory, faster system, REAL support by the OS vendor...
: btw. I am not with a OS company but a big friend of compact software
: and small microcontrollers
commodity linux SOC plus the huge open source code repository.
I've just got his gut feeling that it could be explosive in terms of what
could be done in sohrt order.
Reply by A. P. Richelieu●September 15, 20052005-09-15
"An Schwob in the USA" <schwobus@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1126741133.268249.170350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I was referring to the price announcements of Atmel and Philips, the
> SAM7S32 in the range of $3 for 10k pieces, the much more powerful
> LPC2131 in the range of $3.50, providing double the I/O capability of
> the SAM7 and being upgradeable in the same package up to 512k Flash
> The "real" SAM7S family starts with the SAM7S64
>
Nope it starts with the AT91SAM7S321 which is a 64 pin device with 32 kB
Flash.
LPC has 128 bit bus and 3 clock cycle access
SAM7 has a 32 bit bus and 2 clock cycle access.
In Thumb mode the CPU fetches 16 bit instructions and in ARM mode the CPU
fetches 32 bit instructions.
So at x MHz, you need x * 2 bit bandwidth to run keep the CPU running.
You get that with a 32 bit bus so it is enough for Thumb mode but not for
ARM mode.
In ARM mode, the LPC should be faster and in Thumb mode, the SAM7 should be
faster
since it will do zero waitstate access except for jumps, when there will be
a once cycle delay.
The LPC will also do zero waitstate access in sequential mode, but due to
its three clock cycle access would make it slower.
The cost of performance is 30% more flash usage.
The use which rather wants to have a low cost system and high performance
would then tend towards the SAM7.
Another thing is if the complete application requires high performance.
If that is not the case, copying part of the application will give best
performance
regardless of flash implementation.
>>From ARM there are rumors that much smaller devices will hit the market
> next year with their new core, although I don't know how much the core
> contributes to the cost any more.
>
> An Schwob
>
--
A. P. Richelieu
Reply by Alex Gibson●September 15, 20052005-09-15
"J Jackson" <jj@comp.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dg9c6p$geq$1@iss-nntp.leeds.ac.uk...
> In comp.sys.arm An Schwob in the USA <schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
> : None of them. Use a PC if you want to run any Linux, that's a system
> : ready to face all the memory requirements of Linux. These devices are
> : stand alone microcontrollers with the memory on chip. The memory
> : requirements of Linux are downright a joke for embedded memory.
> : Linux = external memory = more complex board = higher price.
> : The money you think you save by using Linux you will spend big time in
> : additional hardware.
>
> Ok I'll byte.
>
> First off, I think you were right a few years ago, and now there multichip
> boards that support linux and are beginning to get fairly cheap.
>
> The big question is how long before we get the Linux SOC? 3/5/8 years?
> Full linux not uClinux.
>
Reply by 42Bastian Schick●September 15, 20052005-09-15
On 14 Sep 2005 09:49:19 -0700, "An Schwob in the USA"
<schwobus@aol.com> wrote:
>
> My guess would be we are talking 5 years from now.
>Unfortunately OSs have the tendency to grow as well. Don't know whether
>Linux will fit in such a tight environment with 8 MB SRAM in 5 years?
>Getting to the point, if you don't need many of the drivers / device
>stacks for Linux, you REALLY should consider other Embedded operating
>systems ranging from
The OS of the company I work for...
>uCOS-II, Nucleus, CMX, Thread-X to bigger ones
>like PSOS, VX-Works...
>The initial investment in the OS will see a return of invest fast in
>smaller memory, faster system, REAL support by the OS vendor...
Also, I found that Linux is often used because
a) Management heard it is free (which it is in terms of buying it, but
surely they do not take into account the hours the developer doing
linux debugging instead of programming the actual application).
b) Developer like to think it is something which looks good on their
vita.
Also, one argument often heard is the "open source": But how many
people have the time and the knowledge to dig into a monster source
like linux ?
Sorry if this sounds a bit frustrated :(
>
>btw. I am not with a OS company but a big friend of compact software
>and small microcontrollers
I do work for an OS company and was always a friend of compact
software, but I fear these days are over. First on desktop now slowly
but steady in the embedded.
--
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@monlynx.de instead !