"Donald" <Donald@dontdoithere.com> wrote in message
news:W7qdnYdgQLZKcm7YnZ2dnUVZ_rWnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Alex Gibson wrote:
>> "m" <martin.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1172340723.480907.16870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>We are looking at using the TMS470 chip on a new design. The problem
>
>> Can get a nice dev board from
>> http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=546
>
> The demo files at this links, looks like they are configured for the IAR
> compiler.
>
>>
>> and a very good programmer
>> http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=7834
>
> This link does not specify the TMS470, will this work with the TMS470 ?
Haven't tried it with a TMS470 yet, as don't have a board.
Works with NXP, ST, and luminary(cortex) .
Its made by olimex see http://www.olimex.com/dev/arm-usb-ocd.html
May need to ask them or the sparkfun guys.
This is a jtag debugger(usb) + TI's Code Compiser studio(ide + compiler) for
omap and arm processors.
If you purchased it, you wouldn't need winarm.
>> Another arm gcc version for windows
>> http://www.siwawi.arubi.uni-kl.de/avr_projects/arm_projects/#winarm
>
> Has anyone here used WINARM with the TMS470 ?
>
> Are the include files already setup for the TMS470 ?
>
> I have found these devices in the past, but have not been able to figure
> out the comaptability between them.
>
> Thanks
>
> donald
I haven't tested winarm with the TMS470 yet as I don't have a TMS470 board.
Could try the tools from codesourcery
http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm/download.html
They have better support for newer chips but are not always as easy to use
as other versions
of armgcc for windows.
Alex
Reply by Donald●March 11, 20072007-03-11
Alex Gibson wrote:
> "m" <martin.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172340723.480907.16870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>We are looking at using the TMS470 chip on a new design. The problem
Has anyone here used WINARM with the TMS470 ?
Are the include files already setup for the TMS470 ?
I have found these devices in the past, but have not been able to figure
out the comaptability between them.
Thanks
donald
Reply by Alex Gibson●March 11, 20072007-03-11
"m" <martin.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172340723.480907.16870@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We are looking at using the TMS470 chip on a new design. The problem
> seems to be that the tools are just too expensive. At the moment the
> product's TAM makes it hard to justify this portion of the NRE's. The
> Keil toolset and RTOS will run over $10K last time we checked. Other
> solutions can get up as high as $60K!!!
>
> This isn't about getting something for free. I have no problem paying
> for good tools with decent support. The budget we have might be in
> the $3K to $5K range.
>
> The GPL/GNU licenses are "anti-copyright" copyrights in that the legal
> mechanism of copyright is used to require licenseces (sp?) to make their
> work public and publicly available.
>
> For personal use that's probably not a concern but in a comercial context
> it's potentially a disaster. Having a competitor sue for a copy of
> software that was a year or two or three in development is an
> unsupportable risk.
>
What do you mean "having a competitor sue for a copy of the software"?
If you have used GPL'ed code in your software, then that entire piece of
software is under the GPL (by "used" I mean included the GPL'ed code,
i.e., the source code from the open source project). You are obliged,
by the copyright laws of your country, to follow the requirements of the
GPL. That means that whenever you make a binary version of the software
available, you must make the source code available too. Your
*customers* have the right to the source code. Your competitors do not
have any rights unless you give them the binaries. However, you can't
stop your customers passing on the source code to your competitors. If
you make use of GPL'ed code and don't make it available to anyone
getting the binary code from you (or don't make it clear to them that
the code is available), then you are violating the license of the code.
It's not a case of worrying about getting sued - you are breaking the law.
And in case anyone reading this still hasn't figured it out, the above
applies to the use of GPL'ed source code in your own code. You are free
to use GPL'ed tools such as compilers and operating systems without any
restrictions on the licensing of your own code. Embedded operating
systems or other libraries that are directly linked with your code
usually have a modification to their licenses to allow unrestricted usage.
> Hul
>
>> GCC is certainly covered by GPL/GNU.
>> The rest are run-times using GCC.
>> What's wrong with GPL/GNU licenses?
>
Reply by John Devereux●February 27, 20072007-02-27
dr@kbrx.com writes:
> The GPL/GNU licenses are "anti-copyright" copyrights in that the legal
> mechanism of copyright is used to require licenseces (sp?) to make their
> work public and publicly available.
>
> For personal use that's probably not a concern but in a comercial context
> it's potentially a disaster. Having a competitor sue for a copy of
> software that was a year or two or three in development is an
> unsupportable risk.
This is for distribution of the *compiler itself*, not your own code!
Note that you can't distribute commercial compilers *at all*. The fact
that gcc is GPL licensed is a benefit, it gives you extra rights over
and above what you would have without the GPL license.
I don't see how you managed to spin it as a "disaster".
--
John Devereux
Reply by David Brown●February 27, 20072007-02-27
Hul Tytus wrote:
> Jack Klein <jackklein@spamcop.net> wrote:
> : On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:45:16 +0000 (UTC), dr@kbrx.com wrote in
> : comp.arch.embedded:
> :
> :> The GPL/GNU licenses are "anti-copyright" copyrights in that the legal
> :> mechanism of copyright is used to require licenseces (sp?) to make their
> :> work public and publicly available.
> :>
> :> For personal use that's probably not a concern but in a comercial context
> :> it's potentially a disaster. Having a competitor sue for a copy of
> :> software that was a year or two or three in development is an
> :> unsupportable risk.
> :
> : How familiar are you with the GPL? It does not require the
> : distribution of any source code that you develop that merely uses the
> : compiler's library and the operating system's APIs.
>
> Jack - I read the/a GNU license numerous years ago which required
> distributing source and a part of a recent GPL license which does the
> same. The first difficulty, though, is the agreement's length - 5 pages
> requires careful reading by someone versed in the intracasies of copyright
> law.
>
> Below is the section of the GPL license where I stopped reading.
>
> Hul
>
The GPL is quite clear - in summary, if you make direct use of GPL'ed
source code along with your code, the entire source code falls under the
GPL. However, this does not apply in any way to use of GPL'ed software.
So if you want to make your own compiler based on gcc, then your
compiler will fall under the GPL. That's fair enough - you are using
the gcc source code, and the authors ask that you are equally generous
with your modifications.
If you use gcc to compile your own code, the license of the compiler is
almost totally irrelevant (unless the compiler vendor has added extra
clauses, such as no commercial usage for trial versions). The license
for libraries and code stubs generated by the compiler is important -
and here gcc makes explicit exceptions to the gpl to ensure that you can
use the compiler for any purposes.
Try reading some of the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
You'll find that gcc is free to use for any purposes - the only
restrictions are on what you do with the source code for gcc itself.
Many free operating systems have a similar attitude (though there are
some small ones that either intentionally or accidentally require your
code to be GPL'ed or LGPL'ed). FreeRTOS is typical in using a modified
GPL - changes to the FreeRTOS code must be made available, while your
own code is your own business.
You are not the first person to read the GPL, or to think about its
consequences for gcc or operating systems. Of course, it is commendable
that you *do* think about it - how many people read the licensing for
their closed source development tools as thoroughly? There are a number
of processor manufacturers who stand strongly behind gcc ports as the
official development tools for their devices. When the lawyers at
Altera and Xilinx feel that gcc is the appropriate base for compilers
for their soft processors, and that their customers will be able to use
gcc for development with any source licenses, you can be pretty
confident that gcc itself is fine for closed source usage.
Of course, you must still check the licensing for your choice of library
- most aimed at embedded development will be fine, however.
mvh.,
David
Reply by FreeRTOS.org●February 27, 20072007-02-27
> /* start of section of GPL license */
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
> allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> received the program in object code or executable form with such
> an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> /* end of section of GPL license */
[usual caveat - this reflects my interpretation only. I'm not a layer].
This would (I think) cover programs that were linked with GCC code to create
a product that was in effect a derivative of GCC itself - not programs that
were written using GCC. So no problems using the compiler itself.
I distribute FreeRTOS.org under a modified GPL, the modification being
designed to permit easier use in commercial applications. This extract was
written some 16 years ago if you are referring to V2 of the GPL. Taking (b)
as the easiest route, written offers in 2007 generally come from emails or
HTML text on a WEB page. The FreeRTOS.org source code (including older
versions) is available for download using links on the FreeRTOS.org site.
Therefore I state that I am satisfied this condition is being covered simply
by the provision of a WEB link to the FreeRTOS.org site.
This is about as liberal as I can make the license while maintaining the
integrity of its open source nature. I care about the kernel being open
source - I have no interest in the programs you create using the kernel
through the API.
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.
Reply by m●February 27, 20072007-02-27
> What is your estimated target Flash size? Keil is free for 16K and
> IAR is free for 32K. We are currently using about 10K, so no money
> problem yet (but you never know). We are also planning on placing
> some callable functions on high flash (64K for us), so we can in
> theory implement the design with completely free tools.- Hide quoted text -
We would use the device with 1M of FLASH. Mostly data lookup tables
and state machine lookup table defintions in there. Also lots of text
for such things as menu screens, etc.
I don't like playing the free limit game. This is the sort of thing
that can bite you at midnight on a Sunday just when you need to
deliver something of fix a bug. And that's when you'll wish you'd
paid the $10K and had the full function package.
-Martin
Reply by m●February 27, 20072007-02-27
> In a nutshell, the NXP LPC2468 seems quite a bit better than the
> TMS470 but it is very early to use it because there is no stock at any
> distributor. There is a board fromwww.embeddedartists.comthough.
I agree. Too bad.
Well, I'll have to make-up my mind very quickly. This thread has
certainly highlighted some options.
I don't need full USB host capabilities. By this I mean that I have
complete control over the peripherals that will attach to this
device. Cypress has a device ('811?) that can manage this quite
well. They even have sample code for limited host mode that should do
the trick.
One approach might be to go multi-processor...keep the 8051 master and
hang a few others around it to offload such things as ethernet, USB,
etc. That is, effectively, the sort of thing one would do if you went
with one of the few ethernet-to-serial all-in-the-jack devices (which
are very cool, but expensive). I'd really hate to stay with the 8051
though...it's time to move on.
Thanks,
-Martin
Reply by ●February 26, 20072007-02-26
> I just saw a
> very interesting chip from NXP (the LPC24xx series). More of the
> peripherals that we need in one chip. It might be a better choice
> than the TI yet.
Martin,
The LPC2468 would include the USB Host, device ,OTG, also Ethernet and
2 CAN channels that you might not use. Currently this device is in
early production phase. It would be a perfect fit for what you are
looking for but if you need devices before mid Q2, that is going to be
a challenge and I understodd you were talking about 6 weeks!?
Also keep in mind that the small (and big) OSs charge extra for USB
stacks. Only very few offer a host stack at this time at all. Most of
the host stacks are for external USB devices such as ISP13xx from
NXP.
In a nutshell, the NXP LPC2468 seems quite a bit better than the
TMS470 but it is very early to use it because there is no stock at any
distributor. There is a board from www.embeddedartists.com though.
Robert