Forums

Do you need an RTOS in your LPC2xxx system?

Started by "Pont, Michael J." February 13, 2008
In an earlier e-mail, I raised some questions about the general need for an
RTOS in an embedded system (and argued that - for many designs - use of
co-operative multi-tasking may *sometimes* be a better starting point). It
was suggested that this wasn't an appropriate subject for debate on this
list.

Personally, I think this debate is important (not least because many people
on this list are learning about embedded systems: heading "down the wrong
path" at this time can have long-term repercussions ...).

At the risk of raising further objections, I'll announce here that I'm
presenting two short "embedded masterclasses" on this topic in May this
year.

The classes are free and they are open to everyone. Many of the examples I
use will be based on LPC2xxx processors.

If you are interested in these topics and within reach of the UK I'd be
pleased to see you there.

Further details:
http://www.tte-systems.com/training.php

Michael.
TTE Systems Ltd.

An Engineer's Guide to the LPC2100 Series

> In an earlier e-mail, I raised some questions about the
> general need for an
> RTOS in an embedded system (and argued that - for many
> designs - use of
> co-operative multi-tasking may *sometimes* be a better
> starting point).

>From you previous email - it may surprise you that I agree with you. People
that have come to talks I given will know that a big part of the subject
matter is regarding choosing the right tools for the job - which sometimes
is a pre-emptive RTOS, sometimes a cooperative scheduler, and very often no
'scheduler' to speak of at all (I am a big fan of Quantum Programming,
although not a fan of obscuring code with macros).

>It
> was suggested that this wasn't an appropriate subject for
> debate on this
> list.

Actually, I didn't know that was the subject of the thread. I thought it
was purely about FSM implementation. I did not get that far into the text.
I still maintain comp.arch.embedded is a better place to have a discussion
on the history of FSMs, or when the use of an RTOS is appropriate though
(search through the threads and you will find the discussion has taken place
several times before) as it is an embedded systems forum, not an LPC2000
forum.



> If you are interested in these topics and within reach of the
> UK I'd be
> pleased to see you there.
I might come along. Maybe we could exchange material.
Regards,
RTOS thought police

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
14 official architecture ports, 5000 downloads per month.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by T as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.