| |||||||||||||
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org)Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org)Posted Nov 18, 2011 14:10 UTC (Fri) by jonth (subscriber, #4008)In reply to: Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) by marcH Parent article: Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org)
Wrong. Every embedded platform I've ever worked on (for close to two decades) has performance concerns. If it didn't then the platform was, by definition, too big and expensive for its use case and was replaced with something cheaper until we did have performance concerns.
And what's a REALLY embedded system and why don't phones or tablets count as one?
(Log in to post comments)
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) Posted Nov 18, 2011 15:04 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> And what's a REALLY embedded system and why don't phones or tablets count as one?
Thanks for demonstrating what you are missing from the picture.
Performance wise smartphones and tablets are much much closer to PCs than to: microwave ovens, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, traffic lights, alarms, vending machines, most industrial machines, etc.
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) Posted Nov 18, 2011 15:17 UTC (Fri) by jonth (subscriber, #4008) [Link]
I'm not missing anything from the picture: I believe you are. An embedded system is a computer system designed for specific control functions within a larger system.
A phone is just as embedded as a washing machine. Mobile devices come in many flavours, not just smartphones. Even within the smartphone segment there is more to the system than just the apps processor. Trust me, the modem processor in any phone is resource limited. And them some.
For _any_ embedded product there should be a processor sized/priced correctly, from a PIC up to an ARM Cortex. If you're using an ARM7 to power a washing machine then fine, you're not resource limited. But you're also using an over-designed processor for the job.
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) Posted Nov 22, 2011 21:49 UTC (Tue) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
Once an ARM7 SoC costs not significantly more than a 16-bit PIC (that could also do the job), the flexibility & familiarity of the former for average developers (and thus the cost of development) might be more important for a manufacturer...
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) Posted Nov 23, 2011 10:42 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] How many pins on a typical ARM7 SoC, and how are they laid out? Because the 16-bit microcontroller has under 50, and they're all at the edge of the part.
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) Posted Nov 23, 2011 18:03 UTC (Wed) by andreasb (subscriber, #80258) [Link] Why specifically ARM7? ARM7 is pretty old at this point. Cortex-M is what you're looking for when you want ARM microcontrollers and aren't bound by legacy ARM7 software you would have to port. Well okay, they don't have the ARM instruction set as such and understand only Thumb2, but that is in the end mostly just a different encoding of the same instruction set.If you need low pin count packages then boy did NXP announce some interesting chips for you. How about Cortex-M SoCs in SO20 and TTSOP20? I bet you're just going to love the one in a DIP28. Seriously, if all you want is under 50 edge pins (something like QFP48) then there's lots of choice in the 32 bit ARM world.
Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org) Posted Nov 23, 2011 19:19 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Well, I said ARM7 because the person I was replying to did. Looks like some nice parts there, I'm pleasantly impressed.
|
|||||||||||||