On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:15 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Speaking of the Z80, would it be possible to run NuttX in a Grant Searle > > / RC2014 platform with a 8k ROM /56k RAM split, or would any attempt > > require banked memory? > > > > I don't know if it is possible or not. I don't know if NuttX is viable on > any CPU limited to a 64Kb address space. In their day, those 8-bit CPUs > were programmed in highly tuned assembly language. it is hard to imagine > running an OS that is almost as big as the addressable memory and being > able to do anything meaningful. NuttX may have outgrown these platforms. > > I think that z80 architecture support is still important because there are > so many derivatives from z80, like that FPGA in the ZX Spectrum Next ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_Next). That FPGA runs the z80 > with a extended address space using an MMU similar to the z180 but with > smaller pages. Other derivatives like the z300 and the ez80 just support a > wider address space. I have done a couple of ezo ports recently (like > http://z20x.computer/). > > I appreciate this discussion about protecting the NuttX supported platforms.
I think non-arch-specific code should stick with C89 and we should not be too eager to remove architectures that have these needs. It's not too hard to tell people that non-arch-specific code needs to be C89. We can catch it more easily in precheck by passing the C89 flag to the compiler. Only in the case where an architecture is incomplete, unmaintained, and NuttX isn't really viable for it anymore, should we consider removing it. We should have a rule that removing an arch should require a process that makes it highly likely that we'd hear from any users who consider that arch important. For example, get the word out for some period of time and solicit feedback. If no feedback, then mark the arch deprecated, produce build-time warnings, require users to activate some kind of CONFIG_DEPRECATED_ARCH to use it. In other words, do things to get their attention. And then, have a mandatory waiting period to allow enough time to either attract maintainers or be able to declare the arch dead with a clear conscience. > > So many RTOS are just for arm. The whole point why I adopted NuttX is because of being able to move my applications from one arch to another. > Originally, NuttX was focused on the hobbyist, DIYer, and retro-computing > enthusiast. But nowadays, it is dominated by businesses with business value > systems that are sometimes not compatible with the needs or interests of > hobbyists. That is why there is such a long discussion in the > INVIOLABLE.md under "All Users Matter." That was essentially the contract > I made when I agreed to give the OS to the community. But it is going to > take some strong leadership to keep those values since the OS is controlled > completely by businesses now and businesses tend to think only of their own > needs. We need more hobbyist/DIYer committers and PMC. We need a short and professional presentation, targeted specifically to business users, that clearly explains why it is in their best interests to play nice with the community. Cheers, Nathan
