>>>>> "Wiggins" == Wiggins <Adam> writes:
Wiggins> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Paul Koning wrote:
>> >>>>> "Wiggins" == Wiggins <Adam> writes:
>>
Wiggins> I'm after any references or design information for real time
Wiggins> kernels on top of the ARM.
>> Several of us are interested in something like RTLinux ported to
>> ARM. I haven't been able to do anything about this yet,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> I found some notes on an RTLinux for ARM effort, from Joshua
>> Lamorie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Eric LaForest
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). That was about a year ago, I don't
>> have newer status.
Wiggins> While RTLinux is a very interesting and worthwhile project
Wiggins> it didn't help too much :( Beyound clarifying a few things
Wiggins> and bringing about a few minor idea's its the wrong things
Wiggins> for what I'm looking for. Particularly the RT executive
Wiggins> itself is not preemptable, the RT threads run in a single
Wiggins> address space as well. These are the problems I'm looking to
Wiggins> solve. I have some idea's but they still need
Wiggins> formalising. Also no one seems to be interested in
Wiggins> Microkernel development (due to asumptions about
Wiggins> performance) which makes it hard to get feedback.
You might look at RTAI (Paolo Montegazza); as I recall it uses those
words. I haven't looked at it, thought. Don't know of any ARM
porting effort for that one.
As for being non-preemptable, in my mind that's a benefit, not a
drawback. I know of real time systems that have failed due to relying
on priority mechanisms and pre-emption. If you design your system
without preemption and with a single priority level, you find yourself
having to pay attention to guaranteeing that everything that must get
done, will get done. That's the way you create reliable systems...
paul
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
