Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > 32MB no-MMU ARM boards which people run new things and attach new > > devices to rather often - without making new hardware. Volume's too > > low per individual application to get new hardware designed and made. > > Yes, you may have several products on the same hardware with somewhat > differing requirements (or not). But that is much less than a general > purpose system IMHO.
It is, but the idea that small embedded systems go through a 'all components are known, drivers are known, test and if it passes it's shippable' does not always apply. > > I'm seriously thinking of forwarding porting the 4 year old firmware > > from 2.4.26 to 2.6.current, just to get new drivers and capabilities. > > That sounds reasonable (and I never meant maintaining the old system > infinitely. Sounds reasonable, but it's vetoed for anticipated time and cost, compared with backporting on demand. Fair enough, since 2.6.current doesn't support ARM no-MMU last I heard ('soon'?). On the other hand, the 2.6 anti-fragmentation patches, including latest SLUB stuff, ironically meant to help big machines, sound really appealing for my current problem and totally unrealistic to backport... > ACK. We avoid MMU-less hardware too - especially since there is enough > hardware with a MMU around. I can't emphasise enough how much difference MMU makes to Linux userspace. It's practically: MMU = standard Linux (with less RAM), have everything. No-MMU = lots of familiar 'Linux' things not available or break. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html