Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))
> I do recall, vaguely, an Olimex comment about graphics being more > accessible, but I did not make a note, the little that stuck was that > some hardware manufacturer had embraced a slightly better standard > than VESA, or some such. There may be some hardware out there that > does not have "closed" graphics. > I thought that aijuboard got around this with an fpga implementation of a frame buffer and hdmi signalling, but I suppose that ramps up the price significantly as you'd need an fpga board in there and also an hdmi capable lcd. Otherwise, I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a framebuffer on the A64 like what was done with Richard's rpi code. Chris
Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))
On 10/12/18, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > i think generally there's a lot of low-power linux stuff to chose > from, but once you plan to port plan9 to it, the fragmented nature of > the arm platforms becomes a problem. no free lunch :( > That is a fact, Hiro. I paid scant attention to that issue, perhaps being old enough to consider (wrongly, in the case of the Plan 9 user space) that graphics are not indispensable. I do recall, vaguely, an Olimex comment about graphics being more accessible, but I did not make a note, the little that stuck was that some hardware manufacturer had embraced a slightly better standard than VESA, or some such. There may be some hardware out there that does not have "closed" graphics. In a perfect world, that would be an opportunity, but it seems we're not there yet, Lucio.
Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))
i have heard the name olimex in this context, too. a big problem with all alternatives is often that graphics or video decoding require binary firmware, or work only on linux, and no documentation exists from the chip vendors. i think generally there's a lot of low-power linux stuff to chose from, but once you plan to port plan9 to it, the fragmented nature of the arm platforms becomes a problem. no free lunch :(
Re: [9fans] zero copy & 9p (was Re: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:43:00 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Another case to ponder ... We're handling the incoming I/Q data > stream, but need to fan that out to many downstream consumers. If > we already read the data into a page, then flip it to the first > consumer, is there a benefit to adding a reference counter to that > read-only page and leaving the page live until the counter expires? > > Hiro clamours for benchmarks. I agree. Some basic searches I've > done don't show anyone trying this out with P9 (and publishing > their results). Anybody have hints/references to prior work? > > --lyndon > I don't believe anyone has done the work yet. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. -- Ori Bernstein
