[ECOS] i386 questions

[ECOS] i386 questions

[Mike Friedrichs]

anyone,

i'm confused about ecos and porting to i386. on the ecos home page they
make reference to i386 as a supported target, but upon viewing posts, it
appears that people are building the port to i386. which is it.

i have found the words 'synthetic x86 linux' and synthetic i386' for
targets; what do these phrases mean.

assuming ecos has not been ported to i386, why has ecos been ported to
the 'Intel StrongArm family' and not the 'i386 family'.

thanks

Re: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Jesper Skov]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Friedrichs <mike_fr1@lcc.net> writes:

Mike> anyone, i'm confused about ecos and porting to i386. on the ecos
Mike> home page they make reference to i386 as a supported target, but
Mike> upon viewing posts, it appears that people are building the port
Mike> to i386. which is it.

Both. The synthetic support has been there for a while, but
(relatively) recently Patrick O'Grady contributed a port for x86 PCs.

Mike> i have found the words 'synthetic x86 linux' and synthetic i386'
Mike> for targets; what do these phrases mean.

That you run (eCos) applications on the host platform (i.e., the
synthetic platform HAL provides bindings to the host OS). Only Linux
has a synthetic target support at the moment.

Mike> assuming ecos has not been ported to i386, why has ecos been
Mike> ported to the 'Intel StrongArm family' and not the 'i386
Mike> family'.

Basically because the StrongARM work was funded, whereas nobody has
been interested in funding x86 porting. Presumably because the x86 is
not what you would call a (traditional, low-powered) embedded CPU.

Jesper

Re: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Mike Friedrichs]

does a 'linux synthetic target' mean that an ecos application will run
on top of x86 linux. probably sounds elementary but the explanation is
helpful.

if this is the case what is being gained. it seems one of the advantages
that ecos has is the small foot print for its os, but when you put on
top of linux you are back to a very large foot print. the smallest linux
embedded foot print that i've found still needs 2-8 meg of ram.

thanks again


Jesper Skov wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Friedrichs <mike_fr1@lcc.net> writes:
> 
> Mike> anyone, i'm confused about ecos and porting to i386. on the ecos
> Mike> home page they make reference to i386 as a supported target, but
> Mike> upon viewing posts, it appears that people are building the port
> Mike> to i386. which is it.
> 
> Both. The synthetic support has been there for a while, but
> (relatively) recently Patrick O'Grady contributed a port for x86 PCs.
> 
> Mike> i have found the words 'synthetic x86 linux' and synthetic i386'
> Mike> for targets; what do these phrases mean.
> 
> That you run (eCos) applications on the host platform (i.e., the
> synthetic platform HAL provides bindings to the host OS). Only Linux
> has a synthetic target support at the moment.
> 
> Mike> assuming ecos has not been ported to i386, why has ecos been
> Mike> ported to the 'Intel StrongArm family' and not the 'i386
> Mike> family'.
> 
> Basically because the StrongARM work was funded, whereas nobody has
> been interested in funding x86 porting. Presumably because the x86 is
> not what you would call a (traditional, low-powered) embedded CPU.
> 
> Jesper

Re: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Vishal Kulshrestha]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Mike Friedrichs wrote:

> 
> does a 'linux synthetic target' mean that an ecos application will run
> on top of x86 linux. probably sounds elementary but the explanation is
> helpful.

Yes. It builds a linux binary. 

> 
> if this is the case what is being gained. it seems one of the advantages
> that ecos has is the small foot print for its os, but when you put on
> top of linux you are back to a very large foot print. the smallest linux
> embedded foot print that i've found still needs 2-8 meg of ram.
> 

The code will not run in real time(obviously, because it is
running on top of linux which itself is not a real time os). It can
however be used for debugging and unit testing of code.

--Vishal.

Re: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Gary Thomas]

On 03-Jun-00 Mike Friedrichs wrote:
> 
> does a 'linux synthetic target' mean that an ecos application will run
> on top of x86 linux. probably sounds elementary but the explanation is
> helpful.
> 
> if this is the case what is being gained. it seems one of the advantages
> that ecos has is the small foot print for its os, but when you put on
> top of linux you are back to a very large foot print. the smallest linux
> embedded foot print that i've found still needs 2-8 meg of ram.
> 

This _is_ the case.  The advantage is that you can write and test your
eCos application, on your desktop, and then deploy it to your embedded
environment.  While not everything can be tested in this mode, a lot of
the preliminaries can be.  A useful "stepping stone".

RE: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Liviu Ionescu]

> synthetic platform HAL provides bindings to the host OS). Only Linux
> has a synthetic target support at the moment.

there is a FreeBSD port as well.

regards,

Liviu

RE: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Jesper Skov]

>>>>> "Liviu" == Liviu Ionescu <ilg@livius.net> writes:

>> synthetic platform HAL provides bindings to the host OS). Only
>> Linux has a synthetic target support at the moment.

Liviu> there is a FreeBSD port as well.

Really? I've never seen that. I'm sure we'd be happy to incorporate it
if it was contributed back to Red Hat.

Jesper

RE: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Patrick O'Grady]

Wow--really?  I can't even get the eCos configuration tool to compile on
my FreeBSD system... there's a bug in one of the C++ header files--it
can't compile one of the templates.  I hope to get some time here soon to
fix it...

-patrick


On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Jesper Skov wrote:

> >>>>> "Liviu" == Liviu Ionescu <ilg@livius.net> writes:
> 
> >> synthetic platform HAL provides bindings to the host OS). Only
> >> Linux has a synthetic target support at the moment.
> 
> Liviu> there is a FreeBSD port as well.
> 
> Really? I've never seen that. I'm sure we'd be happy to incorporate it
> if it was contributed back to Red Hat.
> 
> Jesper
> 

RE: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Liviu Ionescu]

> Liviu> there is a FreeBSD port as well.
>
> Really? I've never seen that. I'm sure we'd be happy to incorporate it
> if it was contributed back to Red Hat.

it is currently used as an internal debugging platform until the i960 port
will be ready, but if there is interest in it, no problem, we can contribute
it back to Red Hat.

regards,

Liviu

Re: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Mike Friedrichs]

i noticed that you are working on a port for thr i960. i just talked to
intel and with the introduction of the arm devices, intel will be
dropping the i960 in the future. maybe you'd like to talk to intel.

mike friedrichs


Liviu Ionescu wrote:
> 
> > Liviu> there is a FreeBSD port as well.
> >
> > Really? I've never seen that. I'm sure we'd be happy to incorporate it
> > if it was contributed back to Red Hat.
> 
> it is currently used as an internal debugging platform until the i960 port
> will be ready, but if there is interest in it, no problem, we can contribute
> it back to Red Hat.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Liviu

RE: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Liviu Ionescu]

> intel and with the introduction of the arm devices, intel will be
> dropping the i960 in the future. maybe you'd like to talk to intel.

Mike, we checked with Intel and there will be a few more years (possibly
10?) until they'll drop the i960 line, so I don't think there is a real
reason for not using it right now. don't forget the RP/RD are quite young
and the VH was just released last year.

but on long term I agree with you, the arm architecture has more future in
it.


regards,

Liviu

[ECOS] IDE/ATAPI/FS info?

[Brett Hackleman]

A little off topic, but I have a few questions:

1. Anyone have uC source for communicating with an ATAPI CDROM drive and
reading it's contents?  I have a document for an IDE interface (software
and hardware), and I have plenty of links for the ATAPI spec... but has
anyone already done this for another project?

2. One step further -- anyone have source/specs for reading
any of the common FS formats on an IDE drive?  I would prefer ext2fs
or any of the dos/win formats... if necessary, I'll probably just use
the linux source as a guide and convert it to whatever uC I decide
to use.

Any links or suggestions would be appreciated!

Regards,
Brett

[brhackle@eos.ncsu.edu]





Liviu Ionescu wrote:
> 
> > intel and with the introduction of the arm devices, intel will be
> > dropping the i960 in the future. maybe you'd like to talk to intel.
> 
> Mike, we checked with Intel and there will be a few more years (possibly
> 10?) until they'll drop the i960 line, so I don't think there is a real
> reason for not using it right now. don't forget the RP/RD are quite young
> and the VH was just released last year.
> 
> but on long term I agree with you, the arm architecture has more future in
> it.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Liviu

RE: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Gary Thomas]

On 03-Jun-00 Mike Friedrichs wrote:
> anyone,
> 
> i'm confused about ecos and porting to i386. on the ecos home page they
> make reference to i386 as a supported target, but upon viewing posts, it
> appears that people are building the port to i386. which is it.
> 
> i have found the words 'synthetic x86 linux' and synthetic i386' for
> targets; what do these phrases mean.
> 

Have you checked the latest sources from CVS?  This is the best way to
keep up with what's available.  

Actually, we have supported ports for both.
  * Synthetic x86 Linux - A pseudo target where eCos applications run as
    Linux programs.
  * x86 "PC" - a target for standard "PC" boxes, running stand alone where
    the eCos application is the only thing running on the platform.

> assuming ecos has not been ported to i386, why has ecos been ported to
> the 'Intel StrongArm family' and not the 'i386 family'.

Don't forget what eCos stands for: "Embedded Configurable Operating System".
As such, our primary interest is in commercially used, embedded platforms.
The ARM/StrongARM family of processors is certainly one of the most popular
architectures for such devices and becoming more so every day.  While the
i386 architecture is also very poplular, it is not normally deployed into
the very deeply embedded systems we concentrate on (think cell phones, etc).

If you're really interested in the i386 support and find that what's out there
already isn't sufficient, get the sources and add to them.  This is the heart
of Open Source projects - everyone has the ability to do whatever they want
and/or need.  If you find you need help or want even more, just ask us, that's
part of how we "drive" the development.  Requests can be sent to:
  ecos-info@cygnus.com

Re: [ECOS] i386 questions

[Mike Friedrichs]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
> On 03-Jun-00 Mike Friedrichs wrote:
> > anyone,
> >
> > i'm confused about ecos and porting to i386. on the ecos home page they
> > make reference to i386 as a supported target, but upon viewing posts, it
> > appears that people are building the port to i386. which is it.
> >
> > i have found the words 'synthetic x86 linux' and synthetic i386' for
> > targets; what do these phrases mean.
> >
> 
> Have you checked the latest sources from CVS?  This is the best way to
> keep up with what's available.
> 
> Actually, we have supported ports for both.
>   * Synthetic x86 Linux - A pseudo target where eCos applications run as
>     Linux programs.
>   * x86 "PC" - a target for standard "PC" boxes, running stand alone where
>     the eCos application is the only thing running on the platform.
> 
> > assuming ecos has not been ported to i386, why has ecos been ported to
> > the 'Intel StrongArm family' and not the 'i386 family'.
> 
> Don't forget what eCos stands for: "Embedded Configurable Operating System".
> As such, our primary interest is in commercially used, embedded platforms.
> The ARM/StrongARM family of processors is certainly one of the most popular
> architectures for such devices and becoming more so every day.  While the
> i386 architecture is also very poplular, it is not normally deployed into
> the very deeply embedded systems we concentrate on (think cell phones, etc).
> 
> If you're really interested in the i386 support and find that what's out there
> already isn't sufficient, get the sources and add to them.  This is the heart
> of Open Source projects - everyone has the ability to do whatever they want
> and/or need.  If you find you need help or want even more, just ask us, that's
> part of how we "drive" the development.  Requests can be sent to:
>   ecos-info@cygnus.com

the reason i'm looking at i386 is because we have already built in-house
embedded pc's developed around the i386 with a/d's, serial, and network
support. we built our own in-house real time os using dos and a pharlap
dos-extender. but if i can adapt eCos with the posix syntax to our
present architecture i would be thrilled. the one thing i would like to
add is a shell; like tcsh or similar. then you could add a keyboard and
ascii monitor and be able to run as a network client in the console
mode. 

i've been searching around for cvs, but couldn't find any development
addressing the i386 archititure. could some one point in the right
direction.

i noticed that there is a recent release for using win/nt/98 as a host.
is there any advantage to this approach versus using linux redhat 6.2.

thanks again