Date: Fri, 11 Jul 97 09:24:30 -0700 From: Parag Patel <parag@cgt.com> Cc: <freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: I2O only available under NDA? Message-ID: <199707111620.JAA03500@tenor.cgt.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/11/1997 9:08 AM, Michael Smith (msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au) said: >To be honest, I think that what can be seen of their architecture >_sucks_. It offers little or no parallelism, and for all that the >'960 is reasonably quick and VxWorks a fairly nice RTOS, it simply >doesn't cut the mustard. Then again, you're probably in more of a >position to know about this stuff than I am 8) I20 is also available via a StrongARM-based processor from Digital, so at least you're not locked into Intel for hardware. The downside is Digital's solution is 2-chips, whereas the i960RP is one. A PCI bus is built-in to the i960 part but not in the ARM. As I understand, VxWorks is just one of the real-time OS folks who's providing I20 drivers in their OS, but it doesn't have anything to do with what's actually running on the i960/ARM, which could be running anything. They communicate using a protocol that's in that proprietary spec. I could be wrong - I didn't look too closely after learning about their NDA and fees. (I can wait 'till I have a paying customer for the stuff.) The UDI spec is at <http://www3.sco.com/Products/layered/develop/devspecs/udi>; and while the idea is good, I think it's way too complicated and much too large. I looked at the various APIs and there are far more of them than in most OSes. Still, the specs are open and freely available. It's only an API spec and doesn't mandate any particular hardware like I20. (I'm not currently working on or with either, nor am I affiliated with either, much less anyone even using either. Batteries not included.) -- Parag Patel <parag@cgt.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707111620.JAA03500>