Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:17:07 +0100 (BST)
From:      Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.demon.co.uk>
To:        obrien@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc:        dfeustel@mindspring.com, karsten@rohrbach.de, sepotvin@videotron.ca, freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD for ARM processor
Message-ID:  <200107262317.f6QNH7710115@ren.fdy2.net>
In-Reply-To: <20010726124924.B96660@dragon.nuxi.com> (obrien@FreeBSD.ORG)

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

David O'Brien wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:21:21PM +0100, Robert Swindells wrote:
>> I would suggest that at least two reference platforms are needed.

>I personally am not sure about that.  People may have an assumption that
>FreeBSD wants to do as Wind River does -- that is WRS natively supports
>every commercially available PowerPC or StrongARM board there is.  This
>includes non-CPU chipset support.  This is way beyond what FreeBSD can
>really do (IMHO).  What FreeBSD can do, is provide a distribution that
>runs on the selected FreeBSD selected reference HW.  Those wanting to use
>FreeBSD in some embedded application now have a set of bits to start
>from.

I'm not suggesting supporting everything, I am suggesting that things
like the iPAQ and Jornada 720 are sufficiently different to systems
like the Netwinder to require almost another port.

Stephane is developing on the Netwinder. It is a perfectly good
example of a StrongARM server design. If FreeBSD/arm wants to target
battery powered devices as well as servers it needs to choose a SA1110
based reference platform too. You were the one that suggested the iPAQ.

>> If anyone has got one, the Intel IQ80310 board is another potential
>> target. Anyone developing new network or server products would use
>> the 80310 instead of the SA110.

>"if anyone has got one" is the problem.  I spoke with an Intel rep from
>their embedded division last night.  They were not able to recommend a
>reference board/machine from Intel to use for this because they really
>don't have a good offering.

The IQ80310 is produced by the networking division.

I have no idea whether it is any good or not, but it does have both
eCos and Linux ports.

>> The iPAQ is extremely developer-friendly IMHO. Compaq CRL do a very
>> good job of providing documentation and firmware for it. The same
>> firmware also supports the Jornada 720.

>I cannot easily put a real keyboard and monitor on an iPAQ can I?

There is X server kdrive support for pcmcia vga cards. 

You can't plug them into the Jornada either, though it does have the
hardware to drive them.

>Or use a serial console?

You can use a serial console. The pinouts are on the Handhelds web
site.

>The issue isn't necessarily how helpful the vendor is, but how easily I
>can turn the HW into something that resembles a development computer.
>I don't want to have to use graffiti to do toolchain development.

I wouldn't have got as far as I have in putting NetBSD onto the SA1110
without the work that Compaq Research have done.

You can always telnet or ssh into the device and set it to display on
your desktop or x86 laptop. I have done development in a hotel room
using my Libretto connected to a credit card sized board that we make.

Linux also has a USB driver for desktop systems that will detect the
USB slave port on the iPAQ as if it were a USB ethernet controller.

>The demos I've seen of the iPAQ you have to use the stylus rather than
>mouse.  I did see one very chinsey(sp?) keyboard solution for the iPAQ,
>but not the ability to use a real mouse, etc.

You can't use a real mouse unless you have the SA1111 companion chip.

There are a few web pad designs that should be shipped over the summer
that bring out all the I/O ports.

Robert Swindells

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200107262317.f6QNH7710115>