[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Why do an MMU-Less Port of NetBSD?
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Charles Nelson wrote:
> I have project in mind that requires porting NetBSD to an MMU-less
> MCU. It appears that no one else has made a real attempt at doing an
> MMU-less port so I'm now asking myself is there a real need to do
> this? The MCU I have in mind is very popular and a port of uClinux
> already exists for it.
obviously if uClinux exists, there is/was a need. MMU-less support is
increasingly more of a niche over time, as 32-bitters with MMUs become
cheaper, but if you've got an itch to scratch, I say go for it.
the more MMU models the kernel can support, the better, I say. worst
case you learn a bit in the process.
Marc Balmer wrote
> In my opinion there is no need for an MMU less implememtation. It
> would be insecure.
insecure is often preferred to completely non-functional. ;)
depending on the target, there may also be ways to keep a separation
between user and kernel modes, at least.
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
Main Index |
Thread Index |