Subject: Re: mods for proposed port 'tsarm'
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jesse Off <joff@embeddedARM.com>
Date: 12/06/2004 07:38:37
> Would it have any advantage over evbarm other than avoiding the
> slightly disparaging tone of the phrase "evaluation board"? I don't
> think that warrants creating a new port.
Probably not a lot, but like was brought up earlier, there are a lot of
other boards we may want to support now and in the future that are also
not evaluation boards. Check out a copy of PC104 Embedded Solutions
magazine and thumb through the pages of embedded systems vendors to see
what I mean.
So far, this industry has been served by proprietary RTOS's and Windows CE
and recently, Linux and RTLinux are gaining mindshare. It'd be nice if
NetBSD could gain some ground in this industry.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the Cirrus processors it uses does
have a non-standard ARM FPU coprocessor that the latest GCC toolchains
3.4+ do support. Conceivably, you would want an appropriately compiled
userland to take advantage when the toolchain catches up. Would a port be
appropriate if it were to the Cirrus ARM variant, e.g. "cirrus", "clarm"
> "Jesse Off" <joff@embeddedARM.com> writes:
>> I do like this idea too. Hopefully we can come to a consensus soon, as
>> I'd like to get something committed soon for some others that have
>> expressed interest. Should I go forward with renaming to "sbcarm" and
>> adopt an organization similar to the evbarm port?