LeafLabs Garden

A place to share, learn, and grow...

1. 

   gp
   Member

   Quite a few small ARM designs are supporting Angstrom Linux now (Gumstix, Beaglebone etc).

   Since the Maple line has an SD card port, could it run Angstrom Linux?

   Will the Maple II have more capabilities to support Angstrom Linux if for some reason the current Maple and Maple Native products can't run Angstrom Linux?

   Thanks!

   Posted 3 years ago #
2. 

   gp
   Member

   Ok so it doesn't look like the current Maple line has an MMU, so Angstrom Linux is out.

   So, revised question: does the Maple II have an MMU?

   Posted 3 years ago #
3. 

   gp
   Member

   Gah. It doesn't look like the STM32F405RGT6 has an MMU. Is that still the part you will be using for the Maple Native II?

   Posted 3 years ago #
4. 

   crenn
   Moderator

   Microcontrollers generally don't need an MMU, microprocessors will need it for other reasons. They're for slightly different purposes. ;D

   Posted 3 years ago #
5. 

   BJ Freeman
   Member

   have you looked at the ST uClinux?

   Posted 3 years ago #
6. 

   mbolivar
   LeafLabs

   You know, I never understood the point of uClinux, especially since the advent of cheap embedded Linux boards (BeagleBoard/BeagleBone, Gumstix, RaspberryPi). The price points aren't even that far off. Anyone care to enlighten me?

   Posted 3 years ago #
7. 

   BJ Freeman
   Member

   beside those running linux, how do they compare to the STM32 features.

   Posted 3 years ago #
8. 

   mbolivar
   LeafLabs

   Similar sets of features -- they have the usual I2C/SPI/etc. you'd expect. The BeagleBoard has a connector that's compatible with the same sort of camera input that DCMI can take on STM32. Things are pretty nice especially if you're using more recent versions of the kernel, as a lot of the Android patches that are making it into Linus's tree are nice for embedded work (one-shot LED timers, etc.)

   The downside is the usual trade-off you make when giving up full control of the machine: you have to go through the kernel (lots of peripherals are accessed in userspace through sysfs), and you have to deal with the fact that your process is just one of many.

   I've never used it, and I don't understand the sweet spot uClinux sits in. It must have a use, since so many people seem to like it. But it seems to me that if you want simplicity or or full/nearly full control over the machine, use a uC (maybe with an RTOS), and if you want all the convenience and complexity of Linux, then get a real Linux board, so you can get the gigs of Flash and hundreds of MB of memory that those offer. uClinux seems like neither fish nor fowl to me. Can anyone explain? Is it like having a nice RTOS with some of the familiar Linux interfaces?

   Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.