On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch prepares the STM32 machine for the integration of Cortex-A
>> based microprocessor (MPU), on top of the existing Cortex-M
>> microcontroller family (MCU). Since both MCUs and MPUs are sharing
>> common hardware blocks we can keep using ARCH_STM32 flag for most of
>> them. If a hardware block is specific to one family we can use either
>> ARCH_STM32_MCU or ARCH_STM32_MPU flag.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
To what degree do we need to treat them as separate families
at all then? I wonder if the MCU/MPU distinction is always that
clear along the Cortex-M/Cortex-A separation, especially if
we ever get to a chip that has both types of cores. What
exactly would we miss if we do away with the ARCH_STM32_MCU
symbol here?
> So yesterdays application processors are todays MCU processors.
>
> I said this on a lecture for control systems a while back and
> stated it as a reason I think RTOSes are not really seeing a bright
> future compared to Linux.
>
> It happened quicker than I thought though, interesting.
I think there is still lots of room for smaller RTOS in the long run,
but it's likely that the 'MPU + external DRAM' design point will
shift further to Linux, as there isn't really a benefit in squeezing
in anything smaller when the minimum is 32MB or 128MB of
RAM, depending on the interface.
For on-chip eDRAM or SRAM based MPUs, that doesn't hold
true, the memory size is what drives the cost here.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
