Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > 32MB no-MMU ARM boards which people run new things and attach new
> > devices to rather often - without making new hardware. Volume's too
> > low per individual application to get new hardware designed and made.
>
> Yes, you may have several products on the same hardware with somewhat
> differing requirements (or not). But that is much less than a general
> purpose system IMHO.
It is, but the idea that small embedded systems go through a 'all
components are known, drivers are known, test and if it passes it's
shippable' does not always apply.
> > I'm seriously thinking of forwarding porting the 4 year old firmware
> > from 2.4.26 to 2.6.current, just to get new drivers and capabilities.
>
> That sounds reasonable (and I never meant maintaining the old system
> infinitely.
Sounds reasonable, but it's vetoed for anticipated time and cost,
compared with backporting on demand. Fair enough, since 2.6.current
doesn't support ARM no-MMU last I heard ('soon'?).
On the other hand, the 2.6 anti-fragmentation patches, including
latest SLUB stuff, ironically meant to help big machines, sound really
appealing for my current problem and totally unrealistic to
backport...
> ACK. We avoid MMU-less hardware too - especially since there is enough
> hardware with a MMU around.
I can't emphasise enough how much difference MMU makes to Linux userspace.
It's practically: MMU = standard Linux (with less RAM), have everything.
No-MMU = lots of familiar 'Linux' things not available or break.
-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
