> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:53 AM, TJF <[email protected]> wrote: > > Obviously you have no idea how libpruio works and you have no experience on > the usecase it's made for. Do you really think you can give a professional > opinion on correct or incorrect? I'm sure I use it correct, because I don't > use it at all, since it doesn't fulfill the requirements. > > You shouldn’t have a tight control loop between the PRU and ARM because this > makes no sense. Linux is non deterministic so why would you want to > compromise the PRU by making it dependent on the communications with Linux. > Either use one PRU for the control loop and another for communicating with > Linux, or use DMA to pass data between PRU and ARM. > > It makes no sense to discuss that in detail here, since you obviously have no > idea on rapid prototyping controllers. (I can give you a private lesson if > you like.) On the contrary, perhaps you should explain the use case so everyone here can understand what it is you cannot do with RemoteProc/RPMSG. Give some examples of how you do this with libpruio. I just don’t understand the need for communications with Linux in a tight control loop, but I’m hoping you can enlighten us on the issue and hopefully move this discussion forward. Think of this discussion as a cooperative one were everyone should ultimately benefit.
Regards, John -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/3A6923D6-F018-49EE-B3B6-CEB73D8300DB%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
