On 3 February 2016 at 11:08, Nicklas Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess most ot the code is written in C or C++ and then it should be no > problem to compile them for micro controller. If real time tasks are > implemented as functions called regularly porting should be simple. I guess > there are some hardware abstraction since g-code interpreter, emcmot, pid > work with different hardware and here some work would be required on micro > controller.
I think you can argue that an ordinary PC as a GUI which reads G-code and sends the motion commands to a separate motion controller is a sensible and rational architecture. After all, this seems to be the common Mach3 setup (Windows and a USB smoothstepper) and Mach4 is going even more strongly that way. I am not sure it makes sense to modify LinuxCNC to work that way. It's a fundamentally different system architecture and probably ought to be a fundamentally different application. Or, possibly, a number of different architectures, depending on exactly how you split the tasks. I won't be putting any effort into such a re-arrangement. As much as it might offend your sense of aesthetics, the point is that Ye Olde PC running a real-time Linux variant and old-fashioned monolithic LinuxCNC makes parts perfectly well. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
