Clinton Ebadi wrote: > the mps430 was deemed perhaps a bit overkill for this,
The MSP430 wasn't quite overkill, just the specific (fairly large, to have spare resources) chip we chose for use during development left the incorrect impression that it would be big and expensive also in the final product, and thus drew friendly fire. > but in the end it seems that the anti-mpu folks won (or perhaps not). This war had some more battles :) Current status is that it looks bad for the MPU again (on any product), but also that we'll have a more flexible debricking solution (which was one of the tasks we considered giving the MPU) in future products anyway. It would probably make sense to separate MPU-related R&D from any specific products, so that it can be considered a building block that can be included or not for a certain feature set, and not something where one has to haggle over every tiny little piece of functionality over and over again. Anyway, it's not a priority item today. - Werner _______________________________________________ hardware mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/hardware
