On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 10:59:08AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:23:41AM -0700, Scott Anderson wrote: > > > > David Gibson wrote: > > > Eek, wibble. It still seems somewhat unlikely to me that you'd be > > > changing the peripherals "on the fly" in a real life embedded > > > application. Especially considering that reboots are likely to be > > > much less of an issue on an embedded system than on a big server. > > > > My contrived example is a piece of test equipment that has an LCD > > touchscreen and some high speed serial collection device. The LCD is > > only used when interacting with the UI and the serial is only used > > during a run when the LCD can be blank. By reprogramming part of the > > FPGA on the fly you can squeeze more into a smaller FPGA. It appears > > that Xilinx already has this working: > > http://www.xilinx.com/xapp/xapp290.pdf > > > > I guess I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss this as unlikely, but > > I must admit, my crystal ball is in the shop this week. It sure would > > be nice to keep such things in mind as OCP is evolving, though. > > Heh, well, maybe. In any case this sounds more like a 2.5 and later > timerframe thing to me, in which case integration into the unified > device model should give us what's needed.
I think alot of what we're talking about for OCP is 2.5 fodder really. Keep in mind that the current stuff has been well tested on ~13 different 4xx boards. Perhaps we should allow OCP to become semi solid in 2_4_devel now so that we can move 4xx out to Marcelo and allow armin to do some drastic changes in 2.5... -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
