Am Do 24. April 2008 schrieb Andy Green: > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > | Now for real: we got a lot of additional sw-fiddling with low level > things on > | the small chip when comparing to the 12,95$ one, and we even aren't > 100% sure > | where we will hit the limits the small RAM and missing hw-serial-I/O is > | imposing (are we?). > > No we are not sure, but it is in the right ballpark for being doable. > > Also, "additional" is not correct,
Was talking bout small vs large chip, NOT chip vs no chip/u-Boot. So the small one gets us additional work. > the fiddling is going to get done > somewhere, previously U-Boot soaked up a lot of this crap and that had > downsides for us. > > | Andy: can you give to us a short memo summarizing the benefits of a > MPU we > | wouldn't get any other way, briefly explaining background and way it > shall > | work for each of those points? So everybody involved in the decision > on MPU > | is clear on what we are talking about, enabling us to make a more > educated > | decision. > > Yeah I will put something together later trying to summarize the > elements of the discussion and contrasting against GTA02 methodology. > > It sounds like in this meeting we still first have to decide if we have > an MPU at all before which one :-) Not having one reduces the cost > impact of the MPU to "optimal levels" :-) Rather than close my ears to > this I think we should examine the two concepts in parallel and have a > beauty contest tomorrow by studying the ramifications either way. Great! :-) Probably there are a lot of people who want to be sure there is an optimum decision on this. Maybe we can convince them. /j
