Am Do 24. April 2008 schrieb Werner Almesberger: > Andy Green wrote: > > Well fine, but what does giving the MSP430 the battery backup actually > > get us? > > Allow us to get out of PMU.Standby, maintain GPIOs while in PMU.Standby, > etc. > > > Exactly, this is the reason behind the "core" concept. We need the core > > to be deployable in any reasonable "clothes" like LCM, physical > > dimensions, etc. So it doesn't delay us that the LCM is not decided, we > > design the core to not depend on particular display. > > Hmm, we can actually apply this to the MPU as well. Since our first > round of devices will be throw-away anyway, because the LCM will > change, we may as well err towards having too potent an MPU. If we > then find out that we only need a small fraction of its capabilities, > we can always specify a simpler model from the same family. (And > develop the code for it on the big one.) > > So thumbs up from me for a big MPU in our first GTA04 spin. > > Now, once thing that worries me a bit is that supposedly some of these > MPUs aren't supported by gcc. (I think Milosch once mentioned that.) > We have to find out if this is the case with the proposed chip.
Bah, gcc is for wimps! Do it the classic way, code it $hex, using ed or a paper and pencil ;-) Some REAL fun, long time no see (since 1981 to be true, that's been Z80 though) XD /j
