Re: Marvell microkernel replacement
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 02:30 -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: David Woodhouse writes: http://www.csr.com/products/unifirange.htm They claim that that is a 1-chip solution. Is it really? I have no reason to believe otherwise -- why do you ask? Some people make some fairly preposterous claims in marketing material but rarely do they make claims which could be so easily disproved. After all, even the most pointy-haired of managers can usually manage to count as far as two. :) Marvell uses a 2-chip solution. If a 2-chip solution is OK, then one could start with a 1-chip softmac solution and add any arbitrary processor. That CPU could be ARM, MIPS, sh3, sh4, sh5, CRIS, ColdFire, Blackfin, 186, PDP-11, IA-64... Fewer chips is generally better. If we could put the _whole_ thing on one die -- the kind of thing IBM are really good at doing for their customers -- then that would be ideal. I don't think we're quite going to manage _that_ level of integration, but we could certainly do better than we have in the current XO design. In any case: At minimum one must get promises in writing, but it's far better to have actual published documentation first. Don't forget about the errata! Having seen the kind of NDA and documentation that CSR give to Linux hackers, I have faith that something entirely acceptable can be worked out, should we want to go down that path. They very much seem to GetIt™. -- dwmw2 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Marvell microkernel replacement
On Jan 13, 2008 6:42 AM, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 02:30 -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: David Woodhouse writes: http://www.csr.com/products/unifirange.htm They claim that that is a 1-chip solution. Is it really? I have no reason to believe otherwise -- why do you ask? There have been claims that Marvell's solution is especially well-suited to the XO because it includes a processor. I can still count the chips though, and Marvell is using 2. That makes them no better than a 1-chip solution without a processor, because one can just add a processor to a softmac 1-chip solution. I am glad that the Marvell stuff is on USB, where it can not DMA right over the kernel. :-) Fewer chips is generally better. If we could put the _whole_ thing on one die -- the kind of thing IBM are really good at doing for their customers -- then that would be ideal. I don't think we're quite going to manage _that_ level of integration, but we could certainly do better than we have in the current XO design. Being a tad less aggressive: CaFE, D-CON, and a PPC4xx to turn a softmac wireless chip into fullmac. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Marvell microkernel replacement
http://www.csr.com/products/unifirange.htm -- dwmw2 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Marvell microkernel replacement
David Woodhouse writes: http://www.csr.com/products/unifirange.htm They claim that that is a 1-chip solution. Is it really? Marvell uses a 2-chip solution. If a 2-chip solution is OK, then one could start with a 1-chip softmac solution and add any arbitrary processor. That CPU could be ARM, MIPS, sh3, sh4, sh5, CRIS, ColdFire, Blackfin, 186, PDP-11, IA-64... In any case: At minimum one must get promises in writing, but it's far better to have actual published documentation first. Don't forget about the errata! BTW, CSR also does GPS for under a dollar. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
