Creating a new ARM/AVR platform

[James]

Steve Flynn <anothermindbomb <at> gmail.com> writes:

> On 29 February 2012 14:41, Liam Proven <lproven <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> >> You sure you want to port the kernel to ARM? It is not trivial... and there
> >> isn't a "guide" on how to do it. Would you not be better off using the
> >> existing ARM port which Russell King is/was working on?

Um, well this is the very edge of technology, so a little background so
we are all on the same page. But first a bold statement.
ARM IS THE FUTURE.

Background on ARM
ARM is a "core" whereby lots of different companies can choose from one
of the older, 8,16, or early 32 bit cores to be build an "embedded
system". ARM is one of the most power efficient processor families
that exist combined with being very low price and flexible. I have long
been a mainstay for embedded systems. Since Android and embedded linux
have numerous ports to a wide variety of ARM processors, it's usage
has exploded. ARM is the number one processor, on a global basis. Nothing
else comes close, as there are about 50:1 processors built for products
as opposed to traditional computers humans use with a programmable
interface
<snip> skipping lots of history here>

ARM 9 in dual or quad cores is what many folks are using, such as cell
phones and tablets; where large embedded systems are converging with
workstations. Soon (3-5 years) ARM will dominate the server/cluster
space. The "ARM-15" is a 64-bit core with several buss systems
that allow it compete with multi-cores from AMD and Intel. The key
to servers and super-computers and clusters is DENSITY. The cisc
processors (AMD-64 and Intel) create orders of magnitude more HEAT
than the new ARM-15 processors. Since the ARM-15 processors are barely
behind the performance of AMD systems, hence not that far behind Intel
on MIPS/MOPS etc etc, and they create far less amounts of heat than
these competitors, there are  actually many new designs featuring ARM-15
cores. 

In fact Microsoft, TI, IBM, Samsung and a Myriad of design centers are
feverishly working on Linux (and android) ports to the version of the ARM-15
processors they are licensing and planning new products around.

You are about 1 year early, unless you want to be a beta tester for the
various open efforts.

You might find the Embedded Gentoo Handbook [1] a facinateing read, when
it comes to current boards that run ARM. If you google and refine
your search parameters, you can find a multitude of ARM based linux
and Android products for sell; that feature the ARM-8 or ARM-9
processor.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/

ARM-15 is going to hit the computer work, like a Tsunami....,imho
next fall or by Xmas 2012.


> >
> > What? There *is* already an Ubuntu edition for ARM. It's a bit rough
> > around the edges but it's there.
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM
> 
> I know, assuming you were addressing me Liam.
> 
> > However, there is no equivalent to the IBM PC-compatible as a
> > "reference platform" for ARM. Each ARM Linux implementation needs a
> > port to that specific mainboard, chipset, etc.

Not exactly true. The core of most ports is the same. There is
a different mix of additional hardware that needs different driver
code, as one example. Each vendor can add a mixture of unique
hardware on the "die" or in the FPGA. In fact some forms of processor
(silicon) may have hardware that you will not even know is on
the processor. This is really not big deal, as various governments
require processor manufacutures to put hidden hardware onto the die,
like the NSA. In the old days, when spoofs where stupid, they just
asked microsoft to dope out the OS with backdoors. Now days
the various governments and require the processor manufacutures
to put "back doors" into the silicon, which are hardware based
stealth portals. You never see any traces of action, unless the
devices is "key-stroked" from layer 2.

Hardware based back-doors are everything from cell phones to printers and 
often the response is long-wave Rf, so it cannot be detected from 
ethernet nor layer 3.

(sorry I digress).

> I presume so, but as there's an option to use an Atom processor for
> Linux, I'd probably be looking at using it instead, purely as there's
> more likely to be device drivers for whatever hardware they're going
> to use.

>From an engineering point of view, the ATOM is a failed processor. Too much
heat generated for the performance. That's why you rarely find the
ATOM processor in a cell phone....  Poor recommendation, imho.


I'm new to ubuntu, but there are numerous ports of Ubuntu(debian) to
embedded hardware.

hth,
James