Re:I decided to build a nine-bit computer
by andai on Wednesday February 09, 2022 @10:39AM
(#30273900)
Noob question, in this instance would a realtime OS or a unikernel also solve the problem?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:I decided to build a nine-bit computer
by tyingq on Wednesday February 09, 2022 @11:48AM
(#30274832)
It's better, but still not the same level of timing guarantees. I suppose, left to right, you would have something like:
SBC/Linux -> SBC/Real-time OS -> General Purpose MCU -> Specialized MCU (Parallax Propeller, for example) -> FPGA/CPLD/DSP
With perhaps some additions to the diagram to account for bit-banging vs actual drivers, speeds where some portion of the left side just isn't fast enough to even kind-of work, slow clock MCUs vs fast clock MCUs, etc.
Re:I decided to build a nine-bit computer
by sbierwagen on Wednesday February 09, 2022 @06:28PM
(#30280269)
There are also some some hybrid SOCs, like TI's Sitara chips that the Beagleboard is built around, that have a ARM core for linux, then a couple MCU cores for doing fast-ish realtime stuff. (TI's FAQ says a four instruction busyloop that just toggles a pin can run at about 50MHz on a PRU)
Re:I decided to build a nine-bit computer
by emteycz on Wednesday February 09, 2022 @01:46PM
(#30276622)
The problem is, machine code is not the lowest level, there is also processor microcode. Machine code doesn't give you a hard real-time guarantee, the execution is still too approximate. FPGA enables you to work on/below the microcode level.