Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Performance microblaze vs. VirtexIIPro

[John Williams <jwilliams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Matthew,

Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
> 	Ensuring realtime synchrony is a top priority for embedded devices.

I agree.  At the very least, we need to fix this major clock drift 
problem.  As I said, I just haven't looked into it, but people need to 
know it's there! :)

> I/O, including TCP/IP, as well as the realtime clock itself, could be
> "factored out" of the MB/uCL sequential kernel, and replaced with TCP/IP
> & RTC device gate arrays operating in parallel with the rest of the
> MB/uCL system. The kernel would call software hooks into those devices
> instead of sequentially executing the original kernel instructions. That
> would be a major win for the MB/uCL architecture over ASIC/uC
> architectures, and point the way for other factored parallelism.

Absolutely, that's what it's all about.  See my other reply to Emanuel 
about comparing benchmarks, and how the FPGA+full OS solution gives us 
room to maneouvre in the trade-off space of execution time, logic area 
and design complexity.

Cheers,

John
___________________________
microblaze-uclinux mailing list
microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au
Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/