Slashdot Mirror


Texas Instruments Embedding Linux

darthcamaro writes "Looks like pretty soon Linux will truly become ubiquitous thanks to Texas Instruments new DaVinci System on a chip DSP. The new consumer electronics chip aimed at capturing the Digital Video market is powered by MontaVista Linux. 'TI understands that there is a larger number of Linux programmers than there are DSP programmers,' Huy Pham, DSP System-on-Chip product marketing manager at TI, told internetnews.com. 'What [DaVinci] does in partnership with MontaVista is enables the Linux developer to use the DSP without needing to understand the complexity of programming the DSP.'"

128 comments

  1. But... by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will it run, um, er, Windows?

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:But... by andydread · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you get Xen up and running then it will run windows but veeery slooowly maybe vmware will do a better job. Then again if there is any virtualization support in the Ti DSP then Xen should fly on this device.

    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, no, no. The proper cliche is "I'd like to see a beowulf cluster of these things."

    3. Re:But... by mikefe · · Score: 1

      Will it run, um, er, Windows?

      As soon as it is ported to TI's DSP chips.

      Do the world a favor and hold your breath until that happens. ;)

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
  2. Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by mrRay720 · · Score: 5, Funny

    DaVinci and MontaVista (Mona Lisa)? More than a coincidence in the naming there?

    I think we need to get Dan Brown to write a book about this obvious conspiracy - "The DaVinci Source Code".

    1. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, the Knights of the Templar hatched a plot with Emperor Constantine and put the clues to their scheme in a microchip. They've been waiting a while for the technology to be available.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    2. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by saboola · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bet you never knew that TI actually stood for The Illuminati

    3. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Funny

      That explains all the hooded men with torches walking in and out of dimly lit meeting rooms at work. (I work there and actually had a hand in DaVinci's DSP.) Wait a minute, that means I have parts of DaVinci's code on my hard drive. *looks around suspiciously* Maybe I'll call in sick today.

    4. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      DaVinci and MontaVista (Mona Lisa)? More than a coincidence in the naming there?
      I think we need to get Dan Brown to write a book about this obvious conspiracy - "The DaVinci Source Code".


      I always thought programming was an art... but lately (DaVinci, Picassa, et al.) it seems like they finally are marketting it that way.
      My logic for the fact that is an art is: A science is meant to understand a phenomom or a set of phenomena, where as an art is about creation of something. Programming thus falls to the art class? No?

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    5. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      from tfa:

      What [DaVinci] does in partnership with MontaVista is enables the Linux developer to use the DSP without needing to understand the complexity of programming the DSP.

      they just turned art into crap. if you dont understand what you are doing, you will end up developing ms outlook or inter(pr0n)net explorer. full of new pronish features and exploits.

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    6. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the connection between MontaVista and Mona Lisa?!?

      You Americans are sometimes a bit weird!

    7. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take out both the Ts and tilt the V over to make an L.

      PS - not american.

    8. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      A science is meant to understand a phenomom or a set of phenomena, where as an art is about creation of something. Programming thus falls to the art class?

      Sure. But "art" is very broad. Creation of "art" happens irrespective of a functional purpose. The creation need not acccomplish a task. The purpose of the creation may simply be "to exist", where no such thing existed before.

      I think a more appropriate term for programming would be "engineering". Engineering is a process of creation (and so can probably be called an art), but it is specifically directed toward creating something to accomplish a task. And a program, almost by definition, accomplishes some sort of task, though that task may indeed be a trivial one.

      And there are still further special cases. A codemonkey engages in "programming", but may blindly follow a program design which was cooked up entirely by someone else. In this case it is arguable that the codemonkey is neither engineer nor artist, since he did not create/design the program that is to accomplish the task. He is merely constructing it. So a codemonkey, I'd argue, may be more properly termed a skilled tradesman: an "artisan".

    9. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1
      My Art teacher says that it is the creator of the art who defines what art is.

      A little recursive isn't it?

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    10. Re:Perfect partnership or conspiracy? by Amrik · · Score: 1

      Hang on, Monta Vista means Montain View in spanish.

  3. In case you were wondering by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA:

    "There have definitely been a few GPL legal issues and even TI had to work through some of these," Pham said. "TI does have a proprietary processor communication between the ARM and the DSP. We do need to keep that separate from the Linux side."

    Pham noted that TI provides its customer with support and some legal advice to keep things separate.

    "Yes it's a complication and yes some customers have some issues with it and some questions with it," Pham said. "But in general, it hasn't been so much as an issue as it has been questions."

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  4. tremendous response time by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Pham noted that the response time of the latest MontaVista Linux is 'tremendous.'"

    I wonder what they were using prior to MontaVista, just plain old Vista?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:tremendous response time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

      Comic Gold

  5. At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a veteran of digital signal processing I believe this is a major step forward. The roots of DSP are different from traditional Von Neumann computing and yet there is some overlap. For 50 years we have basically had two streams of thinking, two paradigms to cope with. Algorithms for filters, impulse systems, convolution, table mapping, oscilators
    and so forth have a mathematical basis that generally incorporates time implicitly although at the most basic level they are matrix computations. Expressing these in orthodox code can be frustrating, counterintuitive and inefficient. For example compare side by side the solutions to an audio filter written in Nyquist (scheme), vanilla C code, 56 series DSP
    assembly or as a process flow in Max/PureData. They are barely recognisable as the same equation and converting between one paradigm and another (say functional to procedural) is so difficult one may as well start from scratch with the original equation. The idea of microcode/silicon instruction sets combined with the abstraction of a familiar kernel and realtime operating system as the starting point is going to be immensely empowering for the next generation of DSP programmers. Indeed I expect that in 10 years time we will no longer consider the two as distinct disciplines at all.
    The next step in microprocessor evolution is, in accordance with the 'great wheel', for these entire architectures and their instruction sets to be incorporated back into the mainstream CPU core along with language constructs for dealing with them, such that one day it will be no more unusual express a closed form cosine sum than it is to write a for loop today.

    1. Re:At last by jesup · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right - but this doesn't address that. DaVinci is a dual-core solution ala OMAP; you have an ARM running Linux and a DSP running DSP/BIOS on the same chip. Admittedly, with well-defined communication channels and "standard" TI XDIAS modules on the DSP you can mostly avoid doing real "DSP programming" - but then you're limited to using canned DSP algorithms or at most playing "building blocks" with them.

      Not to say this isn't a nice setup - it is. Just don't assume it will remove the need to do traditional signal-processing coding.

    2. Re:At last by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

      it seems like a step in the right direction.

      I think all MCU and DSP manufacturers should do something like this. At work, I write firmware and it seems that I spend too much time reinventing the wheel and wasting time over timing etc instead of spending most of my time writing functionality.
      Right now its not practical for us to put any available embedded Linux OS into our MCU because of the huge space requirement, and there is a lot of functionality on embedded Linux OS's that we don't need. Yes 4MB is a lot, when you only have 128K of program space.

  6. Monta Vista... by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "..is an upper class neighborhood..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monta_Vista

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
    1. Re:Monta Vista... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...monta vista is da fuckin..."
      "...monta vista is buying me a pci..."
      "...monta vista is that if high school seniors don't gain admission to the top uc campuses or ivy league schools..."
      http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=monta+vista& type=3

  7. Re:Data? by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gee, maybe you should go to the manufacturer's site for that kind of detail, instead of whining that a news article didn't publish tech specs.

  8. Re:Data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slow down there, switch to de-caff. :o)
    Give it a chance to come out.

  9. TI really need a QA dept by phozz+bare · · Score: 5, Informative
    I do realize that this is slightly off topic, but remember that even the finest embedded system is worthless without a proper development environment. And TI's environment, named Code Composer Studio, has gone nothing but from bad to worse in the past few years.

    TI really need to kick out their QA team, hire a new one, and get off their asses. I work with CCS 10 hours a day. After 2 weeks of working with the latest version (3.1) I had about 20 different things to complain about, and those are only the new bugs (the old ones tend to stay). I'm not talking about anything advanced - I just use the IDE for editing, compiling and debugging (breakpoints, etc) - I'm talking about usability annoyances, inexplicable slowdowns, crashes, Ctrl-F3 suddenly not working, things like that.

    It is also not uncommon for basic Chip Support Library functions like DAT_copy (which initiates an EDMA memory transfer) to stop functioning with a new CSL release. QA, people, QA.

    phozz

    1. Re:TI really need a QA dept by alexsh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention that their RTS is buggy and doesn't handle C++ exceptions well. Debugging their RTS macaroni is no fun...

    2. Re:TI really need a QA dept by Local+Loop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I too work with CCS all day long, and yes it's a real pain. I just
      use it as a C compiler, and don't hit all the complex features, nor
      do I use their CSL library. I have also noticed that some of their
      side tools, like the flash-ram utility, don't always work first time...

      My big complaint is their silicon -- why wasn't EDMA designed so
      that you could easily stream chunky (non-uniform block size) data
      from the MCBSP into memory? I have a work-around, but it is seriously
      ugly...

      Also, would it have killed them to give me some GPIO pins? And
      why the heck did they have to change the pinout between REV B
      and C of the C6711, leaving me stuck with the older processor
      until the powers that be approve doing a new board?

      I'm also still annoyed that their entire DSP support department all
      went to a convention at the same time, leaving me without support
      during a critical week.

      I can say that I've NEVER seen a compiler bug, which is impressive,
      especially given the tricky parallel instruction execution that goes
      on.

      For my current project I've switched to Xilinx and Microblaze, and
      I've been told they do a better job with their tools.

    3. Re:TI really need a QA dept by Formica · · Score: 2, Funny

      Code Composer was known "affectionately" as Code DeComposer by our developers when we were using it a while back (several years ago). Hopefully it's improved since then!

    4. Re:TI really need a QA dept by joe_bruin · · Score: 1

      Seriously, Code Composer Studio is truly one of the worst pieces of software I've ever used. When using a JTAG debugger on the parallel port, does it have to continually poll the paraport while I'm not debugging or transferring code (that is, 99% of the time), and in the process slowing my high end workstation down to a painful crawl? Is it still the case that you need two separate versions of CCS running at the same time if you're using both cores on an OMAP? I hope they fixed that one. And heaven forbid you should want to change your JTAG emulator settings to a different chip. Good luck getting it to work ever again with your current setup.

      That's not even getting into the IDE bugs. Rendering issues, autocompletion that hardly works (option to turn it off), daily crashes, and the fact that it often forgets to rebuild files whos dependencies have changed!

      TI: Read this -- I will always recommend against using TI parts whenever I can do so, because your tools are crap, your Linux support is crap (hand off to RidgeRun, oh wait, they're dead, MonteVista), your in-house code is crap, and your support is utter and complete crap (unless you're Nokia).

    5. Re:TI really need a QA dept by Mechanik · · Score: 1

      When using a JTAG debugger on the parallel port, does it have to continually poll the paraport while I'm not debugging or transferring code (that is, 99% of the time), and in the process slowing my high end workstation down to a painful crawl?

      From what I've heard that's an intentional "feature". The Development Starter Kit (DSK) version of CCStudio is locked to the hardware you purchased along with it. It's sold at a reduced price, and you can't run the app without the hardware connected. It keeps checking to see that it's there so that you don't go getting sneaky and trying to hook up some other board to the thing. The DSK board in a way acts as a hardware security dongle.

      With an XDS560 emulator and a real EVM board, this goes away, although admittedly that will put you back some serious dollars.

    6. Re:TI really need a QA dept by joe_bruin · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory. However, we didn't pay for hardware with it, and have had no problem running the software with no hardware attached or with new hardware we've made (and different JTAG devices). I don't remember what the emulator was, but thankfully I never have to look at it again.

    7. Re:TI really need a QA dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      joe,
      from your post it's my guess that you are using a CCS version 2.x (x4). everything you've mentioned in your post was addressed in CCS 3.0 which was released to market quite some time ago.
      of most interest to you would be the editor update to Codewright and connect/disconnect. most causes of crashes with earlier versions of CCS were due to drivers not being very elegant with flaky devices. connect/disconnect gives one a way to cleanly disconnect from a device, power cycle it to get to a good state and then reconnect without affecting the IDE.

      however there are some inacurracies that i'd like to point out - debugging both cores never required separate versions of CCS running at the same time.

    8. Re:TI really need a QA dept by ritalin_assasin · · Score: 1

      i'm curious, how many qa personell do you think would be required to test a complex product, especially if there are combinations of supported devices and OSs?

    9. Re:TI really need a QA dept by ritalin_assasin · · Score: 1

      >>joe, from your post it's my guess that you are using a CCS version 2.x (x4). everything you've mentioned in your post was addressed in CCS 3.0 which was released to market quite some time ago. of most interest to you would be the editor update to Codewright and connect/disconnect. most causes of crashes with earlier versions of CCS were due to drivers not being very elegant with flaky devices. connect/disconnect gives one a way to cleanly disconnect from a device, power cycle it to get to a good state and then reconnect without affecting the IDE. however there are some inacurracies that i'd like to point out - debugging both cores never required separate versions of CCS running at the same time. i definitely saw a lot of stability improvements.

    10. Re:TI really need a QA dept by Mechanik · · Score: 1

      I just haven't heard of a parallel port emulator that wasn't a DSK...

    11. Re:TI really need a QA dept by TI+support+guy · · Score: 1

      As a TI support engineer, I can assure you that we do track issues that are submitted and work to research and resolve all issues that our customers submit to us, provided that we have the required information, files and details to do so. We take our customers and their concerns very seriously and we continuously strive to make our products and processes better. Our QA and development teams work very hard to make Code Composer Studio the best in the industry that meets the needs of all our customers.

      Regarding CCS 3.1 and the 20 issues that you found, have you had a chance to contact our support team with all the details so our engineers could look into them? We are unable to investigate any issues that we are unaware of.

      I would like to extend an invitation to you and request that you take a few minutes to put your issues down in an email along with any sample code, steps to reproduce and system configuration issues and submit them to our support team (support@ti.com). This will give us a chance to take a look, investigate as necessary and provide you with a solution or workaround to your problem and in the process, make your life easier and your experience with TI and our products more positive.

    12. Re:TI really need a QA dept by joe_bruin · · Score: 1

      Did you make this account especially for me? I'm touched.

      Honestly, the CCS issues are not my primary concerns with TI. All other things being on par with other firms, I could live with it (though I'd be cursing TI daily), and I imagine it's improved somewhat since we started with it. But I've seen too many projects burned by poor Texas Instruments support to ever think of trying it again.

      I remember going to a DSC124(?) training class some years back (back when the chip was new). The instructor could not even give me a copy of the example code we did in class, because, god forbid, I would want to make your chip work when I got back to my office (I'm talking about something on the order of code showing how to use the MAC on this part, not any real software).

      Thank you for your suggestions about writing TI support. It's been two years since my company followed through on my recommendation to abandon our last TI part (not including DACs), so I'm grateful to say that I require no more support from your company. After years of having email and phone calls ignored, playing shuffle-the-FAE, being pawned off on third parties, and being told outright that software designed to operate some part or feature is unsupported and yet documents for that same part are unavailable, I have no interest in seeing TI improve. Your issues are political, not technological, and I have no confidence that there is interest in resolving these. I will pursue a different strategy: I will deal with your competitors. What they lack in hardware design skill, they make up in support. TI's anemic support response is a greater risk to a project I undertake than any silicon bug.

      Love,
      joe

  10. free software is expensive. by nblender · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MontaVista isn't going to get anywhere if they continue to insist on charging $18,000 USD a seat for 'gcc'. An embedded project I'm on comes with a Montavista runtime license. When I asked for the kernel source, the hardware vendor said they were legally bound by MontaVista not to give out the kernel source and to talk to MV. When I asked MV for the source, the salesperson tried to tell me that required a special source license that I had to pay for. I think someone in 'sales' doesn't understand the concept of a license. We've since chosen to just dump MV. I think TI would probably be better off just coming up with their own distro.

    1. Re:free software is expensive. by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      An embedded project I'm on comes with a Montavista runtime license. When I asked for the kernel source, the hardware vendor said they were legally bound by MontaVista not to give out the kernel source and to talk to MV. When I asked MV for the source, the salesperson tried to tell me that required a special source license that I had to pay for.

      Um. That sucks. If Montavista is a Linux distribution... someone here's breaking the law. Violating thousands of people's copyrights. They've sold you the binaries, but refuse to also provide the source code? Very, very bad behaviour. I presume you notified the FSF of this blatant GPL breach?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:free software is expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When I asked for the kernel source, the hardware vendor said they were legally bound by MontaVista not to give out the kernel source
      If they are distributing GPL'd code, they are legally bound by the GPL to make that source code availiable.
    3. Re:free software is expensive. by bhima · · Score: 1

      I would assume that when he says "kernel" he is not referring to the Linux Kernel but rather Monta Vista's and perhaps one of their board support packages. So I doubt any copyright has been violated... just a few people miss understanding each other. On the otherhand Monta Vista can be a little pricy...

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    4. Re:free software is expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main value MontaVista Linux is their portfolio of ISVs that support it. You can use a "roll your own" distro. But if you need to use solutions from ISVs, they would have to rebuild and test their applications for your distro. This can be a major effort and cost.

    5. Re:free software is expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Numerous companies do this sort of thing, sadly. Hauppauge, Liteon, Cadenux, Tritton Technologies, MacSense, Compex, Inventel and Sweex all either sell modified Linux sources at high prices or use modified Linux kernels in their products without releasing source.

      Probably the reason why SCO made their crazy argument that the GPL is somehow invalid is that these breaches of copyright law are not adequately followed up and prosecuted, presumably due to lack of time and money.

    6. Re:free software is expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      MontaVista's kernel is the Linux kernel, with their modifications (and others' modifications) on top of it - which is GPL-ed. So if a customer requests the source, they must jump and provide it ...

    7. Re:free software is expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The way we (1 man band + disciples) look at it is this:

      We are happy to use Linux and generate some revenue from it (try to, anyway). We use a monotone install with our added crap on top. We keep a clean separation of what's opensource and need to provide source for... if asked:

      • GPL: The linux kernel, Linux drivers we write (the odd USB driver built using the USB skeleton driver), everything in the linux distro.
      • Special provision for busybox which are happy to abide by their license. Don't and you'll end-up in their Hall of Shame. Not worth the aggro.
      • LGPL: Everything LGPL we need to compile against, is compiled as shared objects. No static linking!
      • Closed source... a couple of our daemons which do all the work. This is our code. Maybe we'll open it some day, maybe not.
      • Giving back. Revenue so far is not worth talking about, but we contributed bug fixes and enhancements back to the community. Some bits and bobs people could find some use for, we put on sourceforge.

      The simple rules of opensource: Abide by the licenses and try to contribute back if you can. Do that and it'll translate into real karma in the next life... and maybe into some profit, one hopes!

    8. Re:free software is expensive. by leinhos · · Score: 2, Informative

      With my limited understanding of the GPL (IANAL), I believe that a vendor can charge what he/she wants for the binary version of the software, and is then obligated to provide the source (to that same person) at a nominal additional cost. The GPL only requires providing the source to those parties that receive the binaries. The customer, however, has no obligation (under the GPL) to keep the source code secret, and can redistribute the code at any cost (including none) to other parties. If MV adds an additional license to the GPL'd source that prevents redistribution, *that* would be a violation of the GPL.

      So where are all these MV customers and why haven't they provided the MV kernel source for the rest of us?

    9. Re:free software is expensive. by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      With my limited understanding of the GPL (IANAL), I believe that a vendor can charge what he/she wants for the binary version of the software, and is then obligated to provide the source (to that same person) at a nominal additional cost. The GPL only requires providing the source to those parties that receive the binaries.

      Very well. The OP was developing an embedded system based on this Linux-derived kernel. He needed the source code. Montevista tried to charge him a great deal of money for a 'source licence'.

      Now, as I see it he already has a 'source licence' called the GPL. Montevista are way, way out of order if the story is true. However, a bit of googlework reveals a lot of information about Montevista being all cool and froody and abiding by the GPL and even telling off SCO for being so silly, and no corroboration for the original claim. I suspect the OP ended up on the phone with some clueless idiot at customer service.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:free software is expensive. by fizbin · · Score: 2, Informative
      With my limited understanding of the GPL (IANAL), I believe that a vendor can charge what he/she wants for the binary version of the software, and is then obligated to provide the source (to that same person) at a nominal additional cost. The GPL only requires providing the source to those parties that receive the binaries.

      This is now getting rather far-afield from the original, since all other evidence points to MV being a very good GPL-abiding corporation. (I suspect, as do others, that some wires got crossed)

      However, this is a frequently quoted misconception that I thought I'd stomp on, in the hopes that it doesn't get repeated. Like most widely circulated misconceptions, there's a kernel of almost-truth to it, but in its essence it's wrong.

      What the GPL requires (section 3) is:
      1. that every binary be shipped with source, OR
      2. that every binary be shipped with a written offer to provide to any third party, not just those who have a copy of the binary, or only to those who are original customers of the company, the source for a cost no greater than the cost of creating the physical copy of the source
      Since we're talking about commercial distribution, I'm ignoring section 3(c).

      What this means is that either you give every customer a copy of the (GPL-ed portion of the) source with every binary, or you give the GPL-ed part of the source code to anyone who asks and coughs up the cost of doing the physical duplication. (for at least three years after shipping the binary) None of this "we'll let you have the source for the cost of the disks + S/H, but only if you're our customer" stuff.

      Really, people, the GPL isn't that long, nor is it anywhere near as lawyerly as many software licenses. There's no excuse for holding forth on it and having not read it.
    11. Re:free software is expensive. by pev · · Score: 1
      MontaVista isn't going to get anywhere if they continue to insist on charging $18,000 USD a seat for 'gcc'.

      To be fair, thats a little daft - they already have got somewhere charging 18k a seat.

      I think TI would probably be better off just coming up with their own distro.

      Well they have. There's a mailing list (but it's currently unused!) and a nod on TI's DaVinci webpage to the fact there's going to be an open source distro as there is for the OMAP boards. There's no real content there at the moment, but there will be soon.

      ~Pev
  11. News? by Tune · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is great and all, I just don't see why this is front page news. I would consider ARM-DSP hardware with Linux support mainstream rather than a bold step taken by TI. A random grab from sponsored adds on google:
    http://www.sandorlabs.com/
    http://www.compulab.co.il/
    http://www.plexxa.com/
    http://www.atmel.com/products/AT91/
    http://www.xbow.com/
    http://www.lynuxworks.com/

    All products seem to support Linux on ARM/XScale and (at least) some in combination with a DSP.
    Sure, Texas instruments is a heavyweight in the embedded world, but is this just another clueless ScuttleMonkey post or did I miss something?

    1. Re:News? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      You don't consider a major player in the industry adopting Linux support for its DSP's to be newsworthy? Interesting. Its certainly more interesting than articles posted about this or that new Distribution Du Jour.

    2. Re:News? by joe_bruin · · Score: 1

      This is not even new to TI. They've had Linux support for their chips for years. I went to a TI OMAP event 4 years ago and they were pitching Linux on their OMAP chips. At the time they handed off Linux support to a third party called RidgeRun. RR went out of business as far as I know. The TI reps at one point were trying to get my company to be their Linux support provider. Nowadays it's MonteVista doing the TI Linux. The only thing that means is that their board support packages are going to be even more expensive. So, I don't know about the OP, but I don't consider this noteworthy.

      Note that Linux does NOT run on their DSPs, it runs on the RISC (usually ARM) core of their multi-core chips. The DSP usually runs DSP-BIOS.

    3. Re:News? by Big+Jojo · · Score: 1
      Sure, Texas instruments is a heavyweight in the embedded world, but is this just another clueless ScuttleMonkey post or did I miss something?

      A few things, yes.

      First, that this resembles TI's OMAP chips ... found in quite a lot of cell phones. In some ways DaVinci is nicer to work with since it's cleaner internally (fewer busses, bridges, clock domains) and externally (pin muxing is a nightmare on OMAP). You might say that the reason the ARM/DSP/Linux combo is now mainstream has a lot to do with preceding generations of TI product.

      Second, that this integrates essentially the top of the line DSP series from TI ... and TI is a major player in the DSP business. You've compared that to the "XScale DSP" capabilties, which I have to take as a joke.

      Third, that even its ARM is fast compared to other stuff TI has done. Peak clock rate is half again as fast, and the memory bus is 32 bits. (OMAP is slower and thinner, which helps give it phenominal battery life.) So with respect to the people who've commented that the DSP programming is sort of a different world ... that's why there's a fast ARM.

      Fourth, the peripheral set is way cool. Not just Video, which is the reason folk are most interested in the DSP. But also high speed interfaces that most ARMs don't integrate ... like Ethernet, high speed USB (OTG -- either host or peripheral), and IDE. Not just the usual sorts of expansion connector: CompactFlash, MMC/SD, MemoryStick, SmartMedia/NAND, etc.

      ... in short, this is interesting because it's a better/faster version of something that's already proven to be successful. This time targetted at video more than, say, cell phone. What exactly will you be wanting to run your digital TV, by the way? More likely this than some x86 heating element...

  12. Can't wait for the TI calculator. by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's going to be great -- it'll do square roots, cube roots, nth roots, and root.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  13. Not much help, but I come bearing a link! by Mr+Z · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can't tell you much about the ARM side, though I will say the TI compiler tends to get high marks on code density and speed on the ARM. I'm sure you could write your ARM code with GCC. I don't know how the heterogeneous linking process works. Only other thing I know off-hand is that there is no flash. Silicon processes that support flash tend to not support high clock rate, and DaVinci can go real fast. :-) More at DaVinci's website.

    Disclaimer: I work for TI and had a hand in the C64+ DSP that it includes, but I'm not a member of the DaVinci product team.

    1. Re:Not much help, but I come bearing a link! by pev · · Score: 1
      Can't tell you much about the ARM side, though I will say the TI compiler tends to get high marks on code density and speed on the ARM. I'm sure you could write your ARM code with GCC.

      Well, implicitly you're going to be building the Linux parts with GCC as adapting the kernel to build using the TI toolchain would be suicidal. This is how you build Linux for the existing TI dual-core parts.

      I don't know how the heterogeneous linking process works.

      If you're using Linux + DSP/BIOS as the reference platform does, the kernel is built as described above using the GNU toolchain, and the DSP portion of the code is built within CCS. The DSP code ends up as a single loadable object that a Linux driver loads to the DSP and then bootstraps via a peripheral on the ARM (and DSP) dedicated to facilitating shared memory communications between the two. This is very similar to the process that the OMAP cores use with Linux+DSP/BIOS+Link. All of this is described well in various whitepapers on ti.com as well as in the DM644x datasheets also on ti.com.

      Only other thing I know off-hand is that there is no flash. Silicon processes that support flash tend to not support high clock rate, and DaVinci can go real fast. :-)

      If I understand what you're trying to say, there's no on-chip flash. However the DaVinci EVM's definately have flash on. Mine arrived this afternoon and I definately remember seeing a pair of flash chips on it.

      ~Pev
  14. Welcome To Your New World Microsoft Fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how fast something spreads through a market when it becomes the default choice?

    Microsoft was able to get their OS into a position where it was the default choice for just about anything outside of mainframes or embedded devices.

    Now Linux, or open source unix implementations to more accurate, have become the default choice for virtually all new computing devices. The only areas where companies are creating new Microsoft based devices are the result of Microsoft directly paying companies to use their products.

    Things are just going to get worse for the "Microsoft is always teh winnah!" crowd. The old Microsoft dream of "Windows everywhere" from the late '90s is coming true - except they got the OS wrong.

    The new world is Linux Everywhere(or open source unix implementation Everywhere if you want to be long winded and accurate).

    1. Re:Welcome To Your New World Microsoft Fanatics by lanswitch · · Score: 0, Troll
    2. Re:Welcome To Your New World Microsoft Fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of embedded windows?

      Yup, it's call a wall with a few holes made from glass/wooden panels.

  15. MontaVista in violation of the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    When I asked MV for the source, the salesperson tried to tell me that required a special source license that I had to pay for.

    Is this just ignorance on the part of the salesperson, or is it MontaVista company policy?

    If the latter then the folks at gpl-violations.org will probably be interested.

    As a direct user of MontaVista software, you might like to inform them that you are currently assessing whether they are knowingly in violation of the GPL, or whether its an unfortunately and temporary mistake which can be corrected with remedial education of their salesforce.

    1. Re:MontaVista in violation of the GPL? by nblender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure it's just ignorance on the part of the salesidiot... In another matter, I asked a simple "yes/no" question which resulted in a 3 day scheduling negotiation to speak with one of their lead engineers. Once we got the conference call going, I was asked to pose my question. I posed it and the lead engineer said "err, Yes" with a barely detectable tone that said "I'm going to kill this salesperson". In the end; MV was far more expensive. $18k USD a seat for GCC plus $5k/year for business-hours support, maximum 5 'incidents'. 2 days of effort produced for me a fully functional cross-compile toolchain on which I was able to develop a prototype of our production product as proof of concept. So we punted on MV. We're not idiots. We can support our own toolchain. I suspect most embedded software shops have people who possess reasonable clue and don't need someone like MV to hoover money out of their wallets to answer gcc questions. Non-clueful people are probably not doing embedded software. So just who is MV's target audience? PHB's.

  16. DSP code can be easy to write ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matlab will actually write the routines you need to implement filters. It doesn't just supply the coefficients, it actually gives you the code. Of course, you then have to supply the code to the IDE etc. etc.

    Actually, DSPs can be byzantine. A DSP is capable of doing more than one instruction per clock cycle. Trying to optimize code by hand is almost impossible. (I'm thinking of an older Sharc which could do nine things at once. I'm sure it's gotten worse.) The IDE does a much better job of optimizing the code than even skilled programmers.

    We could be going to a situation where nobody outside the manufacturer writes actual code for DSPs. Everyone else will program on a simplified layer like Matlab or the one mentioned by Pham.

    1. Re:DSP code can be easy to write ... by Mr+Z · · Score: 4, Informative

      As long as you understand fixed-point arithmetic, it's not too bad to code from C either. I do recommend that you restrict-qualify pointers whenever possible and use some of the #pragma directives to let the compiler know about things like "I know this pointer is aligned to an 8-byte boundary" or "I know this loop goes around eleventy-billion times." Other compilers also benefit from this information, but given the extreme amounts of explicit parallelism and SIMD a DSP like the C64+ offers (up to 8 instructions per cycle, but more like 26 or more actual "operations"), you have much more to gain in DSP-space by giving the compiler this info. DSPs can't spend the transistors desktop CPUs do on dynamically scheduling all those operations at run-time.

      Coding for the DSP is actually a lot like coding for MMX or SSE in some ways. (More like MMX when coding for C64x, since the DSPs are fixed point.) Just keep your data types sized appropriately, and in the case of TI DSPs, listen to the feedback from the compiler.

      --Joe

  17. Yes! by coconutmnky · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    YES!!!! I've always wanted to run linux.....on a calculator....er...whats the point? I mean, there's no drives, no wifi, no ports, nothing! TI, you can take your calculators with linux on them and go home!

    1. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron. This has NOTHING to do with calculators.

    2. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Kudos to the Linux Penguin crowd on this one:

      I say that, because for one thing, this shows how flexible Linux can be - this is 1 thing it has going for it by all means vs. Microsoft, including more multi-platform capability/portability & better clustering abilities... so far @ least on the latter (more on that upcoming).

      As far as "multi-platform" capability? Well, Microsoft used to have builds of NT 3.x-3.5x that ran on diff. processor platforms (e.g.-> MIPS), but has since centered on MOSTLY Intel compatible x86 code for their OS, at least as far as personal computing.

      This use of Linux imo is a good thing that shows where Linux has a great deal of flexibility, & even a "Pro-Microsoft person" like myself has to admit & admire it.

      (Remember - & this is coming from one of the most "Pro-MS" people here most likely @ slashdot (making me a member of a HUGE 'minority' here @ slashdot, no doubt)).

      APK

      P.S.=> Linux is making strides, there's no doubt about it, but then, so is Microsoft!

      (I think VISTA will be a HELL of an OS, especially since it is being built off the Windows Server 2003 99.999% uptime rated core which is far more secure by default than is Windows NT/2000/XP & which I have been running for 2++ years now @ home solid & stable as titanium steel in this capacity (default workstation mode install) + Windows STILL LEADS in device driver/hardware support)

      Also, I think the Windows CCS (compute cluster server) will be another 'surprise' out of Microsoft, especially after acquiring personell from Cray in regard to SuperComputing ready platforms)... but, we'll have to wait & see on both accounts! Time will tell & all that!

      However, imo - The best part is, we as the end-users/consumers of BOTH OS families get the benefits! To quote a tune from "The Beatles":

      "It's getting better all the time..." apk

  18. Blackfin? by GregAllen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Analog Devices makes a family of DSP called the Blackfin that runs uClinux. We've been using a development board for well over a year. If this is TI's first linux offering, I'd say they're late to the party. Maybe it was hard to port Linux because sizeof(char) was 2. (If you've ever used a 16-bit TI DSP... :)

    --
    Please help find my missing daughter: FindSabrina.org
    1. Re:Blackfin? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Was sizeof(char) really 2, or was it just that char was 16 bits? Either way, I'm pretty sure that was a C54x thing. That doesn't apply to the C64+ DSP on DaVinci, that much I can tell you.

      People have been running various forms of Linux on our DSPs and ARMs prior to this. I think the real news is that TI's embracing it this time rather than saying "Ok, do as you will" and otherwise ignoring them.

      --Joe

    2. Re:Blackfin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the TI C Compiler manual:
      "By ISO C definition, the sizeof operator yields the number of bytes required
      to store an object. ISO further stipulates that when sizeof is applied to char,
      the result is 1. Since the C54x char is 16 bits (to make it separately addressable),
      a byte is also 16 bits. This yields results you may not expect; for
      example, sizeof (int) = = 1 (not 2). C54x bytes and words are equivalent (16
      bits)."

      So sizeof (char) on a 16 bit DSP is 1, not 2.

    3. Re:Blackfin? by jesup · · Score: 1

      There are couple other Linux's available for the C6000 series of TI DSPs (SoftTier, etc), though not from TI.

    4. Re:Blackfin? by GregAllen · · Score: 1

      Was sizeof(char) really 2, or was it just that char was 16 bits?
      C54x bytes and words are equivalent (16 bits)." So sizeof (char) on a 16 bit DSP is 1, not 2.

      I stand corrected -- sizeof(char) was 1, but a char was 16 bits. That's equally confounding, and exactly my point. :)

      --
      Please help find my missing daughter: FindSabrina.org
    5. Re:Blackfin? by pev · · Score: 1
      Analog Devices makes a family of DSP called the Blackfin that runs uClinux. We've been using a development board for well over a year. If this is TI's first linux offering, I'd say they're late to the party.

      No, they've been providing Linux on the OMAP (dual core ARM9+C55) for at least a couple of years in both Open Source and Montavista flavours.

      ~Pev
  19. FYI: MontaVista is what NetGear uses in the WG302 by Seraphnote · · Score: 1

    FYI: MontaVista is what NetGear uses in the WG302 Wireless Access Point

  20. Too many companies... by Mr+Z · · Score: 5, Informative

    Our compiler supports exceptions now? I've only ever used our C compiler and the linear assembly optimizer. I haven't really touched our C++ support.

    All I can say is when you find bugs, send them in and get a bug number. The compiler team does track bugs, and they can't fix bugs they don't know about.

    The IDE (Code Composer Studio) is not handled by the compiler team and I don't know if anyone on the compiler team uses it much, if at all. CCS is maintained in TI Toronto, last I knew. They too track bug reports. Unfortunately, though, they're under greater feature pressure than bug fix pressure. That makes it even more important to file bugs. Otherwise they'll never get the message. I'm probably not the only person who finds it a tad ironic that our integrated development environment is actually built out of parts by a handful of groups, at least a couple of which (TI Toronto, formerly Go DSP and TI Santa Barbara, formerly Spectron) used to be 3rd party companies. :-)

    FWIW, I don't really use CCS myself either. These days I barely even use the compiler, though. The last time I used CCS seriously, I filed plenty of bugs against it. Our software tools team continues to evolve and I've seen some changes recently that I think will point CCS in a better direction. Here's hoping! (Since I am a TIer, I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say, so sorry I haven't given more juicy details.)

    --Joe

    1. Re:Too many companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compiler has supported exceptions for a while but support for them in the IDE has been non-existant until recently.

      Unfortunately, tools software in TI has always been the red headed stepchild. There is a grand total of about 30 engineers working on the IDE, for example. Meanwhile many of the other teams at the internal Software Developer's Conference feel ashamed when their internal tools sub-teams (i.e. the configuration management/build people people that make custom scripting etc for them) number "only" twenty people. That's right, they have 2/3 the people just working on build and clearcase scripts for some codec as they have working on the entire IDE.

      It's sad but until TI smartens up and throws some money at the tools, the status quo is going to be maintained. There's only so much you can do when you have half as many people as you should have, and the work keeps doubling every year.

    2. Re:Too many companies... by jesup · · Score: 1

      The C++ compiler supports templates as well. How well and how efficiently - those are other questions I haven't answered, but as far as I've tested they work.

      Breaking DAT_copy() was a real "oops". How in the world did that ever escape...

      It's really annoying how looking at certain things (stats windows, CPU use, etc) slows down all future JTAG operations including loading code, dramatically, until you quit and restart.

      The IDE/JTAG losing communication with the CPU - this happens way too often if the DSP iloops (perhaps in non-interruptible loops).

      Profiling (and figuring how to set it up) is a mess. This may be a combined tool, OS, design and documentation issue.

    3. Re:Too many companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can say is when you find bugs, send them in and get a bug number. The compiler team does track bugs, and they can't fix bugs they don't know about.

      That's fair. But users, especially paying customers of commercial products, still expect products without excessive number of bugs. That's what QA is for.

  21. This is great! by British · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I can run Linux on my TI-99/4A!

  22. Amiga? by myspys · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who, when reading the specs on the website, gets the feeling that the "Amiga-setup" might be coming back in style? :)

    1. Re:Amiga? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Nah... the DSP on there is a C64+. Maybe our next DSP will be the C68x-family... ;-)

      (And no, I wasn't the only one who chuckled when we brought out the C64 DSP family...)

    2. Re:Amiga? by jesup · · Score: 1

      I think the poster was referring to it being Amiga-like in terms of "GP CPU plus coprocessors for sound/video/etc". And in a way, it is. The coprocessor core (DSP) is more general-purpose, and it's all on a chip instead of as a system, but the general idea of specialization is there. It is a bit stretched, though.

      The C64 name is a bit amusing. Even C65 would be - the Commodore C65 actually existed, and after bankruptcy about the about 100-200 C65's escaped into the wild. 4?MHz 6502 (we had 10MHz 6502s but I think this used a 4MHz; the original C64 was 1MHz), "hires" 256-color display (palette either 65K or 16M), high speed disk built in, (simple) bit blitter, etc.

    3. Re:Amiga? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Oh, I realize the SoC architecture of DaVinci does evoke some of the same distributed compute concepts as Amiga's "three sisters." I was attempting to make a lame joke, as Commodore refused to kill the C64 and push the Amiga (here in the states, at least) and in the end the whole company became irrelevant...

  23. Yeah Another One Legged Dan Brown Theory by ACS+Data+Recovery · · Score: 1

    If he could ever write something that was historically accurate then maybe. But I'm sure that this whole business of Linux and TI teaming up on DaVinci no doubtedly has something to do with all this and I'm sure it will finally tie that Merovingian bloodline to Jesus once and for all!!

    --
    Greg Duffield
    ACS Data Recovery
    www.acsdata.com
  24. DSP is worthless IMHO by yoghurt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am a systems engineering and have had the misfortune of working with DSP chips. They are special purpose CPUs which do one thing well, implementing a fast filter. The trouble is, they really suck at branching and I/O servicing like protocol stack handling, decoding messages and state-machines. They don't seem to spend much time doing the filtering, but spend an inordinate amount of time in the less glamorous housekeeping section.

    Give me a decent MIPS or powerpc. So what if it takes twice as long to run the filter; you don't spend most of your time in the filter. And now running linux, this will be even more accentuated. What a loser idea.

    They get used around here because if it's a DSP, the hardware guys get to write the software instead of the software guys. It has nothing to do with price or what is the best technical solution. It is a turf war and reaction against software guys who might not understand what they are coding.

    It is also a bit of domain crossing pain avoidance. The slowdown of writing specs (which look like code) and they having someone else type it, get it wrong, another rev of specs spelling it out in even more excruciating detail &c.

    TI wants to push its crappy DSP because they are getting ousted by power and arm processors.

    --
    Yoghurt
    1. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't know much about OMAP. The processor with which this article is referring is a combination of an ARM and a DSP in a single package.

    2. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TI wants to push its crappy DSP because they are getting ousted by power and arm processors.

      But what I got from the article (reads like a press release, actually) is that it is designed to interface with arm, so they are using the DSP for what the DSP is good for (filter) and using a generic processor for the rest...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    3. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by tatsu69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I big thing with this is that there are 2 CPU cores on the one die. There is an ARM9 processor and a TI C64x DSP core. Think AMP (Asymentric Multi Processing) with the DaVinci stuff for now.

      This allows the processor that is good at branching and control code to execute that and the DSP to execute the filters that it is good at.

    4. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by Mechanik · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are special purpose CPUs which do one thing well, implementing a fast filter. The trouble is, they really suck at branching and I/O servicing like protocol stack handling, decoding messages and state-machines.

      You are entirely missing the point because that IS the point of the DSP. It is a lean, mean, number crunching machine, that crunches those numbers extremely fast and with low power consumption. If you need to control pretty GUIs on the device's LCD screen, use an ARM or somesuch. Better yet, use OMAP and get both.

      You're not going to run a cellphone for days without charging if you try to use MIPS or powerpc. You will if you use an OMAP.

    5. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by hGMFliP · · Score: 1

      It's my impression that DSPs are "special purpose" processors designed to be really good at real-time digital signal processing. Nothing more, nothing less. ARMs, MIPSs, and PowerPCs are more general microprocessors and should be used as such. I can only imagine the extent of your woes if you were using a DSP as your core processor (though some people do).

      I've had a pretty good experience with TI's DSP as we have prototyped a fiber-optic communication device a few years back. I wish TI had embedded Linux with the DSP then so I wouldn't have spend my waking hours asking the TI DSP/BIOS guys how to configure the boot-on-powerup sequence (at the time, this had not been added to their documentation).

      --
      This message was posted using recycled electrons.
    6. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by elknco1 · · Score: 1

      actually this product sounds like it'd be perfect for your situation. the ARM can handle all of the "housekeeping" thats taking so long and you can have a real software guy write that code while the hardware guys can focus on the filtering on the DSP chip. if not, PPCs are being used to run DSP code nowadays using Altivec libraries. although, if your software guys have trouble coding DSP software, it won't matter if it runs on a DSP chip or a general purpose chip and you'll still have the hardware guys trying to implement the algorithms. i'm assuming you were able to write C code for the DSP and had DSP libraries at your disposal on the project you worked on.

    7. Re:DSP is worthless IMHO by ntropic · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, really! Try decoding a h.264 main profile stream on Mips or powerPC and then talk about how useless DSPs are. You seem to be doing mainly control software with little or no signal processing, so using a RISC core may seem like a good idea to you. Try some real signal processing to learn about why one needs special purpose engines like DSPs.

  25. Hypocritical by FrankDrebin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's all well and good for TI to benefit from the open source community. But TI still refuses to publish their WiFi information for open source driver developers.

    In 2001, TI (Texas Instruments) decided to make a big push on the 802.11 market. ... From the start, TI has refused to give any help towards a Linux driver and have decided to totally ignore the Linux community.

    Sure it's all great to see some more uptake of Linux, but beware that TI has not shown itself to be a great friend in the past.

    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
    1. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they milk from OSS instead and give nothing back. Nothing new here...

    2. Re:Hypocritical by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You make a good point; TI is no friend to open source or Free software.

      However, just because someone releases a Linux-based product doesn't even begin to suggest that they are, so I'm not sure if 'hypocrisy' is really the right thing to be calling them out for. I don't think they've ever claimed to support open source in any form, and it seems as if their inclusion of Linux is really more because they've finially realized that there are a lot more Linux programmers than DSP programmers, and they need to get with the program or die.

      I think it's safe to say that they're definitely not into the Linux philosophy in any way, shape, or form; that said, they're not above trying to market to Linux embedded-systems programmers.

      It's unfortunate that they choose to do this, because I've always though TI's low-level component products (semis and ICs) were great: always well-documented and logically designed. (Plus they let you buy single-unit samples off of their website, which is pretty nice.) However when it comes to their computer hardware, chipsets and the like, I avoid it like the plague.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to take issue with that. I work with an embedded TI processor. The user guide sucks and, as for the datasheet, they have no visible revision control, I was nearly bitten by a fundamental change in the data sheet from one revision to another.

      When they issue a new data sheet, it could be to correct a spelling mistake or because a fundamental electrical property was wrong, I can tolerate that, everyone makes mistakes, but they don't tell you what changed! Oh and when I complained they didn't even acknowledge the complaint, they just carried on issuing new revisions of datasheet without indicating the changes. It will be a cold day in hell when I design in any Texas components if I can source an equivalent from another manufacturer.

      I also have an ACX100 based WiFi card which is a useless brick under Linux (I know, caveat emptor).

    4. Re:Hypocritical by Bralkein · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was considering posting the same thing, because I have suffered from this when I bought a WLAN card with TI's ACX111 (a friend mistakenly told me it has full Linux support). If they just totally ingored Linux altogether, then that's one thing, but it's sad to see them using Linux like this without putting in the tiniest bit of effort to help the project out in return.

      Incidentally, the drivers on the site given by the parent poster have stopped working for me recently, but there are updated drivers in the Andrew Morton kernel patchset that work like a charm for me.

    5. Re:Hypocritical by Mechanik · · Score: 1

      You make a good point; TI is no friend to open source or Free software.

      I wouldn't agree with such a blanket statement. TI is currently contributing actively to Eclipse, for example.

    6. Re:Hypocritical by pev · · Score: 1
      It's all well and good for TI to benefit from the open source community. But TI still refuses to publish their WiFi information for open source driver developers.

      have you considered the fact that maybe their driver contains proprietary 3rd party IP that they're not at liberty to disclose? It happens quite often in my experience. Also with companies like TI often the will is there to help but you need to find the right person inside the company to talk to that is both willing to help and has the right contacts to make things happen.

      ~Pev
  26. Sorry, but no by quanticle · · Score: 1

    This is just for TI's DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chips (i.e. the kind you'd find in sound systems, and TVs). TI calculators, ironically enough, use Motorola CPUs, with some kind of proprietary assembly language.

    Besides, I don't think there's enough RAM to run Linux. NetBSD maybe, but not Linux.

    --
    We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    1. Re:Sorry, but no by Hymer · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but I assume from your comment that you think a TI 99/4A is a calculator... it is not, it is in fact one of the first (if not the first) 16-bit home computers. We are back in the Sinclair ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64 days and it is before Commodore Amiga and Atari ST.
      Some specs can be found here TI 99/4A

  27. TI Calculators Growing up into palm-tops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be great to see TI calculators grow up into full featured palmtops.

    With what we are seeing what can be done on Cell phones and laptops,
    TI is overdue for boosting the abilities in it's products.

    When I first saw the Samsung i730
    I thought that T.I. could be doing products like that.
    A full color screen, retractable QWERTY keyboard, ability to do calculations, email, music, and video.

    Every iPod and Palm device in the world could have been a T.I. product!

    If only Texas Instruments would wake up from behind the wheel and start driving their company into new market spaces.

    1. Re:TI Calculators Growing up into palm-tops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're missing the point - TI makes 90% of it's revenue from selling chips that end up in palmtops, cell phones, mp3 players, digital cameras, not calculators. the calculators are there because they're profitable and because they have consumer brand recognition. 90% of what TI produces consumers don't see directly. pull out you mobile phone - there's a very high probability that there is a lot of TI silicon on there along with software... which would have been developed with TI's development tools.

      why make your own product when you can sell chips into everyone elses... that's by far a better strategy than trying to sell consumer devices that get commoditized rapidly.
      ti is pretty good in this space - Intel has been gunning to get into their markets but so far that gorilla (which is many times bigger than TI) has not succeeded.

      cheers.
      ritalin assasin

  28. Unsubscribe by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    unsubscribe

  29. So Much Bullshit! by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are wrong.

    Please read the ellided GPL pieces below (or read a copy of the GPL). We do not mention what constitutes a derived work here, but the rights and obligations are clear. You would be wrong -- source rights extend to any 3rd party, or include full source which is then again distributable.

    Ratboy

    " if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

    " You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

    " You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

            a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

            b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

            c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) "

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:So Much Bullshit! by binford2k · · Score: 1

      And how does this explain the parent wrong? It appears to me that the parent loosely described pretty much the same thing.

    2. Re:So Much Bullshit! by leinhos · · Score: 1

      Well, I certainly won't claim that I am absolutely right. However, from the GPL FAQ:

      If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

      No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.


      That seems pretty clear, but I couldn't have told you that from reading the actual license.

  30. Exactly so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You use a DSP for what it is good at. You use it because nothing else will do the job. There are many applications for DSPs. As the grandparent states or implies, you can do DSP tasks on any processor. I've even done simple filtering using a PIC. When you need a DSP to do a DSP's job is really obvious though. You'll know it when it hits you in the face and you can't do the job any other way.

  31. I can't say I disagree. by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    I'd love it if we put more people on our tools teams. I know I raise that point whenever I can here at work. TI is a silicon company first, though, so that's where they tend to put their money first. Like I said, I've seen some internal organizational shifts that I hope also signal a change in attitude towards tools investment. That's about all I can say, though.

    I'm not trying to be an apologist. When I speak here, it's for me, not the company. I can say generically, though, that internal customers can sometimes be as frustrated as external customers. :-)

  32. DAT_copy by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, that does suck that DAT_copy got broken. I worked with the guys that defined it initially. I do remember there was an integer-wrapping problem that broke it for a little while years ago (C6211 days), but I didn't think that escaped the lab.

    The ownership of that code's shifted around a few times. That's more reflective of our internal organizational structure than anything else. The DSP software applications teams have changed shape a couple times since I was last a member of that group. These days I'm on an architecture team, so I'm kinda out of touch with how they're shaped specifically today.

    --Joe

  33. Multiproc Network by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

    There's also the chance to write apps to a Linux API on an FPGA. I'd love to see one of those MicroBlaze/uCLinux chips interfaced directly with one of these TI DSP/MVLinux chips, running multiprocessors. You can even put multiple MB/uCL instances on a single FPGA, with gates to spare. Which are gates that can be used to solve multiproc problems in ways unavailable to fixed-config chips like x86, PPC, or even the TI DSP. How about a Beowulf cluster in gates of these...

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  34. yeah, but can you get it or afford it by scatterbrained · · Score: 1

    The problem with OMAP and a lot of other TI stuff is that they either flat out say they won't support small developers (what, you only want 1000 units? don't waste my time) or they put really large prices on things like mpeg encoder libraries ($25K - just so we don't have to deal with the little guys who can't pony up). Other vendors do a much better job of supporting the little guys.

    --
    -- All that's left of me, is slight insanity, whats on the right, I don't know. -- Bob Mould
    1. Re:yeah, but can you get it or afford it by pev · · Score: 1
      The problem with OMAP and a lot of other TI stuff is that they either flat out say they won't support small developers (what, you only want 1000 units? don't waste my time)

      Well I can explain this in better detail for you (See disclaimer at end of post) The model that TI have is that you have two business types : Wireless (people doing seriously high volumes) and Catalog (everyone else). They support the big boys directly, but for the smaller volumes they have 3rd parties as intermediaries to provide support. For example wth the OMAP processors you have to go to an OMAP Technology Centre (OTC) for support - If you're in the UK and want systems integration support for catalog OMAP or DaVinci chips you will probably get pointed in the direction of my employers by TI (and may even get me on the end of the phone at some point!). This does actually work well for all concerned. If you're not convinced feel free to get in touch with me (I'm an engineer not a salesman and don't bite/sell!) Bear in mind of course that some CPU's are catalog or wireless only, but there's often overlap. For example OMAP1510 was wireless and OMAP5910 was catalog but were essentially the same silicon.

      or they put really large prices on things like mpeg encoder libraries ($25K - just so we don't have to deal with the little guys who can't pony up). Other vendors do a much better job of supporting the little guys.

      This is actually one of the things they're addressing with DaVinci - Unlike with OMAP where sure, you got DSP/BIOS-Link and the Refrence Frameworks where you could simply bolt in XDAIS algorithms which of course you have to source, with DaVinci they are providing libraries of common codecs for use out of the box. This is something I should stress is one of the (shudder at using a marketing term!) 'Value-add' aspects of the DaVinci programme - it's more than just a processor. 'DaVinci' actually consists of the application frameworks and codec library as well to make a complete system. For DaVinci I'm not sure what i can say at this stage but as I understand it, the EVM will come with a good selection of audio and video encode and decode algorithms that you can use that are un-crippled.

      Disclaimer : I work for MPC-Data Limited We're partners with TI for both OMAP and DaVinci as well as partners with MontaVista and Microsoft (CE Systems Integration Gold partners). Personally I've worked heavily on OMAP projects over the past few years including porting both Linux and Windows CE to different processor variants. So I may have some bias here :-)

      ~Pev
  35. Nothing really new, even on TI ARM/DSP's by updog · · Score: 1
    TI's last generation of ARM/DSP SOC's support Linux as well, from a company called Cadenux.

    Check out their list of TI platforms: http://www.cadenux.com/bsp/

  36. What would really be cool... by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

    ...would be putting linux on their calculators. I can't imagaine how nice it would be to be able to code in C, Perl, or Python, or even just use a shell on my Ti-84

    --
    I am Spartacus
  37. Of course... by jtgd · · Score: 1

    Of course, with embedded VMware!

    --
    J
  38. There's already a DSP effort: dspgateway by bmidgley · · Score: 1

    Is TI doing anything to work with the dspgateway project? It's already giving linux on OMAP access to the dsp.

    http://dspgateway.sourceforge.net/pub/index.php?Pa ge=What_Is

    This is how the Nokia 770 makes use of the dsp, so there may even start to be more mainstream interest. (The Nokia 770 is a linux platform running on a TI OMAP 1710)

  39. Try the Sigma Designs EM8634 Chip by Umanity · · Score: 1

    Hello,

    I don't think TI did anything which hasn't already been done. I work at Sigma Designs and we have developed several DSP chipsets which run Linux. We use ARM/MIPS as host and DSP for video/audio decoding. Our chips are used in Set-top boxes and Digital Media Players. We have been one of the leaders in this field for over five years.

    Check out http://www.sigmadesigns.com/

    Thank you,
    Michael Uman
    Sr. Software Engineer, System tools
    Sigma Designs

    --

    Michael A. Uman
    Sr Software Engineer
    softwaremagic.net

    1. Re:Try the Sigma Designs EM8634 Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guess who's got more market share.... gobble gobble.

  40. So long as the tools stay free (small f) by xtal · · Score: 1

    The biggest obstactle to the adoption of DSP computing has been price to entry. A modern compiler for a TI series DSP is thousands of dollars. That buys a lot of commodity hardware to hack on.

    If they're going to keep the development toolchain open, this could be a very potent package indeed. Part of me doubts that is going to happen, given the nature of the business.

    --
    ..don't panic
  41. What would you prefer ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you prefer TI taking another decade and half to fix the Bugs ??
    Or will it not be better to outsource the job to Bangalore where Graduate
      Engineer are working at rate of domestic workers so that TI can hire them by dozen and fix the bug in months ???

  42. Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I have to retract my well thought out and logical conspiracy theory. My years of serious debate and research ruined by this fact that I overlooked!

  43. Davinci - More authentic info by lazer_nm · · Score: 1

    Hi Folks, For those who are still interested, here is it in linuxdevices http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9968931411.html