Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:32MB no-MMU ARM boards which people run new things and attach newYes, you may have several products on the same hardware with somewhat
devices to rather often - without making new hardware. Volume's too
low per individual application to get new hardware designed and made.
differing requirements (or not). But that is much less than a general
purpose system IMHO.
It is, but the idea that small embedded systems go through a 'all
components are known, drivers are known, test and if it passes it's
shippable' does not always apply.
I'm seriously thinking of forwarding porting the 4 year old firmwareThat sounds reasonable (and I never meant maintaining the old system
from 2.4.26 to 2.6.current, just to get new drivers and capabilities.
infinitely.
Sounds reasonable, but it's vetoed for anticipated time and cost,
compared with backporting on demand. Fair enough, since 2.6.current
doesn't support ARM no-MMU last I heard ('soon'?).
On the other hand, the 2.6 anti-fragmentation patches, including
latest SLUB stuff, ironically meant to help big machines, sound really
appealing for my current problem and totally unrealistic to
backport...
ACK. We avoid MMU-less hardware too - especially since there is enough
hardware with a MMU around.
I can't emphasise enough how much difference MMU makes to Linux userspace.
It's practically: MMU = standard Linux (with less RAM), have everything.
No-MMU = lots of familiar 'Linux' things not available or break.