next-generation (now) MPU discussion / RAM/ROM-size requirements

[joerg at openmoko.org]

Am Do  24. April 2008 schrieb Werner Almesberger:
> Andy Green wrote:
> > Well fine, but what does giving the MSP430 the battery backup actually
> > get us?
> 
> Allow us to get out of PMU.Standby, maintain GPIOs while in PMU.Standby,
> etc.
> 
> > Exactly, this is the reason behind the "core" concept.  We need the core
> > to be deployable in any reasonable "clothes" like LCM, physical
> > dimensions, etc.  So it doesn't delay us that the LCM is not decided, we
> > design the core to not depend on particular display.
> 
> Hmm, we can actually apply this to the MPU as well. Since our first
> round of devices will be throw-away anyway, because the LCM will
> change, we may as well err towards having too potent an MPU. If we
> then find out that we only need a small fraction of its capabilities,
> we can always specify a simpler model from the same family. (And
> develop the code for it on the big one.)
> 
> So thumbs up from me for a big MPU in our first GTA04 spin.
> 
> Now, once thing that worries me a bit is that supposedly some of these
> MPUs aren't supported by gcc. (I think Milosch once mentioned that.)
> We have to find out if this is the case with the proposed chip.


Bah, gcc is for wimps! Do it the classic way, code it $hex, using ed or a 
paper and pencil ;-) 
Some REAL fun, long time no see (since 1981 to be true, that's been Z80 
though) XD

/j