Subject:
|
Re: What I would do (2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:41:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1706 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Anyway, this is just a high-level sketch (I make no claims that this
> architecture is best and I'm sure it would be heavily revised when the rubber
> hits the road (crosses fingers) in February or August)...
>
> -aps
Alexander,
What you are describing seems more like an end application (multiple autonomous
robots that do X and Y and can communicate using Bluetooth) then an RTOS design.
An analogy of your description of using the NXT processor for just the
communication link and letting the real computing power be done on my host PC is
like having a G5 Mac count the drip rate of a leaky faucet, i.e. a big waste of
processing power. An ARM processor (if this is what is in the NXT) is used in
many "powerful" applications including possibly your automotive airbags (see
http://www.arm.com/markets/showcase/).
Rereading the Wired article I would rethink the portability of the motor/sensor
code (2 wire vs. 6 wire connectors). But what you get with UCOS-II is
essentially what is described in Sections 1-2 of "Introduction to the legOS
kernel" [Stig Nielsson, Sept. 27, 2000,
http://legos.sourceforge.net/docs/kerneldoc.ps] or two thirds of a NXT RTOS.
All that is left is writing the motor/sensor code (and the firmware downloader,
Bluetooth code, sample applications, documentation, etc.) But this remaining
third is the fairly simple given information about the hardware is known.
Ed
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) I would be in favor of having a port of BrickOS for NXT (instead of having another thing to learn). I'm not gonna throw away my RCXs and I would prefer having similar languages for both bricks. Yes programmers would need to know the nuances (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) power) and has 64k of memory. How much runtime state can you really process with 64k after the kernel and sensor/motor processes are loaded? Maybe more than I think... Btw, thanks for the document! The current paradigm in RTOS design seems to (...) (18 years ago, 27-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) If the mechnisms for control are still applicable, then yeah, you could port over the code that is used to activate the various sensors. In terms of uCOS, after reading half of the kernel book and actually working with it a little bit (the (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
