??? 05/22/04 23:06 Read: times |
#70972 - RE: WHY?! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I said:
Many on this board would need a lot of convincing that any application on an 8051 would ever need any operating system - me included. For an application appropriate to an 8051, you can generally get perfectly adequate "multitasking" from a very simple scheme such as: void main( void ) { do_initialisation_stuff(); for( ;; ) { task1(); task2(); task3(); task4(); task5(); } }In other words, each time round your main loop makes one call to each "Task" in turn. Each "Task" is implemented as a function; each time the "Task" is called, it does a bit of work, and then returns. Obviously, you have to take care to design your "Tasks" such that they can never hog the processor fo r too long. Essentially, this is the way MS Windows 3.xx worked. Hardware device drivers can be implemented as ISRs, communicating with the "Tasks" via appropriate buffers and/or flags. It's not exactly rocket science! |
Topic | Author | Date |
8051 and Lynix | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: 8051 and Lynix | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: What? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: What? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
8051 and linux | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Typo? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Typo? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Lynix | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: 8051 and Lynix | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: MMU | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: MMU | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: ...and then what? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: ...and then what? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
the mind of a typical Linux geek | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: 8051 and Lynix | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lynix? Linux? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Lynix? Linux?![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
It was Linux | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
WHY?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: WHY?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: WHY?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: WHY?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Conclusion and why Linux | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Conclusion and why Linux | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Dan Henry | 01/01/70 00:00 |