Hi, I have used Keil to complete a ADuc836(8051 core) product development. Now I am looking at another product with RTOS, by searching "8051 Chips Supported By Keil", I find only very few choice is available. (1) Is anyone in the forum know how to use Keil and RTOS on 8051 ? Is any successful story ? (2) Take CMX-RTX as an example. CMX-RTX says every task takes 28 bytes RAM, 8051 only have 128 bytes, how many tasks can create ? (3) Take CMX-RTX as an example. We know Keil employ call tree to deal with function pointer, programmer has to manually tell Keil compiler the actually called function, If this is your code, you can do that, However, if function pointer used by CMX-RTX (actually it does)? How do I modify call tree for RTOS ? Do I have to do that ? Thanks Daniel
RTX51 Tiny is the product we have designed for small 8051 devices like the ADuC836. It is part of PK51. More info: http://www.keil.com/c51/tr51.asp
It's almost general consensus that for most projects that make sense being done with a classic 8051 (extended editions like the MX, DS80C390 and colleages exempt), an RTOS usually causes more trouble than it helps. In other words: if you really need an RTOS, a low-end '51 usually isn't the right controller to use.
Is any successful story ? Oh yes, you can find them such as (if the reports were honest) "after replacing the chip with a faster version and adding 128kb of RAM and banking the project worked, albeit a bit slower than we Would want". Erik
Is any successful story ? Yes. I have written an application using RTX51-Tiny. The application flew on the Space Shuttle and on the MIR. The 8051 was used to interface an IEE LCD-backlit push-button to a PC-104 ISA bus. The 8051 had 2 jobs: 1) receive commands from the PC, 2) constantly refresh the LCD on the button. It was possible to write this without an RTOS. However, I decided that I could do this easily with the RTOS using 2 tasks. The problems I have seen with using an RTOS is not the commercial RTOS but poorly-designed home-brew RTOS's. Jon
The problems I have seen with using an RTOS is that most that use them consider it an excuse not to care about timing (a valid thing when programs run under windows). It is absolutely true that someone that can write quality code for the '51 without a RTOS can use the '51 with a RTOS. Ever so many that "demand" a RTOS have no idea what it means to program a '51 they state "C is C, why should I care" which is about as obscene as any expression can be. Erik