• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 22 subscribers
  • Views 2689 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

RTX Tiny and Oregano Systems IP core

Tobias Zuercher

Dear all,

i work with the Oregano systems 8051 IP core and would like to bulid a program with the RTX Tiny. Task 0 of a program runs, but it just doesn't switch to another task whereas it does when i select another target device.
After that, i realized that this controller is not in the list of supported devices (http://www.keil.com/rtx51/chips.asp).

The questions now are:

- is there a way to use the RTX Tiny with this controller anyway?
- is there another os that can be used with this device? ..a free tiny version would be nice...

Thanks for your help and best regards, Tobias

Parents
  • 0 in reply to erik malund

    "And I had a statement of "stuff needed for >64k limear address" which does include the LX51. Thus The LX51 was not missing."

    So, you've dismissed a bunch of tools as "stuff needed for >64k linear address"? Did you know that LX51 has one or two other uses?

    "If you "require" something that does not mean that it is "required" by everybody."

    That's right. However, it also doesn't mean 'not required by anybody'.

    "As I said: "Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."
    Does in no way state "no serious programmer would want the PK""

    That may not be your intent, but taken at face value it means 'PK is not required for serious programming' which is incorrect.

    "I love the little bugger, but do feel that if you use a RTOS, code banking and who knows what with a '51, you have chosen the wrong chip."

    I don't use any of those things however I do require PK. I would agree with your statement if you had said something like '*may* have chosen the wrong chip'. It is unreasonable to assert your *opinion* as fact. At least you have made it clear, in this case, that you are expressing an opinion.

    One day you are going to have to realise that your personal set of rules are not necessarily always correct in all situations. Other people have different approaches to problems which suit them. This does not make them necessarily wrong.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to erik malund

    "And I had a statement of "stuff needed for >64k limear address" which does include the LX51. Thus The LX51 was not missing."

    So, you've dismissed a bunch of tools as "stuff needed for >64k linear address"? Did you know that LX51 has one or two other uses?

    "If you "require" something that does not mean that it is "required" by everybody."

    That's right. However, it also doesn't mean 'not required by anybody'.

    "As I said: "Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."
    Does in no way state "no serious programmer would want the PK""

    That may not be your intent, but taken at face value it means 'PK is not required for serious programming' which is incorrect.

    "I love the little bugger, but do feel that if you use a RTOS, code banking and who knows what with a '51, you have chosen the wrong chip."

    I don't use any of those things however I do require PK. I would agree with your statement if you had said something like '*may* have chosen the wrong chip'. It is unreasonable to assert your *opinion* as fact. At least you have made it clear, in this case, that you are expressing an opinion.

    One day you are going to have to realise that your personal set of rules are not necessarily always correct in all situations. Other people have different approaches to problems which suit them. This does not make them necessarily wrong.

Children
No data