RTX Code Banking

"But there is no point in using code banking unless you've exceeded the 8051's address space - so that is inherently an "overload" of sorts!"

Do you consider using more that 64k of NV xdata storage an 'overload'?

"if you've decided that a 'small' controller like an 8051 is suitable for your project, I can't really see why you should then need to use an RTOS."

You may not *need* to use an RTOS. Using one, however, may be a convenient and effective way of coding a given application.

"But there is no point in using code banking unless you've exceeded the 8051's address space - so that is inherently an "overload" of sorts!"

Do you consider using more that 64k of NV xdata storage an 'overload'?

"if you've decided that a 'small' controller like an 8051 is suitable for your project, I can't really see why you should then need to use an RTOS."

You may not *need* to use an RTOS. Using one, however, may be a convenient and effective way of coding a given application.

OOPS
"But there is no point in using code banking unless you've exceeded the 8051's address space - so that is inherently an "overload" of sorts!"

Do you consider using more that 64k of NV xdata storage an 'overload'?
Nobody said anything about data exceeding 64k. I have such, but access it by other means than Keils "banking" with associated overhead

Erik

"Nobody said anything about data exceeding 64k."

Er, yes *I* did. I was drawing a parallel between using more code space than the 8051 was designed to address and more xdata space that the 8051 was designed to address.

"I have such, but access it by other means than Keils "banking" with associated overhead"

You cannot access more than 64k of xdata without *some* overhead. The 8051 is not designed to address more than 64k. According to your philosophy you have used the wrong microprocessor for the job.

You cannot access more than 64k of xdata without *some* overhead. The 8051 is not designed to address more than 64k. According to your philosophy you have used the wrong microprocessor for the job.
No, I have not - even by my own philosophy.
I only need access to about 25 bytes of the >64k data about once an hour. The reason that I do not use banking with its overhead is that the rest of the time I run "true '51" aka hauling @$$. Had I needed that data more often I would not have used a '51 derivative.

Erik

"No, I have not - even by my own philosophy."

I think you have. It seems that you are quite happy to make sweeping generalisations to others along the lines of 'You must not do X because the 8051 is not the right processor for use with tool x or technique y or algorithm z', but you make an exception for yourself.

I only need access to about 25 bytes of the >64k data about once an hour.

"The reason that I do not use banking with its overhead is that the rest of the time I run "true '51" aka hauling @$$. Had I needed that data more often I would not have used a '51 derivative."

So you're pushing it that close to the wire? Sounds like you should have used a faster processor.

""true '51" aka hauling @$$"

Why do you have this idea that the 8051 is only 'true' when it is 'hauling @$$'?

Why do you have this idea that the 8051 is only 'true' when it is 'hauling @$$'?
Staffan, Staffan, once more: because it has the features of a microcontroller and thus is great as such and pitiful for other things.

The fact that you can hammer a nail in with a shoe does not make the shoe the right tool.

There is a group of people that want to use "their" controller for whatever the task is (I have seen 386 equipped things that could have been done with a small PIC). How do you know that the OP is not one such?
The point is not that it is "wrong" the point is that when the OP will not qualify ("if i am satisfied with the 8051") the use of the '51 for a particular purpose, we must assume that (s)he is applying the '51 to something where it does not belong. Thus to save the OP from spending an inordinate amount of time on something that most likely will fail Andy and I keep questioning the use of a '51.

If this forum is to be helpful assumptions about whatever could be wrong for the OP must be refuted by the OP or left standing.

You and I do not know that the OPs use of a '51 will ever work so why do you balk at the posts that state so when the OP does not even have the gumption to state why he insist on using a '51.


On another note:
So you're pushing it that close to the wire? Sounds like you should have used a faster processor.
Not having the time to spend 3 more clock cycles for every memory access is hardly "pushing it that close to the wire". By my method, I only have overhead when accessing outside the 64k, and when that is needed, I am in "keyboard mode"

Erik

"Staffan, Staffan, once more: because it has the features of a microcontroller and thus is great as such and pitiful for other things."

So you're putting not only your favourite upper limits on what it should be used for (no floating point, code banking and RTOS) but now there is some lower limit as well? What is it, 90% CPU utilisation? 95%?

"The fact that you can hammer a nail in with a shoe does not make the shoe the right tool."

No, but there are a great many things to be cosidered. This analogy moves us a long way backwards in this discussion.

"There is a group of people that want to use "their" controller for whatever the task is (I have seen 386 equipped things that could have been done with a small PIC). How do you know that the OP is not one such?"

I don't, but you assume he is.

"The point is not that it is "wrong" the point is that when the OP will not qualify ("if i am satisfied with the 8051") the use of the '51 for a particular purpose,"

Why should the OP qualify his use of an 8051 to you? It would be pointless anyway - you would never accept his reasons.

"we must assume that (s)he is applying the '51 to something where it does not belong."

You see - there it is again. You assume that the OP must be wrong without any knowledge of his project.

"Thus to save the OP from spending an inordinate amount of time on something that most likely will fail Andy and I keep questioning the use of a '51."

That's most commendable.

"If this forum is to be helpful assumptions about whatever could be wrong for the OP must be refuted by the OP or left standing."

What assumptions have you made that he must refute?

"You and I do not know that the OPs use of a '51 will ever work so why do you balk at the posts that state so when the OP does not even have the gumption to state why he insist on using a '51."

I balk for the reason you have just given: I do not know his application in detail and therefore cannot say whether he is using a suitable processor and suitable tools. Neither can you, so it becomes somewhat irritating to listen to the same tired old record '8051==no RTOS, no floating point and no code banking for reasons that I just can't quite adequately explain in any other way than it is wrong, wrong, and wrong again irrespective of the circumstances'.

"Not having the time to spend 3 more clock cycles for every memory access is hardly "pushing it that close to the wire". By my method, I only have overhead when accessing outside the 64k, and when that is needed, I am in "keyboard mode""

I was attempting a little humour.

"If this forum is to be helpful assumptions about whatever could be wrong for the OP must be refuted by the OP or left standing."

What assumptions have you made that he must refute?
well, that is what this discussion now is about.

I was attempting a little humour.
sorry, missed that

Erik