I have purchased RL-ARM but I cant find the source code for TCPNet. Does it not come with the source code?
Thanks
I have just found a another topic on the lack of source code for TCPNet.
http://www.keil.com/forum/docs/thread9030.asp
Seems to me the website has not been clear for a long time over the lack of the TCPNet source code.
RL-TCPnet source code is available as a separate package.
RL-TCPnet source code is not needed to adopt the system to other targets. Therefore it is not included as a standard option.
I'm not good enough to read your web pages. I can't find any note that there is a separate package containing the TCP-IP source code.
Does this hidden software package that I don't seem to be able to find have similiar costs as the Real-Time Library? And yet one more package that needs to be multiplied with number of developers, even if all developers but one just links with a modified object file or library?
So about €4000 + €4000 + €4000 for compiler + real-time library + source in case a project needs to be moved to and/or extended with another developer, in the same way that building a project with a modified RTX kernel requires every developer in the project to have a license of the real-time library, or migrating a project from one developer to another?
Hi,
Currently the TCPnet Source code option is not shown on the website. In fact we have only just decided to introduce the option due to customer requests.
We are now changing a number of the RL-ARM web pages to provide more detail, both technical and commercial for the RL-ARM components. I do agree with you that the current pages do not give you enough information so please bare with us as we update them.
The source for TCPnet will be made available as a separate 'add-on' to the standard RL-ARM package. The reason for this approach is that from customer feedback few users need the TCPnet source code, therefore by offering it as a separate item we are able to maintain the low price of RL-ARM.
Per - on your other question about how to handle this within your development team, it would probably make sense to discuss that off line via email or phone.
Hello Reinhard,
Something else that annoyed me a great deal lately is FlashFS's RAM "drive". Now, I'm working on a system that exports its FAT12 to the outside world and should not allow direct access to the SD card, so I use RAM as an intermittent file system. it took me a while to figure that the RAM "drive" is not a FAT compatible device; hence, it is formatted to 0 (no boot, root, FAT...) and basically it has its own administration decoupled from an actual file system which of course affects all system calls. it is nothing more than a piece of RAM that can be addressed as a file system. you introduce this "drive" alongside the facilities to control the contents of an SD card, external Flash ext., which is a little misleading. I now need to implement my own FAT12 file system - have I read the little letters in the documentation, it is likely that I would have chosen another solution.
Re. Tamir
The RL-ARM ram drive is a drive, which is able to store/retrieve files. It is designed as simple as possible. The user needs it's functionality, not it's implementation. As far as the functionality is concerned, the user needs to write/read files to/from the ram drive. And the RAM drive does just this. It is really fast, small code-sized and very efficient.
Your concept to use the RAM drive as a shadow image of an SD card is wrong. Insisting in this solution, you will have a lot of troubles. Do you have in mind that the PC has it's own file/FAT caching, and might simply miss the change written to SD from embedded system. If this change is in the FAT, an SD card file system corruption is highly likely to happen. On the other hand, the RL-ARM FlashFS also implements it's own FAT/data caching...
no Franc, no shadowing at all! access to the SD card via the RAM drive will be possible via a folder! click on it, and the file system of the SD is made available. so no corruption of any kind is possible.
Do you have in mind that the PC has it's own file/FAT caching, and might simply miss the change written to SD from embedded system.
of course. that is why I will be demounting the RAM drive (hence, also the SD card - remember it is a folder in RAM!) using the soft connect pin or some SCSI magic while writing, until I'm done.