0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How unexpected. This is one of the products, that was known to fail from the very start.
...It will probably fail badly on the market they targeting, and even it would be good for something else, that will not matter...
I would never touch Intel ... for embedded system, for any serious business.
OK, Intel, here, I announce, you can officially hire me as a consultant for the embedded division. My rate is 10.000 USD/hour. I could tell you on day 1 that your platform is going to fail. It would have saved you millions, maybe billions.
I've got access to like 200 Galileo boards. They are just sitting in a locked closet.
The Galileo was awesome to learn about x86-firmware and bootstrapping. The CPU was simple and yet complicated enough to learn a lot. And all components of UEFI are completely open source and you could easily hack on them. Intel even published guides on how to compile all the stuff. That's not existent for any other board. And the CPU supports JTAG with a simple FT2232 adapter and OpenOCD. Try to get JTAG access to any other Intel CPU...Also it's nice to play around with PCIe. It's small, so you can put it with your FPGA board and take it to a hackerspace, a friend or somewhere else.These are very niche applications I have to admit, but that's why I bought one. And I hope it doesn't break anytime soon.
Is Joule the shortest lived Intel product in after Y2K (available from Mouser from late last year, and NRND now)? I feel VERY bad for using Joule on a test gear I'm developing.And of course, I won't trust Intel Aero or Euclid or any IoT things from Intel anymore.Ironically I got Joule board right after launching and it will become deprecated before my design goes to test run.
Maybe Intel thinks that QEMU + KVM is good enough a development platform for kernel code...?
Quote from: technix on June 20, 2017, 01:30:14 amMaybe Intel thinks that QEMU + KVM is good enough a development platform for kernel code...?For kernel code alone that might even be true, but it just isn't the real thing. Sooner or later with these embedded boards you need an interface to some piece of special hardware. And I don't want to implement that in qemu. Especially when I interface my custom hardware like an FPGA via PCIe. I absolutely need real hardware for that.
The firmware stuff with UEFI and Coreboot is special. At least UEFI can run in qemu, but you are replacing huge chunks with vastly different components. If you are interested in really early boot stuff like the basic chipset or memory controller configuration, you need hardware. Also security related stuff like flash write protection or system Management mode is going to behave differently in software environments than on hardware. Even real chipsets differ a lot there.
I just like to tinker around and try to figure out what makes things tick. The Galileo was perfect for more advanced stuff on a very low level without spending thousands of dollars for "real" reference devboards which you don't even get as a private nerd.
I feel VERY bad for using Joule on a test gear I'm developing.
Quote from: G33KatWork on June 20, 2017, 02:04:32 amQuote from: technix on June 20, 2017, 01:30:14 amMaybe Intel thinks that QEMU + KVM is good enough a development platform for kernel code...?For kernel code alone that might even be true, but it just isn't the real thing. Sooner or later with these embedded boards you need an interface to some piece of special hardware. And I don't want to implement that in qemu. Especially when I interface my custom hardware like an FPGA via PCIe. I absolutely need real hardware for that.QEMU + KVM supports PCIe passthrough using Intel VT-d. Even if your own FPGA does not support VT-d directly, adding a VT-d aware PCIe to PCIe bridge chip works around the limitations. Oh VT-d are only available on higher end chips like Core i7/i9 and Xeons.
Quote from: G33KatWork on June 20, 2017, 02:04:32 amThe firmware stuff with UEFI and Coreboot is special. At least UEFI can run in qemu, but you are replacing huge chunks with vastly different components. If you are interested in really early boot stuff like the basic chipset or memory controller configuration, you need hardware. Also security related stuff like flash write protection or system Management mode is going to behave differently in software environments than on hardware. Even real chipsets differ a lot there.They don't even bother thinking about true early bootloader or SMM stuff that is highly dependent on (NDA encumbered) datasheets of the chips used.
UEFI application themselves are supposed to be portable, and QEMU + KVM is supposed to provide a compatible solution.
Quote from: technix on June 20, 2017, 02:14:41 amQuote from: G33KatWork on June 20, 2017, 02:04:32 amQuote from: technix on June 20, 2017, 01:30:14 amMaybe Intel thinks that QEMU + KVM is good enough a development platform for kernel code...?For kernel code alone that might even be true, but it just isn't the real thing. Sooner or later with these embedded boards you need an interface to some piece of special hardware. And I don't want to implement that in qemu. Especially when I interface my custom hardware like an FPGA via PCIe. I absolutely need real hardware for that.QEMU + KVM supports PCIe passthrough using Intel VT-d. Even if your own FPGA does not support VT-d directly, adding a VT-d aware PCIe to PCIe bridge chip works around the limitations. Oh VT-d are only available on higher end chips like Core i7/i9 and Xeons.Also doesn't work on mobile setups which was my point. My current notebook doesn't have an express card slot or thunderbolt port.
Quote from: technix on June 20, 2017, 02:14:41 amQuote from: G33KatWork on June 20, 2017, 02:04:32 amThe firmware stuff with UEFI and Coreboot is special. At least UEFI can run in qemu, but you are replacing huge chunks with vastly different components. If you are interested in really early boot stuff like the basic chipset or memory controller configuration, you need hardware. Also security related stuff like flash write protection or system Management mode is going to behave differently in software environments than on hardware. Even real chipsets differ a lot there.They don't even bother thinking about true early bootloader or SMM stuff that is highly dependent on (NDA encumbered) datasheets of the chips used.That's what I am trying to say all the time: The Quark X1000 on the Galileo is fully documented. That thing is better documented and more open than a stupid Raspberry Pi! The datasheet has almost 900 pages full of register descriptions.The Intel FSP which is closed for all other chips is available as source code. The UEFI EDK2 which alao contains all the platform code as well. So you can either build your own UEFI or even cooler: Build your own custom firmware which uses the FSP for platform init just because it's possible.The SoC doesn't have an ME or TXE. You control the very first instruction and you have all the code and documentation.https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/quark-x1000-datasheet.pdfhttps://github.com/feizwang/quarkfsp
Quote from: technix on June 20, 2017, 02:14:41 amUEFI application themselves are supposed to be portable, and QEMU + KVM is supposed to provide a compatible solution.I don't care about applications.
AMD is finally putting pressure on Intel and they are getting workforces concentrated in beating Zen.
Qualcomm, however, was unfazed by the warning. The chip designer pretty much told Intel to go fsck itself.
controller for a quadcopter, something that could be done and done pretty well with a $10 Arduino clone.