Re: device tree not the answer in the ARM world [was: Re: running Debian on a Cubieboard]
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:19:23AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:
>
> >> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
> >> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
> >> there is a cost overhead of e.g. around $6 in parts for EOMA-68, there
> >> is a whopping great saving of 30 to 40% to the customer when compared
> >> to other products *if* your end-user is prepared to swap / share CPU
> >> Cards between two products. if they share the CPU Card between three
> >> products then the saving to them is even greater.
> >
> >
> > In theory, Moore's Law says that buys you... 9 months?
>
> and 6 months in to that 9 months you bring out the next CPU Card, and
> the next, and the next, and the next, and the next.
In case people haven't noticed yet: Moore's law is over, at least
in terms of financial incentive. So that means high-volume products
like ARM SoCs will be stuck at ~10 nm for a long while.
This gives architecture time to catch up, however, so it might
be a good thing.
> there's a hell of a lot of history already behind the EOMA
> initiatives. i'm running this discussion down, btw - the point's been
> made, and i'm inviting linux kernel developers who may not have been
> aware of the initiative to be involved.
Reply to: