I'm confusing myself at the moment on how the CPU relates to the TPM.
When I tried learning about Apple's Enclave (TPM), the video I watched made it seem like the TPM is a separate processing unit connected to the CPU. As in the TPM itself is a microprocessor connected to the main processing unit.
However, when I tried to learn about ARM TrustZone TPM (found in Android based devices), the article I am reading made it seem like the TPM is within the CPU, not separate. The article specifically states "ARM TrustZone Technology is a hardware-based solution embedded in the ARM processor cores that allows the cores to run two execution environments".
I am having a hard time finding the answer online. I just want to understand the data flow so I can better understand mobile based security options for applications.
Think of the TPM as a specification that describes the inputs and outputs necessary for its operation. Theoretically you could implement this specification purely in software and remain compliant with it. You could also implement it as firmware running on another chip. However, the more removed from the host OS and other hardware the implementation is, the more secure it's considered -- as it makes it harder to compromise the secrets it holds -- so the so called "discrete implementation" is the preferred one, if it can be afforded.
I've been experimenting with JavaFX, and I've found out that as of 2.2.0.b15, it uses GPU to provide improved font rendering. This makes a big difference for me. I intend to use it for visualization and animated UI features, so I'd like to know if GPU support will be provided in Linux.
I have come accross many statements that say that JavaFX will use my GPU if it is supported, and it does, but only under Windows. I have not seen anything about hardware acceleration for graphics under Linux, so I'm curious, can I expect to have this with 2.2 release?
I believe JavaFX for Linux already supports hardware acceleration for some features based on this statement from the JavaFX 2.1 Linux Develop Preview Release Notes:
3D features are supported for Nvidia cards (proprietary drivers only).
Not entirely conclusive, as it does not explicitly mention hardware acceleration, but I think use of hardware acceleration is likely if you have the appropriate Nvidia card and driver installed. Potentially, over time, hardware acceleration support under Linux for other hardware and driver configurations may be added.
I have a very simple Toshiba Laptop with i3 processor. Also, I do not have any expensive graphics card. In the display settings, I see Intel(HD) Graphics as display adapter. I am planning to learn some cuda programming. But, I am not sure, if I can do that on my laptop as it does not have any nvidia's cuda enabled GPU.
In fact, I doubt, if I even have a GPU o_o
So, I would appreciate if someone can tell me if I can do CUDA programming with the current configuration and if possible also let me know what does Intel(HD) Graphics mean?
At the present time, Intel graphics chips do not support CUDA. It is possible that, in the nearest future, these chips will support OpenCL (which is a standard that is very similar to CUDA), but this is not guaranteed and their current drivers do not support OpenCL either. (There is an Intel OpenCL SDK available, but, at the present time, it does not give you access to the GPU.)
Newest Intel processors (Sandy Bridge) have a GPU integrated into the CPU core. Your processor may be a previous-generation version, in which case "Intel(HD) graphics" is an independent chip.
Portland group have a commercial product called CUDA x86, it is hybrid compiler which creates CUDA C/ C++ code which can either run on GPU or use SIMD on CPU, this is done fully automated without any intervention for the developer. Hope this helps.
Link: http://www.pgroup.com/products/pgiworkstation.htm
If you're interested in learning a language which supports massive parallelism better go for OpenCL since you don't have an NVIDIA GPU. You can run OpenCL on Intel CPUs, but at best you can learn to program SIMDs.
Optimization on CPU and GPU are different. I really don't think you can use Intel card for GPGPU.
Intel HD Graphics is usually the on-CPU graphics chip in newer Core i3/i5/i7 processors.
As far as I know it doesn't support CUDA (which is a proprietary NVidia technology), but OpenCL is supported by NVidia, ATi and Intel.
in 2020 ZLUDA was created which provides CUDA API for Intel GPUs. It is not production ready yet though.
I need to produce an embedded ARM design that has requirements to do many things that embedded Linux would do. However the design is cost sensitive and does not need huge amounts of horse power. Mostly will be talking to serial interfaces. Ideally I would like to use one of the low end ARMs. What is the lowest configuration of an ARM that you have successfully used embedded Linux on.
Edit:
The application needs a file system on some kind of flash device and the ability to run applications for processing the data. Some of the applications might be written by others than myself. I also need to ability to load new applications or update old apps using the serial ports to accept the apps.
When I have looked at other embedded OSes they seem to be more of a real time threading solution than having the ability to run applications. I am open to what ever will get the job done.
I think you need to weigh your cost options here.
ARM + linux is an option but you will be paying a very high operating overhead for such a simple (from your description) set of features. You can't just look at the cost of the ARM chip but must also consider external RAM which will very likely be required as well as flash to get enough space available to run the kernel + apps.
NOTE: you may be able to avoid the external requirements with a very minimal kernel and simple apps combined with a uC with large internal resources.
A second option is a much simpler microcontroller with a light weight OS. This will cut your hardware costs on the CPU and you can likely run something like this without external RAM or flash (dependent on application RAM and program space requirement)
third option: I don't actually see anything in your requirements that demands any OS at all be used. Basic file systems are very simple, for instance there are even FAT drivers out there for 8 bit PIC's. Interfacing to an SD card only requires a SPI port and minimal external circuitry.
The application bit could be simple or complex. I've built systems around PIC18 microcontollers that run a web server and allow program updates via a simple upload screen, it just stores the new program into an EEPROM or flash, reboots into a bootloader and copies the new program into internal program memory. You could likely design a way to do this without the reboot via a cooperative multitasking type of architecture. Any way you go the programmers writing the apps are going to need to have knowledge of the architecture and access to libraries / driver you write. Your best bet to simplify this is to provide as simple an API as possible and to try to automate the build process for them.
The third option will be the "cheapest" in terms of hardware as there will be very little overhead in the processing of your applications allowing you to get away with minimal processing power and memory. It likely will require some more programming/software architecting on your part but won't require nearly the research you will need to undertake to get linux up and running in addition to learning to write the needed device drivers under a linux paradigm.
As always you have to include the software development costs in the build cost of the device. If you plan to build 10,000+ of these your likely better off keeping hardware costs down and putting more man power into designing a software solution that allows that hardware to meet the design goals. If your building 10 of them, your better off spending an extra $15-20 on hardware if it can cut down on your software development costs. For example an ARM with MMU with full linux kernel support and available device drivers.
I kind of feel that your selecting the worst of both worlds at the moment, your paying extra to get a uC you can run linux on but by doing so your also selecting a part that will likely be the most complex to get linux up and running on, especially having not worked with linux on embedded platforms before.
I've had success even on ARM7TDMI, so I don't think you're going to have any trouble. If you have a low-requirements system, you could use any kind of lightweight real-time executive and have a lot better experience than you would getting Linux to work.
I've used a TS-7200 for about five years to run a web server and mail server, using Debian GNU Linux. It is 200 MHz and has 32 MB of RAM, and is quite adequate for these tasks. It has serial port built in. It's based on a ARM920T.
This would be overkill for your job; I mention it so you have another data point.
For several years I've been using a gumstix to do prototyping and testing and I've had good results with it. I don't know if the processor they are using (Intel PXA255 on my board) is considered low-cost, but the entire Verdex line seems pretty cheap to me for an adaptable device.
ucLinux is designed specifically for resource constrained targets, but perhaps more importantly for targets without an MMU.
However you have to have a good reason to use Linux on such a system rather than a small real-time executive. Out-of-the-box networking, readily available drivers and protocol stacks for complex hardware and support for existing POSIX legacy or open source code are a few perhaps. However if you don't need that, Linux is still large, and you may be squandering resources for no real benefit. In most cases you will still need off-chip SDRAM and Flash if you choose Linux of any flavour.
I would not regard serial I/O as 'complex hardware', so unless you are running a complex, but standard protocol, your brief description does not appear to warrant the use of Linux IMO
My DLINK DIR-320 router runs Linux inside.
And I know some handymen, flashing it with Optware and connecting USB-hub, HDDs, USB-flash, and much more.
It's low-cost ready for use "platform". (If you don't need mass production). But maybe more powerful than you need.
Additionally, it can be configured wirelessly via web-interface even through your pda :)
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Now I'm sure we're all well aware of the relative merits of Linux vs Windows Desktop. However I've heard much less about the world of embedded development. I'm mainly interested in solutions for industry and am therefore uninterested about the IPhone or Android and more interested in these two OSes.
What are the relative trade-offs between the two platforms in the embedded world? If you were considering building a box for a specific project with custom hardware, a partially customised OS and a custom app then which would you choose and why?
I would assume that Windows CE wins on tools and Linux wins on both cost and possibly performance. However this is just utter speculation. Does anyone have any facts or experience of the two?
I worked for several years at a company that provided both CE and Linux for all of their hardware, so I'm fairly familiar with both sides of this equation.
Tools: Windows CE tools certainly are better than those provided by Linux, though the linux tools are certainly getting better.
Performance: Windows CE is real-time. Linux is not. The linux kernel is not designed for determinism at all. There are extensions that you can add to get sort-of real time, but CE beats it.
Cost: This is an area of great misunderstanding. My general experience is that CE is lower cost out of the box ($1k for Platform Builder and as low as $3 per device for a shipping runtime. "What?" you ask? "Linux is free." Well, not really so much, especially in the embedded arena. Yes, there are free distributions like Debian. But there are plenty of pieces that you might need that aren't in that free category. UI frameworks like QT, Java runtimes and media codecs just as a start. Also, most Linux distributions with a commercially-backed support system (e.g. MontaVista) are far from free.
Source Availability: Linux proponents may like to say that CE is a bad choice due to lack of source code. All I can say is that in over a decade of working with CE, half of which spent doing custom kernel and driver work for custom boards, I've only ever had need for source that didn't ship with CE (they ship a vast majority of it) once. I like having source too, but Microsoft provides support, so in the rare case you might think you need that source, you can get them to fix the problem (the one time we needed source, Microsoft provided a fix, and for free - which is their model under CE.
Does this mean that CE wins every time? No. I wouldn't suggest that at all. If you are a Linux shop and you have lots of Linux experience and code assets, you'd be foolish to run out and go CE. However, if you're coming into it from scratch CE usually has a lower TCO. Developers with Win32/C# experience are more prevalent and consequently less expensive. You also get a lot more "in the box" with CE than most other distributions, meaning faster time to market if you don't already have these things done in-house already.
I'll speak for the Linux side, at least for the category of software I'm familiar with (which is RF data collection equipment). Or industrial apps vs. consumer apps.
Windows CE (and its associated tools) IMH fairly recent E) is strongly biased to creating a "Windows Experience" on a small screen. The user input mode emphasizes mouse-like actions. Logons, application selection, etc. all try to be as similar to standard Windows as possible.
If a user is driving a lift truck, or filling a picking cart, or moving material from one place to another, there's a problem.
And it's a moving target - particularly on the .NET side. The Compact .NET runtime is seriously handicapped, and important libraries (like networking, data handling, and UI) are incomplete and versions too often deprecate the previous version. . CE seems to be the stepchild in the Windows family (possibly because there's not a lot of active competition selling to the hardware integrators.)
A nice stable rows-and-columns Linux console is a pretty handy context for many (in my experience most) high-use apps on a dinky screen.
Not much good for games on your cell-phone or Zune, though.
NOTE:
I think ctacke probably speaks accurately for the hardware integrator's side. I'm more aligned with the players further down the pipe - software integrators and users.
Choice is often made largely on perception and culture, rather than concrete data. And, making a choice based on concrete data is difficult when you consider the complexity of a modern OS, all the issues associated with porting it to custom hardware, and unknown future requirements. Even from an application perspective, things change over the life of a project. Requirements come and go. You find yourself doing things you never thought you would, especially if they are possible. The ubiquitous USB and network ports open a lot of possibilities -- for example adding Cell modem support or printer support. Flash based storage makes in-field software updates the standard mode of operation. And in the end, each solution has its strengths and weaknesses -- there is no magic bullet that is the best in all cases.
When considering Embedded Linux development, I often use the iceberg analogy; what you see going into a project is the part above the water. These are the pieces your application interacts with, drivers you need to customize, the part you understand. The other 90% is under water, and herein lies a great deal of variability. Quality issues with drivers or not being able to find a driver for something you may want to support in the future can easily swamp known parts of the project. There are very few people who have a lot of experience with both WinCE and Linux solutions, hence the tendency to go with what is comfortable (or what managers are comfortable with), or what we have experience with. Below are thoughts on a number of aspects to consider:
SYSTEM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Questions in this realm include CPU support, driver quality, in field software updates, filesystem support, driver availability, etc. One of the changes that has happened in the past two years, is CPU vendors are now porting Linux to their new chips as the first OS. Before, the OS porting was typically done by Linux software companies such as MontaVista, or community efforts. As a result, the Linux kernel now supports most mainstream embedded cpus with few additional patches. This is radically different than the situation 5 years ago. Because many people are using the same source code, issues get fixed, and often are contributed back to the mainstream source. With WinCE, the BSP/driver support tends to be more of a reference implementation, and then OEM/users take it, fix any issues, and that is where the fixes tend to stay.
From a system perspective, it is very important to consider flexibility for future needs. Just because it is not a requirement now does not mean it will not be a requirement in the future. Obtaining driver support for a peripheral may be nearly impossible, or be too large an effort to make it practical.
Most people give very little thought to the build system, or never look much beyond the thought that "if there is a nice gui wrapped around the tool, it must be easy". OpenEmbedded is very popular way to build embedded Linux products, and has recently been endorsed as the technology base of MontaVista's Linux 6 product, and is generally considered "hard to use" by new users. While WinCE build tools look simpler on the surface (the 10% above water), you still have the problem of what happens when I need to customize something, implement complex features such as software updates, etc. To build a production system with production grade features, you still need someone on your team who understands the OS and can work at the detail level of both the operating system, and the build system. With either WinCE or Embedded Linux, this generally means companies either need to have experienced developers in house, or hire experts to do portions of the system software development. System software development is not the same as application development, and is generally not something you want to take on with no experience unless you have a lot of time. It is quite common for companies to hire expert help for the first couple projects, and then do follow-on projects in-house. Another feature to consider is parallel build support. With quad core workstations becoming the standard, is it a big deal that a full build can be done in 1.2 hours versus 8? How flexible is the build system at pulling and building source code from various sources such as diverse revision control systems, etc.
Embedded processors are becoming increasingly complex. It is no longer good enough to just have the cpu running. If you consider the OMAP3 cpu family from TI, then you have to ask the following questions: are there libraries available for the 3D acceleration engine, and can I even get them without being committing to millions of units per year? Is there support for the DSP bridge? What is the cost of all this? On a recent project I was involved in, a basic WinCE BSP for the Atmel AT91SAM9260 cost $7000. In terms of developer time, this is not much, but you have to also consider the on-going costs of maintenance, upgrading to new versions of the operating system, etc.
APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT
Both Embedded Linux and WinCE support a range of application libraries and programming languages. C and C++ are well supported. Most business type applications are moving to C# in the WinCE world. Linux has Mono, which provides extensive support for .NET technologies and runs very well in embedded Linux systems. There are numerous Java development environments available for Embedded Linux. One area where you do run into differences is graphics libraries. Generally the Microsoft graphical APIs are not well supported on Linux, so if you have a large application team that are die-hard windows GUI programmers, then perhaps WinCE makes sense. However, there are many options for GUI toolkits that run on both Windows PCs and Embedded Linux devices. Some examples include GTK+, Qt, wxWidgets, etc. The Gimp is an example of a GTK+ application that runs on windows, plus there are many others. The are C# bindings to GTK+ and Qt. Another feature that seems to be coming on strong in the WinCE space is the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). But again, there are projects to bring WCF to Mono, depending what portions you need. Embedded Linux support for scripting languages like Python is very good, and Python runs very well on 200MHz ARM processors.
There is often the perception that WinCE is realtime, and Linux is not. Linux realtime support is decent in the stock kernels with the PREEMPT option, and real-time support is excellent with the addition of a relatively small real-time patch. You can easily attain sub millisecond timing with Linux. This is something that has changed in the past couple years with the merging of real-time functionality into the stock kernel.
DEVELOPMENT FLOW
In a productive environment, most advanced embedded applications are developed and debugged on a PC, not the target hardware. Even in setups where remote debugging on a target system works well, debugging an application on workstation works better. So the fact that one solution has nice on-target debugging, where the other does not is not really relevant. For data centric systems, it is common to have simulation modes where the application can be tested without connection to real I/O. With both Linux and WinCE applications, application programing for an embedded device is similar to programming for a PC. Embedded Linux takes this a step further. Because embedded Linux technology is the same as desktop, and server Linux technology, almost everything developed for desktop/server (including system software) is available for embedded for free. This means very complete driver support (see USB cell modem and printer examples above), robust file system support, memory management, etc. The breadth of options for Linux is astounding, but some may consider this a negative point, and would prefer a more integrated solution like Windows CE where everything comes from one place. There is a loss of flexibility, but in some cases, the tradeoff might be worth it. For an example of the number of packages that can be build for Embedded Linux systems using Openembedded, see.
GUI TRENDS
It is important to consider trends for embedded devices with small displays being driven by Cell Phones (iPhone, Palm Pre, etc). Standard GUI widgets that are common in desktop systems (dialog boxes, check boxes, pull down lists, etc) do not cut it for modern embedded systems. So, it will be important to consider support for 3D effects, and widget libraries designed to be used by touch screen devices. The Clutter library is an example of this type of support.
REMOTE SUPPORT
Going back to the issue of debugging tools, most people stop at the scenario where the device is setting next to a workstation in the lab. But what about when you need to troubleshoot a device that is being beta-tested half-way around the world? That is where a command-line debugger like Gdb is an advantage, and not a disadvantage. And how do you connect to the device if you don't have support for cell modems in New Zealand, or an efficient connection mechanism like ssh for shell access and transferring files?
SUMMARY
Selecting any advanced technology is not a simple task, and is fairly difficult to do even with experience. So it is important to be asking the right questions, and looking at the decision from many angles. Hopefully this article can help in that.
I have worked in projects that involved customizing the software of an OEM board and I wouldn't say that Linux is cheaper. When buying a board you also need to buy the SDK. You still need to pay even for the Linux version. Some manufacturers offer both Windows CE and Linux solutions for their boards and there isn't a price difference. For Windows CE you also need the Platform Builder and pay for the licenses, but it is easier to go without support.
Another important issue is if you are building a User Interface or a headless device. For devices that require an LCD screen and human interaction is much easier to go with Windows CE. If on the other hand you are building a headless device, Linux may be a sounder option - especially if network protocols are involved. I believe that Linux implementations are more reliable and easier to tweak.
With Linux you are never on you own and you are never dependent on one single entity to provide permissions. There are many support options and you have the freedom to choose your support options for any part of the system through many competing sources.
With Windows CE you must adhere to the license and restrictions as set forth in the complex license agreements that must be agreed to. Get a lawyer. With windows CE you have only one proprietary source for OS support and you will proceed only as they see fit to support and provide what you need. You may not agree with their position, but will not have any recourse but to bend to what they prescribe. The costs of incremental components, modules, development kits, licensing, and support tend to pile up with proprietary platforms. In the longer term, what happens when the vendor no longer desires to support the platform and you do not have the rights to support and distribute it yourself? What happens when the vendor moves to newer technology and wants you to move along with them even though you may not be ready to make the move? $$$
Our experience with Windows solutions in general is that they tend to become more expensive over time. What was originally considered lowest TCO gravitates quickly towards and solution that is encumbered and costly to maintain and support. Licenses have to be re-negotiated over time and the new technologies, often unneeded, are forced into the picture at the whim of the provider for the sake of THEIR business needs. On top of that, the license agreements are CONTINUALLY changing--get a lawyer.
With Linux you have the freedom to provide in-house support and expertise without being encumbered against distributing the solution as you need. You also have the freedom to continue to use and support technology that original providers no longer want to support. Having the source code and the RIGHTs to do with it what you want (GPL, LGPL) is a powerful attractor when it comes to business continuity and containing costs while providing access to the very latest technologies or technologies that fit your needs.
I have developed network drivers that work both on RT Linux (to be more specific, Linux preemptive kernel with RT patch) and Windows CE. My experience was windows CE was more stable in terms of real-time response. Frame timings also showed that windows CE had less jitter.
On RT Linux, we had all sorts of problems. For example, when user moved the mouse; our frames were being delayed. Guess what, certain variants of x-windows disable interrupts. You may also feel that you are safer on console screen only. If you have VGA frame buffers enabled, you are doomed again. We had only one problem with windows CE in terms of jitter again. The problem happened when the USB controller was set to an incorrect mode in the BIOS and windows CE was using lots of time for polling.
To be honest, windows CE had more support. On Linux, you are on your own. You have to read every possible mailing list to understand what problems you may hve.
a partially customised OS
Is much easier to achieve if the OS is open source (and you have the expertise).
Android is a good option for some embedded systems.(it's linux based)
You have many experts that are able to develop on this system.
You have access to many libraries in java or C.
but it uses lot of memory and energy.
What we often forget with paid / licenced software is that you have to deal with licenses. It takes time and energy! Then you have to track if you pay it correctly. It involves many different people with different skills and it costs in decision.
This cost is often not included in the studies that show that open-source/free is more expensive than paid software.
With "free software" it's way easier to deal with licenses and you spend less time on dealing with these issues. Personally I prefer to avoid unnecessary communications with your legal / financing team every time you change some pieces of the software.