Honored Contributor
Honored ContributorHi Gery,
--- Quote Start --- I have similar project, according to functionality and demands you described. We choose Threadx as RTOS. It is simple enought and has realtime scheduling. The bare-metal library is actually core part of Threadx drivers for Cyclone V SOC. My answer to the question is yes, the RTOS (like Threadx, vxworks, etc) are more suitable. The reason is multitasking support and scheduling. --- Quote End --- I’m sorry for having to ask – but what is realtime scheduling? I would have thought the most important reason is the ability to use multiple cores. Have you tried other RTOSes as well? Because Threadx is fairly expensive and I would have to explain the benefits for choosing Threadx over a free solution to my boss. Hi Witfed, --- Quote Start --- Wait 1-2 year, and Baremetal learn to work on SoC FPGAs ! :) --- Quote End --- My appologies, but what exactly do you mean by bare-metal learning to work on SoC FPGAs? Is bare-metal not properly supported by the SoC FPGAs yet? Hi dsl, --- Quote Start --- IMHO I'd avoid vxworks ... --- Quote End --- Okay, thanks for the tip! --- Quote Start --- It depends on the how 'hard' the real-time requirements are. If you have very strict real-time requirements you can't afford the randomness that an RTOS will generate. --- Quote End --- That’s interesting. So an RTOS with the ability to use multiple cores will still not outperform a bare-metal application? I am given to understand that bare-metal applications cannot use both cores of the ARM Cortex-A9 and I would have to run a separate bare-metal application on the second core – or leave it idle. Thank you guys! Claudia
