WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: ARM processor version  (Read 4399 times)

Offline kerpob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
ARM processor version
« on: November 30, 2009, 02:17:58 PM »
I don't suppose it's escaped most people's attention that ARM processors are starting to make the leap from mobile phones to netbooks (e.g. Snapdragon and Tegra).

ARM devices are designed for low power usage, probably no hard disk (SDD instead), and to spend most of their time connected to the internet.

Some Linux distros already have ARM versions (Android, Ubuntu and Chrome are known to be keen)

Small sorage space... connected to the internet... sounds like fertile ground for tinycore. Have any of the developers made any tentative investigations in this area?
eee user. From Xandros to Debian via Breeezy to TCL.

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2009, 02:48:45 PM »
As far as I'm aware, the devs have no plans for ARM (Though they will hopefully correct me if I'm misinformed), but it should be simple enough to recompile the kernel for ARM yourself, as the source is readily available. I do agree with you that TC would be perfect for an ARM based CPU, and would definately be my preferred option over any of the three distros you mentioned. I'm looking into buying a beagleboard for a couple of projects I have going atm, perhaps I'll add creating an ARM-based TC to that list and document the project for anyone else interested in doing the same if I get around to it.

Offline ^thehatsrule^

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1726
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2009, 03:05:43 PM »
The focus is x86 only atm.

Offline svensko

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2009, 05:46:48 PM »
I may be interested in collaborating with others to help my an ARM version. I'm hoping to pick up a Beagle Board or Gumstix setup sometime early next year and would love to be able to run TCL on it.

Offline danielibarnes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2009, 05:57:52 PM »
Qemu can be used to emulate ARM for those without real hardware. It would be possible to install Linux and write scripts to build the various binaries that comprise TC.

However, the challenge just begins at that point: All of the extensions are x86 binaries also. Although I've no experience with it, I think that the T2 project might be helpful here.

Offline sbaguz

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2010, 12:49:24 AM »
I have to admit that I would be really happy about an ARM version of TC too...  ;)

Offline nick65go

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2010, 12:44:11 PM »
Hi, from http://impactlinux.com/fwl/README
"Aboriginal Linux: We cross compile so you don't have to,... provides virtual Linux images you can boot under QEMU, within which you can compile and test any software you like."

I like very much this section http://impactlinux.com/fwl/documentation.html#why
it is written by Rob Landley, author of the Firmware Linux (FWL) builds against current uClibc and busybox...

I think could be in cross-compile what is TinyCore for x86, the new trend!
It worths the time to read from there..plus ready cross compiled tools chain.
Regards, Nick
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 12:45:52 PM by nick65go »

Offline SvOlli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Linux Developer
Re: ARM processor version
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2010, 12:27:25 AM »
I think, too, that ARM would be an interesting platform for TCL and would be a nice revival for my Beagleboard. But the problem compared to the other platforms mentioned is, that they have a defined build structure, so everyone can rebuild the binary packages on their own.

In TCL this is not the case. I'm not sure about the base, but for the extensions only binary versions exist. It's up to every extension-maintainer on how to compile and build the extension. I've generated my own script collection for these tasks, as mentioned here.

So I'm drawing the conclusion, that currently an ARM port could be done as a proof-of-concept-hack. But to get an ARM version, that's as usable as the x86 one, you'll need to redefine the build of the distribution and it's extensions in a more automated way.

If you want to dive into ARM development right now in a very modular and small-footprint way, you might want to take a look at Ångström and OpenEmbedded.