
| |
LART vs. PLEB
The difference between LART and PLEB: The Long StoryTM
History
The plans to make LART and PLEB are approximately equally old. About two
years ago Adam sent a message to linux-kernel discussing processor choices
for an embedded Linux board. At the time I had just noticed that no existing
(as in: buyable) board matched my own requirements, and was planning to
design my own PCB based on an embedded PowerPC. Adam formed the PLEBList, I
joined. Through the PLEB ideas, I saw the One True Way (SA-1100 ;-) and
decided to use the same processor for my LART.
We've had a lot of discussions over the years, and it became clear that
there are some fundamental differences in our design philosophies. If this
hadn't been the case, I wouldn't have bothered putting in the many
man-months to make my own PCB. Note that in design philosophies there are no
absolute truths, and that PLEB and LART are both `right' from their
respective point of view.
The main differences are outlined below.
- Size vs. `independence'
- For me it is absolutely vital that the LART board can function as a
minimal computer, without any daughter boards. This means that at least the
processor, boot flash, (some) RAM and RS232 has to be mounted on one PCB,
yielding a board size of 75×100mm. PLEB considers size more important and
put RAM and flash on a daughtercard, reducing the board size to 90×60mm.
This does mean that Photon has to use buffers in the RAM address lines,
which increases access times.
- Low weight (size) vs. low power
- The LART power supply is vastly overdimensioned. It eats about 20% of
the total board space and weight; it can deliver around 16W of output power
on the core and IO voltage nets combined (I've never managed to push the
power usage of a single LART beyond 1W). Because of this oversizing I could
use components with very low internal resistance, thus minimizing losses in
the power supply. The Photon supply is a much closer fit, decreasing system
size and weight but increasing losses.
- Bleeding edge vs. stable modularity
- I'll keep the electrical and mechanical specs of LARTs to come
identical to the current design. If there will ever be an SA-2 LART, you
should be able to use it directly with existing modules. Adam feels less
tied to the past, and will thus be able to make faster use of new
technologies.
- Hardware design
- The LART board family is expanding rapidly. I've finished the design of
the kitchen sink board, which offers an ATA interface, quad Ethernet,
netboot, dual PS/2, 16-bit 44k1 stereo sound out, IrDA, video out, USB
client, mono mic/speaker, touch screen interface and a telephony interface.
More boards are yet to come, including a fast SRAM board (450MB/s read
speed), GPS, PCMCIA, a frame grabber and a 2.4GHz RF interface (with
datarates up to 150Mbit/s).
The biggest hardware toy will be the crossbar switch, which will allow
message-passing between multiple LARTs with latencies in the order of one
microsecond. I plan to build a ClusterLART which will hold around 100 LARTs,
with an aggregate communication bandwidth of about 40GB/s (and yes, that's
gigabytes per second, i.e. the same capacity as 320 Gigabit Ethernet
streams). The ClusterLART will be used to do signal processing on large
real-time data streams.
I don't know whether PLEB has any plans for Photon expansion boards.
Adam?
- Availability
- I'd love to be able to sell LART boards, but selling things as a
university is dodgy at best. I wouldn't have clue #1 about handling things
like DOAs or foreign money transfers. I'm looking at building & selling
LARTs externally, but haven't gotten very far.
|