ARM-based platforms are a foreign offer to most users of inserted PC boards. But it?s clear that in terms of performance at least, ARM solutions are now analogous with x86. So what will be the other key issues which might lead an embedded Computer user to cross the divide?
The most evident underlying difference is quite fundamental. P.C boards rely on standard form-factors and bus interfaces, while very little in the way of standards is clear when taking a look at ARM-based boards. On first inspection, this might seem like a clear advantage for embedded PCs, but when you look a little more seriously it?s not quite what it looks.
ARM microcontrollers are complete systems-on-chip (SoC). With the single exception of memory, everything is on there the Ethernet MAC, the LCD controller, USB, UARTs, SD Card, CAN, Audio, touch? You name it. So there isn't any real point in outlining standard bus interfaces to the outside world when you begin with a total system in itself. ? These system-on-chip micros supply a longevity of 10 years or more. So you buy a specific board or module with the objective of using it for the length of the project. Against this, x86 boards may?have a market lifetime?as tiny as a year or two, and you rely on the standard interface and form factor to permit replacement within the project life cycle.
The COM (Computer-on-Module) is easily the commonest conveyance for ARM-based boards, which, because of the level of integration of the SoC could be credit-card, or matchbox sized. In the ARM-based world the acronym SOM (System-on-Module) is often used to distinguish the completeness of the solution from the COM. But just like a COM, a breakout or baseboard is then needed to complete the solution.
There are a lot of SOMs to choose between but there's an exceedingly limited selection of ARM-based SBCs out there, simply due to the actual number and diversity of interfaces offered by a common SoC. If you brought them all to connectors, the SBC would need to be a foot square, so better to bring a good selection of them to a single 200-pin SODIMM style interface (the hottest solution, but not using any standard pinout) and let the user customise the breakout.
If your embedded PC is running Windows, whether the desktop or the embedded version (Windows Embedded Standard) there is excellent news and bad news. The interesting news is the licence price of Windows Embedded CE or Compact 7will likely be less than a 10% of what you're paying now. The bad news is that for many situations, the programming environment is a subset, and so work must be done. In particular, your .NET applications must be shoehorned into .NET Compact Framework. If you?re using WPF, again subsetting into a special embedded version of Silverlight is needed.
A disadvantage of the ARM-based route is that in stark contrast to the inserted COMPUTER where once Windows is running you can develop your claim without any special data, with Windows CE or Compact 7, you want a top quality Board Support Package (BSP) from the seller, and may need their assistance, and even some coaching, to utilise a special tool called Platform Builder which combines library parts of the OS, the BSP, and your application to form a production image. Remember all those interfaces on the SoC Well, the BSP is componentized and there's no presumption that all of the interfaces will be supported, or that the ones that are supported will work in the way you are expecting. So the production-readiness Of the BSP is as significant as hardware features and price when selecting. Of course, many ARM-based projects use Linux, and precisely the same necessities apply, though your vendor may shrug his shoulders and point to the open source community if you want more than they offer, which
isn't truly helpful. If you?re using Windows CE, you may depend on Microsoft's well-managed qualification scheme? In which case choosing a Windows Inserted
Gold Partner as your supplier should be an effective minimum duty.
Cost-wise, as volume increases, the ARM-based solution wins every time. ARM-based devices are low-cost, and as fast as your volume is enough to eclipse the engineering cost linked with manufacturing a custom baseboard, you are winning all of the way.
Another significant advantage of an ARM-based solution is power consumption. A normal platform will consume around 1W, so no fans required, and it's wonderfully possible
to make your own handheld product. A tiny, fanless solution, can bring competitive advances. Even when not handheld. For instance, being able to offer hours of power-failure backup through a small integrated battery will beat a competitor who relies on a costly external UPS. Small systems are also way easier to ruggedize.
The most evident underlying difference is quite fundamental. P.C boards rely on standard form-factors and bus interfaces, while very little in the way of standards is clear when taking a look at ARM-based boards. On first inspection, this might seem like a clear advantage for embedded PCs, but when you look a little more seriously it?s not quite what it looks.
ARM microcontrollers are complete systems-on-chip (SoC). With the single exception of memory, everything is on there the Ethernet MAC, the LCD controller, USB, UARTs, SD Card, CAN, Audio, touch? You name it. So there isn't any real point in outlining standard bus interfaces to the outside world when you begin with a total system in itself. ? These system-on-chip micros supply a longevity of 10 years or more. So you buy a specific board or module with the objective of using it for the length of the project. Against this, x86 boards may?have a market lifetime?as tiny as a year or two, and you rely on the standard interface and form factor to permit replacement within the project life cycle.
The COM (Computer-on-Module) is easily the commonest conveyance for ARM-based boards, which, because of the level of integration of the SoC could be credit-card, or matchbox sized. In the ARM-based world the acronym SOM (System-on-Module) is often used to distinguish the completeness of the solution from the COM. But just like a COM, a breakout or baseboard is then needed to complete the solution.
There are a lot of SOMs to choose between but there's an exceedingly limited selection of ARM-based SBCs out there, simply due to the actual number and diversity of interfaces offered by a common SoC. If you brought them all to connectors, the SBC would need to be a foot square, so better to bring a good selection of them to a single 200-pin SODIMM style interface (the hottest solution, but not using any standard pinout) and let the user customise the breakout.
If your embedded PC is running Windows, whether the desktop or the embedded version (Windows Embedded Standard) there is excellent news and bad news. The interesting news is the licence price of Windows Embedded CE or Compact 7will likely be less than a 10% of what you're paying now. The bad news is that for many situations, the programming environment is a subset, and so work must be done. In particular, your .NET applications must be shoehorned into .NET Compact Framework. If you?re using WPF, again subsetting into a special embedded version of Silverlight is needed.
A disadvantage of the ARM-based route is that in stark contrast to the inserted COMPUTER where once Windows is running you can develop your claim without any special data, with Windows CE or Compact 7, you want a top quality Board Support Package (BSP) from the seller, and may need their assistance, and even some coaching, to utilise a special tool called Platform Builder which combines library parts of the OS, the BSP, and your application to form a production image. Remember all those interfaces on the SoC Well, the BSP is componentized and there's no presumption that all of the interfaces will be supported, or that the ones that are supported will work in the way you are expecting. So the production-readiness Of the BSP is as significant as hardware features and price when selecting. Of course, many ARM-based projects use Linux, and precisely the same necessities apply, though your vendor may shrug his shoulders and point to the open source community if you want more than they offer, which
isn't truly helpful. If you?re using Windows CE, you may depend on Microsoft's well-managed qualification scheme? In which case choosing a Windows Inserted
Gold Partner as your supplier should be an effective minimum duty.
Cost-wise, as volume increases, the ARM-based solution wins every time. ARM-based devices are low-cost, and as fast as your volume is enough to eclipse the engineering cost linked with manufacturing a custom baseboard, you are winning all of the way.
Another significant advantage of an ARM-based solution is power consumption. A normal platform will consume around 1W, so no fans required, and it's wonderfully possible
to make your own handheld product. A tiny, fanless solution, can bring competitive advances. Even when not handheld. For instance, being able to offer hours of power-failure backup through a small integrated battery will beat a competitor who relies on a costly external UPS. Small systems are also way easier to ruggedize.
About the Author:
to find more articles on Embedded PC solutions and ARM based solution go to EmbeddedPCReview
0 comments:
Post a Comment