Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foundations of Embedded Systems

f-of-e.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#11

Post by m-ee »

diydsp wrote: post #7
jimmyswimmy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what embedded is, is hardware. To build the low level software and drivers requires a detailed understanding of the hardware and its datasheets. It would be pretty hard to give a generic overview of the software side these days, because there is just so much out there. I mean you have the TI parts for the beagle bone which have a pair of microcontrollers on them each having access to the same memory as the ma…

After a few decades in the biz I'm seeing things change. Almost all drivers these days are written. Embedded is more about integration. It's also interconnected with many web-based tools and operating systems.

I wish all drivers were written. Aside from things like arduino/pyboard the choice in my experience has been using some massively bloated questionably tested vendor code or just going to the data sheet and writing it yourself.

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#13

Post by miguelrochefort »

I never cared about low-level programming, until I got my hands on the PineTime/Colmi P8 smart watch. With just 64KB of RAM and 514KB of Flash memory, you can't avoid it.

In just a few days, I learned a lot about:

- Memory allocation

- Image encoding

- Bluetooth

- Drivers

I recommend it to anyone interested in learning embedded systems programming.

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#14

Post by Gibbon1 »

molticrystal wrote: post #10
sircastor wrote: post #5

This is a bit of a side step to the article, but I recommend anyone who wants to really learn low level programming try to write a simple piece of software for the NES. The 6502 is well known, how the NES operates is likewise well known. Is not easy by any means, but I found it to be very rewarding and instructional to how computers work. Alternatively, following Ben Eater’s 6502 computer videos is likewise instructi…

Or you could go from an even more fundamental level with a simple course https://www.nand2tetris.org/ You build up a computer from simulated logic gates, constructing the ALU, CPU, Ram, I/O etc. The opcodes are comparable to those in the CPUs you mentioned, but you have the added benefit of the magic that occurs when it is able to process those opcodes. The best part is, thanks to the courses exceptional guidance and…

I once designed a microcoded bit slice processor on paper. It's useful because it's conceptually simple enough to get in your head. And there isn't anything software related that really can't be mapped to it. Or an extension of it.

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#16

Post by markus_zhang »

jimmyswimmy wrote: post #3
RMPR wrote: post #2

This is actually pretty great. I was looking for a way to dip my toes into low level stuff. After skimming a bit it seems very focused on hardware though. Out of curiosity how does it compare to https://jaycarlson.net/embedded-linux/ ?

Most of what embedded is, is hardware. To build the low level software and drivers requires a detailed understanding of the hardware and its datasheets. It would be pretty hard to give a generic overview of the software side these days, because there is just so much out there. I mean you have the TI parts for the beagle bone which have a pair of microcontrollers on them each having access to the same memory as the ma…

Just curious, is it possible to be good at digital circuit without studying analog circuit?

I figured by skipping AC I might miss a huge part of the picture.

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#17

Post by dbuder »

markus_zhang wrote: post #16
jimmyswimmy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what embedded is, is hardware. To build the low level software and drivers requires a detailed understanding of the hardware and its datasheets. It would be pretty hard to give a generic overview of the software side these days, because there is just so much out there. I mean you have the TI parts for the beagle bone which have a pair of microcontrollers on them each having access to the same memory as the ma…

Just curious, is it possible to be good at digital circuit without studying analog circuit? I figured by skipping AC I might miss a huge part of the picture.

Everything is analog, your rise time, your standing waves, your sensors and everything has parasitics. My rule of thumb is that anytime you tell yourself you will avoid learning something in electronics you will eventually have to learn it. That said, you can get a very long way by knowing almost nothing at all beyond high school science and playing lego, and I'm not talking about arduino at all. Need an Analog Front End? Take one from a reference design, take their code while you are at it. Want to know what is messing with your circuit? Learn and understand Maxwell's equations, or put it on a scope and google about. If you want to get products manufactured there is a lot to learn but if you do normal well understood things you don't need to be brilliant or talented.

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#18

Post by tedfernau »

dbuder wrote: post #17
markus_zhang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, is it possible to be good at digital circuit without studying analog circuit? I figured by skipping AC I might miss a huge part of the picture.

Everything is analog, your rise time, your standing waves, your sensors and everything has parasitics. My rule of thumb is that anytime you tell yourself you will avoid learning something in electronics you will eventually have to learn it. That said, you can get a very long way by knowing almost nothing at all beyond high school science and playing lego, and I'm not talking about arduino at all. Need an Analog Front…

I wouldn’t say Maxwells equations are necessary to accomplish almost anything in embedded systems, or even in most of electrical engineering.

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#19

Post by ibeckermayer »

molticrystal wrote: post #10
sircastor wrote: post #5

This is a bit of a side step to the article, but I recommend anyone who wants to really learn low level programming try to write a simple piece of software for the NES. The 6502 is well known, how the NES operates is likewise well known. Is not easy by any means, but I found it to be very rewarding and instructional to how computers work. Alternatively, following Ben Eater’s 6502 computer videos is likewise instructi…

Or you could go from an even more fundamental level with a simple course https://www.nand2tetris.org/ You build up a computer from simulated logic gates, constructing the ALU, CPU, Ram, I/O etc. The opcodes are comparable to those in the CPUs you mentioned, but you have the added benefit of the magic that occurs when it is able to process those opcodes. The best part is, thanks to the courses exceptional guidance and…

I've been working on a project off and on where I'm implementing the processor described in that course on an FPGA. Most of the digital design is done at this point: https://github.com/ibeckermayer/Nand2TetrisFPGA

Re: Foundations of Embedded Systems

#20

Post by markus_zhang »

dbuder wrote: post #17
markus_zhang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, is it possible to be good at digital circuit without studying analog circuit? I figured by skipping AC I might miss a huge part of the picture.

Everything is analog, your rise time, your standing waves, your sensors and everything has parasitics. My rule of thumb is that anytime you tell yourself you will avoid learning something in electronics you will eventually have to learn it. That said, you can get a very long way by knowing almost nothing at all beyond high school science and playing lego, and I'm not talking about arduino at all. Need an Analog Front…

Thanks, I got the idea. So basically the deeper you go the more fundamental you have to go back, right?

I'm also considering a bottom up method that starts from (re)learning circuits from high school physics classes. Back then, IIRC we also used breadboard and I very much enjoyed the experiment part of the course.

Plus it might help the kid in the future.

Post reply on HN