Re: [Paparazzi-devel] question regarding adding a new sensor

[antoine drouin]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Timothy Hunter<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thursday 02 July 2009 14:45:17 antoine drouin wrote:
>> if you do the overo part, I'll do the lpc part
>
> You offer is most welcome! Since we are waiting here for the kit from ppzuav,
> I will write the spi code and test it with a microcontroller during the next
> week.

Now that I think about it, the lpc part is already mostly done as the
twin LPC board had SPI between them. Do you have a svn access to
commit your overo code ?

Now comes the choice of which SPI we want to use. SPI0 doesnt have a
fifo, SPI1 (aka SSP) does. On my current vehicles I use SSP to read
the IMU with very low overhead, so i would prefer to use SPI0 to
connect to the overo (what kind of bandwith is needed there ?).

At the moment I'm playing with STM32 microcontrollers (cortex M3
cores) . Those babies have a generic DMA which would allow efficient
IOs on both SPIs
Is anybody interested in helping to delevop a board/port paparazzi to them ?

> Best regards
>
> Tim Hunter
>
> P.S.
> This is rather a philosophical/religious question: what is the reason behind
> the choice of ocaml as a programming language for the client gui? I am
> accustomed to see c++ code for that usage

The reason is simple: the person who write the code likes ocaml.
Although I'm not fluent in ocaml, i tend to think it's a nice
expressive modern langage, with properties. There have been several
attempts at implementing  ground code in different langages ( java,
python) but none of them reached the level of usability that Pascal's
programs have.
Now in order to fuel the religious/philosophical flamewar, I really
hate C++. I consider it a clumsy attempt at retrofitting a language
that was never intended for anything else than accessing ioports.