cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
134403
Visitor
Visitor
10,024 Views
Registered: ‎02-11-2015

Benefits with PetaLinux

Jump to solution

Hi,

 

I'm new to the Zynq world, and want to do some research before I start working with Zynq boards. I like the idea that one can run an operating system (PetaLinux) beside the FPGA, but I can't really understand why one would do that? Isn't FPGA the best choice when it comes to performance and technology. 

The reasons I can think of is:

- Less power consumption

- Less complexity because one can create appliations in C/C++

 

But are there other important differenses other than these?

 

--S.A

 

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
milosoftware
Scholar
Scholar
17,699 Views
Registered: ‎10-26-2012

You would use an Operating System on the Zynq for the same reasons you use one on your PC or smartphone. Mostly to be able to run applications on it.

 

As for performance, well, in general, your application will run as fast as the hardware allows. You'll get 25MB/s on the Zynq's SD card interface, regardless of whether you do this in Linux, Windows or bare metal. Heavy number crunching will be limited only by CPU speed. A 16-channel 160-tap FIR filter will process just as many samples per second regardless of whether you're doing that in Linux or bare metal.

 

An simple way to think of this is this: The (Linux) kernel is a bare metal application.

 

As for FPGA versus CPU, well, there are some things that you just won't be able to do using the FPGA. The first thing that came to my (twisted) mind is building bitstreams. The FPGA is incapable of building bitstreams for itself. The CPU though is able to both compile for itself as well as for other CPUs. The CPU is even capable of building bitstreams for the FPGA, but the FPGA would suck at compiling code for the CPU even if it were able to do so. But that FIR filter I mentioned would run like greased lightning on the FPGA, provided you assign enough resources (DSP slices in this case) to it.

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
3 Replies
vijayak
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
10,014 Views
Registered: ‎10-24-2013
Hi,
Check this link
http://www.xilinx.com/tools/petalinux-sdk.htm
Thanks,Vijay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please mark the post as an answer "Accept as solution" in case it helped resolve your query.
Give kudos in case a post in case it guided to the solution.
0 Kudos
sampatd
Scholar
Scholar
9,998 Views
Registered: ‎09-05-2011
Linux is used in different sectors such as Automotive, Aerospace, Industrial & Medical etc.

Generally users use Linux when they need access to OS services such as security, Networking, Graphics, multimedia etc. Since Linux is open source and has a big active developer community, it is a popular choice among the developers.

Baremetal (Standalone) applications are in fact faster than Linux applications because they do not need any system calls (user space to kernel space).

Essentially it comes down to whether your application will need these services provided by Linux or any other OS. If yes, use them. if not, stick to standalone applications.
0 Kudos
milosoftware
Scholar
Scholar
17,700 Views
Registered: ‎10-26-2012

You would use an Operating System on the Zynq for the same reasons you use one on your PC or smartphone. Mostly to be able to run applications on it.

 

As for performance, well, in general, your application will run as fast as the hardware allows. You'll get 25MB/s on the Zynq's SD card interface, regardless of whether you do this in Linux, Windows or bare metal. Heavy number crunching will be limited only by CPU speed. A 16-channel 160-tap FIR filter will process just as many samples per second regardless of whether you're doing that in Linux or bare metal.

 

An simple way to think of this is this: The (Linux) kernel is a bare metal application.

 

As for FPGA versus CPU, well, there are some things that you just won't be able to do using the FPGA. The first thing that came to my (twisted) mind is building bitstreams. The FPGA is incapable of building bitstreams for itself. The CPU though is able to both compile for itself as well as for other CPUs. The CPU is even capable of building bitstreams for the FPGA, but the FPGA would suck at compiling code for the CPU even if it were able to do so. But that FIR filter I mentioned would run like greased lightning on the FPGA, provided you assign enough resources (DSP slices in this case) to it.

View solution in original post

0 Kudos