Yocto General purpose evaluation

Yocto General purpose evaluation

[andrew.rudd]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1459 bytes --]

Hello,

 

I'm looking to evaluate the general purpose/utility of a custom build Yocto
embedded OS. I'm trying to get my head around the benefits of using such an
OS. I'm sure it's on case by case basis so let me provide my background and
requirements.

 

Background/requirements

Currently using Debian OS on my prototype build based on a Beaglebone green
wireless. 

Custom software is constructed in java.

System utilizes 9 axis accelerometer, vibration sensor, Bluetooth, WiFi,
LTE-M, GNSS, power management (through BB I2c and GPIO channels)

It runs on a battery and solar.

Power usage is important. Standby is used and still needs to listen for
vibration sensor, Bluetooth and LTE-m cellular events.

Only constrained by power usage and data usage. Processor or memory usage
are unconstrained except for in relation to power usage.

Minimizing data usage if an OS update is needed would be an advantage. 

No audio , video, USB or GUI is used.

 

 

So would there be a significant benefit seen by using a custom Yocto build
or would a GUIless version of Debian be just as effective? Also considering
Buildroot if that would be just as effective and simpler to execute. If
anyone has any other thoughts or concerns I would love to discuss. Thank you
for your time.

 

Thank you,

Andrew Rudd

President, Aktyon

352-256-8086

 <mailto:Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com> Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com



 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4203 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 8028 bytes --]

Re: Yocto General purpose evaluation

[Timothy Froehlich]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2712 bytes --]

Sounds like you should be using an embedded Linux, since only including the
minimum required software will help keep your image small and power usage
down. Removing audio, video and usb, including from your kernel config,
should drastically reduce your size.

You should consider the value of a read only FS, since I'd assume you'll
have random power loss due to solar being your primary power source.
Yocto/Buildroot will be much better with that.

For Yocto vs Buildroot, here's a good place to start for your research:
https://lwn.net/Articles/682540/. In my experience, Buildroot is easy,
simple, and great as long as you're building one thing. Yocto is much more
powerful and if you need more than what Buildroot can provide then you're
better off investing your time learning Yocto instead of learning how to
modify Buildroot, IMO.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:33 AM <andrew.rudd@aktyon.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m looking to evaluate the general purpose/utility of a custom build
> Yocto embedded OS. I’m trying to get my head around the benefits of using
> such an OS. I’m sure it’s on case by case basis so let me provide my
> background and requirements.
>
>
>
> Background/requirements
>
> Currently using Debian OS on my prototype build based on a Beaglebone
> green wireless.
>
> Custom software is constructed in java.
>
> System utilizes 9 axis accelerometer, vibration sensor, Bluetooth, WiFi,
> LTE-M, GNSS, power management (through BB I2c and GPIO channels)
>
> It runs on a battery and solar.
>
> Power usage is important. Standby is used and still needs to listen for
> vibration sensor, Bluetooth and LTE-m cellular events.
>
> Only constrained by power usage and data usage. Processor or memory usage
> are unconstrained except for in relation to power usage.
>
> Minimizing data usage if an OS update is needed would be an advantage.
>
> No audio , video, USB or GUI is used.
>
>
>
>
>
> So would there be a significant benefit seen by using a custom Yocto build
> or would a GUIless version of Debian be just as effective? Also considering
> Buildroot if that would be just as effective and simpler to execute. If
> anyone has any other thoughts or concerns I would love to discuss. Thank
> you for your time.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andrew Rudd
>
> President, Aktyon
>
> 352-256-8086
>
> Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com
>
> [image: AktyonLogoAndFontSignature]
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>


-- 
Tim Froehlich
Embedded Linux Engineer
tfroehlich@archsys.io
215-218-8955

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4548 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 8028 bytes --]

Re: Yocto General purpose evaluation

[andrew.rudd]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3586 bytes --]

Thank you for the reply.

 

You say I should be using an embedded Linux. Just for clarity you’re talking about Yocto/buildroot or are talking about an already existing embedded Linux distro.

 

Powered board. Yes we will use solar but also a battery to keep the board running the solar power isn’t available.

 

My main concern is size data space wise but power efficiency. Will a Yacto build provide more power savings than buildroot or standard Debian? 

 

Also would there be any already baked Yacto images I could use to test out to see how it runs?

 

Thank you,

Andrew Rudd

 

From: Timothy Froehlich <tfroehlich@archsys.io> 
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 2:37 PM
To: andrew.rudd@aktyon.com
Cc: Yocto discussion list <yocto@yoctoproject.org>
Subject: Re: [yocto] Yocto General purpose evaluation

 

Sounds like you should be using an embedded Linux, since only including the minimum required software will help keep your image small and power usage down. Removing audio, video and usb, including from your kernel config, should drastically reduce your size. 

 

You should consider the value of a read only FS, since I'd assume you'll have random power loss due to solar being your primary power source. Yocto/Buildroot will be much better with that.

 

For Yocto vs Buildroot, here's a good place to start for your research: https://lwn.net/Articles/682540/. In my experience, Buildroot is easy, simple, and great as long as you're building one thing. Yocto is much more powerful and if you need more than what Buildroot can provide then you're better off investing your time learning Yocto instead of learning how to modify Buildroot, IMO.

 

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:33 AM <andrew.rudd@aktyon.com <mailto:andrew.rudd@aktyon.com> > wrote:

Hello,

 

I’m looking to evaluate the general purpose/utility of a custom build Yocto embedded OS. I’m trying to get my head around the benefits of using such an OS. I’m sure it’s on case by case basis so let me provide my background and requirements.

 

Background/requirements

Currently using Debian OS on my prototype build based on a Beaglebone green wireless. 

Custom software is constructed in java.

System utilizes 9 axis accelerometer, vibration sensor, Bluetooth, WiFi, LTE-M, GNSS, power management (through BB I2c and GPIO channels)

It runs on a battery and solar.

Power usage is important. Standby is used and still needs to listen for vibration sensor, Bluetooth and LTE-m cellular events.

Only constrained by power usage and data usage. Processor or memory usage are unconstrained except for in relation to power usage.

Minimizing data usage if an OS update is needed would be an advantage. 

No audio , video, USB or GUI is used.

 

 

So would there be a significant benefit seen by using a custom Yocto build or would a GUIless version of Debian be just as effective? Also considering Buildroot if that would be just as effective and simpler to execute. If anyone has any other thoughts or concerns I would love to discuss. Thank you for your time.

 

Thank you,

Andrew Rudd

President, Aktyon

352-256-8086

Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com <mailto:Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com> 



 

-- 
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org <mailto:yocto@yoctoproject.org> 
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto




 

-- 

Tim Froehlich

Embedded Linux Engineer

tfroehlich@archsys.io <mailto:tfroehlich@archsys.io> 

215-218-8955


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9503 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 8028 bytes --]

Re: Yocto General purpose evaluation

[ChenQi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1924 bytes --]

Your main concern is about power usage. As long as you are using linux, 
you might want to do the following:
1) Custom kernel to include drivers that are necessary
2) Do not install unnecessary packages, do not start unnecessary daemons
The above two could easily be achieved by Yocto.

Best Regards,
Chen Qi

On 02/13/2019 12:49 AM, andrew.rudd@aktyon.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I’m looking to evaluate the general purpose/utility of a custom build 
> Yocto embedded OS. I’m trying to get my head around the benefits of 
> using such an OS. I’m sure it’s on case by case basis so let me 
> provide my background and requirements.
>
> Background/requirements
>
> Currently using Debian OS on my prototype build based on a Beaglebone 
> green wireless.
>
> Custom software is constructed in java.
>
> System utilizes 9 axis accelerometer, vibration sensor, Bluetooth, 
> WiFi, LTE-M, GNSS, power management (through BB I2c and GPIO channels)
>
> It runs on a battery and solar.
>
> Power usage is important. Standby is used and still needs to listen 
> for vibration sensor, Bluetooth and LTE-m cellular events.
>
> Only constrained by power usage and data usage. Processor or memory 
> usage are unconstrained except for in relation to power usage.
>
> Minimizing data usage if an OS update is needed would be an advantage.
>
> No audio , video, USB or GUI is used.
>
> So would there be a significant benefit seen by using a custom Yocto 
> build or would a GUIless version of Debian be just as effective? Also 
> considering Buildroot if that would be just as effective and simpler 
> to execute. If anyone has any other thoughts or concerns I would love 
> to discuss. Thank you for your time.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andrew Rudd
>
> President, Aktyon
>
> 352-256-8086
>
> Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com <mailto:Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com>
>
> AktyonLogoAndFontSignature
>
>
>


[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 5491 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.2: Type: image/png, Size: 8028 bytes --]

Re: Yocto General purpose evaluation

[Zoran Stojsavljevic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4232 bytes --]

> Background/requirements

> Currently using Debian OS on my prototype build based on a

> Beaglebone green wireless.

> Custom software is constructed in java.

> System utilizes 9 axis accelerometer, vibration sensor, Bluetooth,

> WiFi, LTE-M, GNSS, power management (through BB I2c and

> GPIO channels)

> It runs on a battery and solar.


Very stringent requirements. But... I would suggest more systematic

approach, which has more in-depth reach: nothing to do with neither

YOCTO, neither Debian!


> Power usage is important. Standby is used and still needs to listen

> for vibration sensor, Bluetooth and LTE-m cellular events.

> Only constrained *by power usage and data usage*. Processor or

> memory usage are unconstrained except for in relation to power usage.


Here, the data usage and memory usage are somehow on the same page.

I will assume that main (and sole) problem here is *power usage*.


> Minimizing data usage if an OS update is needed would be an advantage

> No audio , video, USB or GUI is used.


You need to consider deeper, more fundamental approach, here. The first

control you have over the hardware is U-Boot run (boot-loader).


In other words, you should, using U-Boot (I am assuming you use U-Boot),

to add functions which explicity disable the next functionality in ARM

(AM335x 1GHz ARM® Cortex-A8): <http://www.ti.com/product/am3358>

[1] ALSA HW (some registers in Power Plane which will completely disconnect

     ALSA domain);

[2] The same for HDMI 720p domain;

[3] The same for USB domain;

[4] Whatever HW blocks/domains you really do not use!


Then, you need to minimize Linux driver tree, leaving only what you really
use:

9 axis accelerometer;

vibration sensor;

Bluetooth;

WiFi;

LTE-M;

GNSS;

Power management (through BB I2c);

GPIO channels (leaving the minimum GPIO usage)!


I would prefer Debian (for number of reasons), but YOCTO is, certainly,

the good option too!


Zoran

_______

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:49 AM ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:

> Your main concern is about power usage. As long as you are using linux,
> you might want to do the following:
> 1) Custom kernel to include drivers that are necessary
> 2) Do not install unnecessary packages, do not start unnecessary daemons
> The above two could easily be achieved by Yocto.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chen Qi
>
> On 02/13/2019 12:49 AM, andrew.rudd@aktyon.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m looking to evaluate the general purpose/utility of a custom build
> Yocto embedded OS. I’m trying to get my head around the benefits of using
> such an OS. I’m sure it’s on case by case basis so let me provide my
> background and requirements.
>
>
>
> Background/requirements
>
> Currently using Debian OS on my prototype build based on a Beaglebone
> green wireless.
>
> Custom software is constructed in java.
>
> System utilizes 9 axis accelerometer, vibration sensor, Bluetooth, WiFi,
> LTE-M, GNSS, power management (through BB I2c and GPIO channels)
>
> It runs on a battery and solar.
>
> Power usage is important. Standby is used and still needs to listen for
> vibration sensor, Bluetooth and LTE-m cellular events.
>
> Only constrained by power usage and data usage. Processor or memory usage
> are unconstrained except for in relation to power usage.
>
> Minimizing data usage if an OS update is needed would be an advantage.
>
> No audio , video, USB or GUI is used.
>
>
>
>
>
> So would there be a significant benefit seen by using a custom Yocto build
> or would a GUIless version of Debian be just as effective? Also considering
> Buildroot if that would be just as effective and simpler to execute. If
> anyone has any other thoughts or concerns I would love to discuss. Thank
> you for your time.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andrew Rudd
>
> President, Aktyon
>
> 352-256-8086
>
> Andrew.Rudd@Aktyon.com
>
> [image: AktyonLogoAndFontSignature]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8449 bytes --]