Hi,
I am using Platform Builder 4.2 and I can't understand which BSP
should I use to create a SA1110 (strongarm) target.
The SA1110 system is old, but I still need it.

I have installed:
ARM Integrator
Intel DBPXA250
Samsung SMDK2410

But I can't find any SA1110
Where is it ?
TIA

Re: Does WinCE4.2 support SA1110 ? by Bruce

Bruce
Sat Apr 23 08:24:37 CDT 2005

No, Platform Builder 4.2 does not support the SA1110. As you can imagine
supporting an obsolete cpu has some significant costs with little payoff.

1. www.applieddata.net could help you move to a new cpu.
2. You could port an earlier SA1110 BSP to 4.2, there has been discussion
of that in this newsgroup, but it was some time ago. Try searching using
Google Groups.
3. There may be some other third party solutions.

But with any of these efforts, you may want to consider going to CE 5.0.

--
Bruce Eitman (eMVP)
Senior Engineer
beitman AT applieddata DOT net

Applied Data Systems
www.applieddata.net
An ISO 9001:2000 Registered Company
Microsoft WEP Gold-level Member


"Felix" <Shutruk@Nahunte.ix> wrote in message
news:ulnmOv9RFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am using Platform Builder 4.2 and I can't understand which BSP
> should I use to create a SA1110 (strongarm) target.
> The SA1110 system is old, but I still need it.
>
> I have installed:
> ARM Integrator
> Intel DBPXA250
> Samsung SMDK2410
>
> But I can't find any SA1110
> Where is it ?
> TIA
>
>



Re: Does WinCE4.2 support SA1110 ? by Dean

Dean
Mon Apr 25 08:38:42 CDT 2005

Clarification

Platform Builder 4.2 does not contain a BSP that supports the SA1110
processor, so you'd need to come up with a BSP for it from somewhere else.
The 4.2 operating system will support this processor, if a BSP is provided.

The CE5 operating system will not support the SA1110 processor. The SA1110
does not support the thumb instruction set, and that is now a requirement.
MS no longer provides an operating system tree for ARM processors that do
not support Thumb mode.

--
Dean Ramsier - eMVP
Vibren Technologies
http://www.vibren.com/Products/schema_bsp.htm


"Bruce Eitman (eMVP)" <beitmannospam@NOSPAM_applieddata.NOSPAM_net> wrote in
message news:uCzhNfASFHA.3732@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No, Platform Builder 4.2 does not support the SA1110. As you can imagine
> supporting an obsolete cpu has some significant costs with little payoff.
>
> 1. www.applieddata.net could help you move to a new cpu.
> 2. You could port an earlier SA1110 BSP to 4.2, there has been
discussion
> of that in this newsgroup, but it was some time ago. Try searching using
> Google Groups.
> 3. There may be some other third party solutions.
>
> But with any of these efforts, you may want to consider going to CE 5.0.
>
> --
> Bruce Eitman (eMVP)
> Senior Engineer
> beitman AT applieddata DOT net
>
> Applied Data Systems
> www.applieddata.net
> An ISO 9001:2000 Registered Company
> Microsoft WEP Gold-level Member
>
>
> "Felix" <Shutruk@Nahunte.ix> wrote in message
> news:ulnmOv9RFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> > I am using Platform Builder 4.2 and I can't understand which BSP
> > should I use to create a SA1110 (strongarm) target.
> > The SA1110 system is old, but I still need it.
> >
> > I have installed:
> > ARM Integrator
> > Intel DBPXA250
> > Samsung SMDK2410
> >
> > But I can't find any SA1110
> > Where is it ?
> > TIA
> >
> >
>
>



Re: Does WinCE4.2 support SA1110 ? by joshawa

joshawa
Mon Apr 25 23:19:03 CDT 2005

Bruce Eitman (eMVP) wrote:

> No, Platform Builder 4.2 does not support the SA1110. As you can imagine
> supporting an obsolete cpu has some significant costs with little payoff.
>
> 1. www.applieddata.net could help you move to a new cpu.
> 2. You could port an earlier SA1110 BSP to 4.2, there has been discussion
> of that in this newsgroup, but it was some time ago. Try searching using
> Google Groups.
> 3. There may be some other third party solutions.
>
> But with any of these efforts, you may want to consider going to CE 5.0.
>

I was able to port a 4.0 SA1110/SA1111 BSP to 4.2. But only do it if
you absolutely have to (we needed the 4.2 fixes for a legacy product
still in use, so there was no choice). There was significant work involved.