Space Qualified RTEMS

Wed Jan 25 13:03:27 UTC 2012

Hi all,

We are currently developing a mass memory (PDHU) for the GAIA and 
Earthcare satellites. Both of them use RTEMS.

While reading the other answer in this chain I wondered something; On 
the GAIA satellite I think we used the 4.6 version (devlopement started 
a while ago) but Earthcare is a newish project on which we are going to 
use the validated RTEMS 4.8 the original poster is talking about. I 
totaly agree with Thomas Doerfler that using a 4.8 version when the 
current is 4.10 is not optimal but we were strongly advised by ESA to 
use the Edisoft RTEMS validation suite. I'm wondering what was the 
arguments and approach of the two previous persons who are working with 
a 4.10 version? Did you have to validate RTEMS yourself or was the ESA 
okay for you to use it as is? I'm really curious about this. ;)

Léonard

On 25.01.2012 10:51, Matthews, Lee wrote:
> Thomas, Cláudio,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. Thomas you note that the RTEMS community has contributed to many space missions. Could you please give me some examples of any previous (or upcoming) missions that use RTEMS, particularly version 4.10. This will give me an idea of heritage and provide me with some leverage if ever ESA decides to try and force version 4.8 upon us.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtems-users-bounces at rtems.org [mailto:rtems-users-bounces at rtems.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Doerfler
> Sent: 24 January 2012 17:13
> To: rtems-users at rtems.org
> Subject: Re: Space Qualified RTEMS
>
> Hi Lee, hi all,
>
> First of all: the RTEMS commmunity is proud to have contributed to so
> many space missions. AFAIK at least the NASA projects had returned their
> share of code improvement to RTEMS, which is a benefit to all future
> users (including future NASA missions).
>
> Your set of questions significantly emphasises the problem with those
> "pull everything, commit nothing" projects like the ESA "space
> qualified" RTEMS kernel.
>
> It is nice and vital for the ESA space community to have a qualified
> RTOS, which also supports the space specific platforms like ERC32/LEON.
> But those "read-only" activities are all prone to severe bit rot.
>
> Since RTEMS 4.8, there were severe improvements to the system:
> - many bugs were identified and eliminated
> - new features were added
> - support for up-to-date hardware was added (and this is what you ask
> for in your mail)
> - siginificant activities were launched to improve code quality, like
> extensions to the test sets, automated code coverage analysis and others.
>
> You will not have access to these improvements, because the "space
> qualified" RTEMS has not been merged back into the main RTEMS repository.
>
> -------------------------
>
> I have a scenario in mind:
>
> - Let's say that during a certain test configuration late in the
> development cycle, my system will fail
>
> - the reason for the failure can be tracked down to an OS bug (which is
> unlikely, but may happen in every piece of software)
>
> - I or my colleagues will find out that the bug has long been identified
> and fixed in RTEMS
>
> - but I am using a "space qualified" version of RTEMS, which has the bug
> still in it...
>
> ... this would really bother me. Almost every software has minor bugs.
> But using an old release of a software, which, due to the develpoment
> model selected, does not care about improvements and fixes in the main
> source tree may be regarded rather careless...
> -------------------------
>
> What I really long to see is to have these space qualification related
> modifications to RTEMS be integrated back into the main RTEMS
> repository, because that's how Open Source software works:
>
> If all users share their OS software knowledge, every user can partake
> in the whole collected knowledge.
>
> Just my two cents,
>
> Thomas.
>
>
> Am 24.01.2012 16:41, schrieb Matthews, Lee:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm developing software that uses RTEMS on an Aeroflex Gaisler LEON3FT
>> processor that is running on a Pender GR-CPCI-AX2000 development board.
>> I am using version 4.10 of RTEMS and RCC 1.1.99.19.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are working on producing a Magnetometer instrument that will be
>> integrated into ESA's upcoming Solar Orbiter mission to the Sun. We
>> shall be using RTEMS on our Leon3FT CPU. Having just gone through ESA's
>> Preliminary Design Review process, it has been highlighted by ESA that
>> there is a space qualified version of RTEMS available, though this is
>> currently based on version 4.8 of the kernel. I believe this is being
>> developed by the company Edisoft (http://rtemscentre.edisoft.pt).**
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a few questions about this :
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)  Does anyone know what the difference is exactly between a "standard"
>> and a "space qualified" version of RTEMS ?
>>
>> 2)  Assuming that we were to use the space qualified RTEMS 4.8 kernel,
>> would we still be able to use Aeroflex Gaisler's BSP (RCC 1.1.99.19) ?
>>
>> 3)  Would Aeroflex Gaisler's BSP also need to be space qualified ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Lee Matthews
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-users mailing list
>> rtems-users at rtems.org
>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>

-- 
Léonard Bise
Software Engineer
Phone: +41 (0)32 338 9902
E-mail: leonard.bise at syderal.ch <mailto:leonard.bise at syderal.ch>

SYDERAL SA
Neuenburgstrasse 7
CH-3238 Gals (Switzerland)

Desk: +41 (0)32 338 9800
Fax: +41 (0)32 338 9934
Web site: http://www.syderal.ch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120125/ea990503/attachment.html>