Hi Mike,
First, thank
you for being a loyal TheadX customer!
On the
certification front, each new version of ThreadX
must be recertified. The last certified version was
from several years back. I don’t know the roadmap
for any new certifications.
As for the
feature request, I believe you might be interested
in ThreadX Modules:
https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/rtos-docs/blob/main/rtos-docs/threadx-modules/chapter1.md
https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/threadx/tree/master/common_modules
https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/threadx/tree/master/ports_module
A Module is
separately built (compiled/linked) application code
containing one or more threads. It can be loaded
dynamically or reside in place. Since it has its own
distinct address space (instruction and data),
memory protection (MMU or MPU) can be used to
isolate its access from the rest of the application.
There is also some time-domain protection by
limiting the priority of threads running in the
context of a module.
I hope this
helps!
Best regards,
Bill
Hello everyone,
First post here
but a long time user of ThreadX. Interesting news
that ThreadX is being brought into the open source
community. I am still reading through the
announcements and related documentation but I am
interested in understanding how the Functional
safety certification will be maintained and at what
frequency, and who will bear the costs for this?
Would it be that
users of the RTOS as they incorporate new features
would be expected to re-certify these changes, or
will the certification be kept up to date in some
other way?
My apologies for
being greedy but I also had a further question on
any future features that may be being considered. I
know from my previous experience with ThreadX that
there were ongoing efforts to provide a “thread
isolation” module such that it was guaranteed (and
more importantly assessed and certified to be the
case!) that the resources or any errors etc in one
thread would not have any effect on other threads.
This would allow, in functional safety terms,
“functionally safe” code to run in one (or more
threads) and for “non safe” code to run on another
thread without danger of interference to the safe
code even while operating on the same MCU. Is there
any ongoing development effort to provide this
feature and certify it?
Thank you for
your consideration and I am excited to see what the
future brings!
Mike
Mike
Skinner
Senior
Advanced Embedded Engineer
Honeywell
| PMC
Office:
+44 1202 645556
Mike.Skinner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
HoneywellAnalytics.com
![](jpg1g2t8OFrDZ.jpg)
This email, its content and any files
transmitted with it are intended solely for the
addressee(s), are confidential, subject to copyright
and may be legally privileged and/or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient please delete
and contact the sender on the telephone number shown
above or via email return. Unless expressly stated
otherwise, and subject to the disclaimer below, this
email does not form part of a legally binding
contract or agreement between the recipient and City
Technology Limited. (Registered no. 1326515
(England)). Registered Office: Honeywell House,
Skimped Hill Lane, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1EB,
England. E-mail cannot be guaranteed to be secure,
error free or free from viruses. Neither the sending
company nor its group of companies accepts any
liability whatsoever for any loss or damage which
may be caused as a result of the transmission of
this message by e-mail. If verification is required,
please request a hard copy version. Any opinions or
recommendations expressed herein are solely those of
the author.