2006-09-27 05:25:32     BF536 versus BF537

Document created by Aaronwu Employee on Aug 5, 2013
Version 1Show Document
  • View in full screen mode

2006-09-27 05:25:32     BF536 versus BF537

Peter Nielsen (DENMARK)

Message: 14000    Hi


I am planning to use the BF536 due to it's lower cost price.

I plan to design the HW like BF537 STAMP board.


I know that MHZ is lower and it has lower RAM -

My application is quiet simple and i am doing some TCP/IP communication - so i dont need the BF537 speed.


My questions are:

1) Can BF536 be used in uclinux applications due to its lower onboard RAM.

2) Is BF536 HW compatible with BF537 exect speed and RAM - e.g. can it download UBOOT via RS232 port as i can with BF537.

3) BF536 can not be chosen in the uClinux configuration program.






2006-09-27 13:35:35     RE: BF536 versus BF537

Mike Frysinger (UNITED STATES)

Message: 14015    the BF536 is fully supported


when we talk about 'booting over the UART on the 537' we actually mean the BF537 family ... so the 536 and 534 should boot fine over the UART


as for the configuration program, we provide default board settings for our boards ... if you create a 536 board, you are expected to create your own board settings directory


you can do your development on a 537 stamp and it should just work when switching over to a custom 536 board ... you should be able to even configure the kernel for the 536 and run it on the stamp




2008-02-11 01:37:49     RE: BF536 versus BF537

Alexey Novgorodov (RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

Message: 50898    BF534 is fully supported too, is't it?




2008-02-11 01:46:56     RE: BF536 versus BF537

Mike Frysinger (UNITED STATES)

Message: 50899    please refer to the wiki: