Priorty Interrupt by Steve Ciarcia The Best Kept Secret

Recently, I went to the Embedded Systems Conference in San Jose. I've been going to the show since it started. When asked for my opinion of the show, "informative" is the term I generally use. After all, I've been going to shows since the microprocessor was invented, and "informative" is about as exciting as it gets. The notable difference this year was the marked increase in the number and stature of the exhibitors. I view that with mixed emotions.

For many years, embedded control has been a boring technical topic that everyone loves to ignore (except us, of course). Considered something only a bunch of gearhead engineers could understand or appreciate, the major technical media has focused instead on more visible computer applications like multimedia and smart networks. All of a sudden, it seems that we, or at least our down-in-the-dirt specialty, have been discovered.

For years, there has been a definite expansion in the embedded marketplace. For the most part, I feel it's been a steady and predictable evolution directed by the necessities of performance rather than any corporate master design. In fact, if anything, a total lack of regimentation coupled with an equal-opportunity mentality has enabled the industry to expand rapidly in many different directions at the same time.

The only principle universally applied in all embedded-design situations has typically been, "Does it solve the problem?" There are development-language preferences, but no absolute prejudices. There are platform and processor chip preferences, but no absolute architectures. There are price/performance goals, but no absolute cost thresholds.

My greatest fear is that we've been discovered! Being out of the limelight allowed us to design as engineers, not politicians. Consider desktops. What do you purchase for business today and how many people want to have something to say about it? You may be the best Mac expert in the company, but if management feels that Intel rules, your new desktop is a PC. When it's time to update software and the choice is between all Microsoft products or various selections from competing companies, does some IS manager 1000 miles away dictate conformity?

As a publisher, I welcome embedded control's new visibility. I can proudly sit back and say, "What took you so long?" and know that we were the pioneers. As an engineer, however, I suddenly wonder if all the new visibility will result in a self-conscious examination of our design techniques where none is required. Will embedded control development or architectures have to become politically correct?

Go ahead and laugh if you want, but this wouldn't be the first time sledgehammer electronics has been applied to simple control tasks. How many times have you thought that $50 worth of 16-bit real-time processing was a better alternative than even the least-expensive 32-bitter under Windows?

Sure, I'm comparing apples and bananas. But, that's not the point. What troubled me at the show was the sudden and massive presence of Microsoft and Intel (Wintel). Certainly, I'm wise enough to know a straight PIC or Z8 application isn't going to be replaced by an embedded PC. It's the middle ground where an engineer might use multiple 8-bit, a souped-up 16-bit, or a competing 32-bit processor that concerns me.

In this diverse, fragmented, and difficult to understand market, there hasn't been any pressure for an engineer to do anything except solve the problem. I'm just not sure what level of organization becomes too much. We have to be careful that Wintel predominance doesn't achieve for embedded control what it did for desktops-the virtual elimination of alternatives.

steve.ciarcia@circuitcellar.com

Published: December-1997