pgraf--- via Ql-Users wrote: >> Well, I said I'd do it and apparently I did it: >> >> https://www.kilgus.net/2018/02/02/clonetastic-ql-sd-clone-working-with-goldcard-clone/ > What surprises me is this: "With the original Verilog code my clone > didn't work at all, so it's definitely not just the different chip." > > With a normal GC, the original QL-SD worked relatively well, > compared to the SGC.
I've heard, but bot on my system. There was one driver version where it briefly managed to display halve a directory before it turning into scrambled screen, but that was about it. > On some GC systems it was even fully stable hardware-wise. So if we > assume that the electrical characteristics of the XC9572 play a > minor role, why did it not work _at_all_? > > A significant difference between Original GC and Tetroid? Well, the Tetroid-Card has the 30ns displacement between the adress bus changing and ROMOE being cleared. I think it's entirely plausible that other GoldCards might have a different timing, making the "it works or not" a matter of pure probability. As Tobias wrote "I have mixed experiences with GoldCards - One doesn't work at all, the other one (at least in one specific QL) rather well for days together with a QL-SD. But not well enough to go through the nuisance of destroyed file system every other week or so." You might get lucky for a while, especially if timing is very tight, but then one day you might not. I've also heard that for some people it only works when the driver is loaded into RAM, which reduces the ROM accesses and once again reduced the probability for a spurious actions. Mind you I don't consider this a bug in QL-SD, it's more a bug in GC and I'm trying to create a stable workaround. It'd be very interesting how an SGC handles this. Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
