[ql-developers] K68 Core
Anybody seen this? Phoebus http://www.opencores.org/projects/k68/> -- Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
Yeah. I have seen it. A couple of questions/remarks: -is this legal ? I remember contacting MC regarding making MC68000 in FPGA some years ago and their answer was a firm NO- they would not allow me to use 68000 ISA. - there is a related project somewhere, called IIRC V68000, which has the same instruction set as 68000 but it isn't binary compatible. -even if guy gets his off the ground and even if he uses the newest Spartan-3 FPGA, he will never reach the speeds even comparable with Coldfire 5307, let alone 5407 or the newest, yet-to-be-out 5471 or 5472. branko - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "QL Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: [ql-developers] K68 Core > > Anybody seen this? > > Phoebus > > http://www.opencores.org/projects/k68/> > > -- > Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS > Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA > > >
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:50:51 +0200, BRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah. I have seen it. A couple of questions/remarks: -is this legal ? I remember contacting MC regarding making MC68000 in FPGA some years ago and their answer was a firm NO-they would not allow me to use 68000 ISA. - there is a related project somewhere, called IIRC V68000, which has the same instruction set as 68000 but it isn't binary compatible. -even if guy gets his off the ground and even if he uses the newest Spartan-3 FPGA, he will never reach the speeds even comparable with Coldfire 5307, let alone 5407 or the newest, yet-to-be-out 5471 or 5472. branko Legality is a big issue. I came across this while I was reading about a ZX81-on-a-chip clone (T80 core). I thought that it would be a good alternative when Motorola gives up the 68K family. As for the new Coldfires... have you seen : a. Their prices?, b. That Motorola won't make them really available in anything less than batches of 1000? Phoebus - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "QL Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: [ql-developers] K68 Core Anybody seen this? Phoebus http://www.opencores.org/projects/k68/> -- Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA -- Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
I didn't know anything about the price. I plan to finally buid a decent homebrew machine and I had my eyes on 5407.Nice machine, but nothing really spectacular and no MMU. Just the other day I have posted the question to their support service, when will the 5471 be available, since it has MMU also (besides having enhanced core etc). I have got no answer still... But while searching around, I have stumbled on to superb alternative: MIPS. Decent core in several versions, supoported by several sources in all flavours and main sources seem to be hardworking, modest japanese guys instead of selfimportant pricks at MC. Check out NEC's offer and even more importantly PMC-Sierra. These guys rock. Latest incarnation is a 64 bit machine, has a decent FPU, 256 Kb of L2 cache, works on up to 1 GHz AND IS STILL IN QFP ! Oh, and it churns some 3.5W typicaly ! This thing would run Linux and emulate QL at the same time, even while powered down ;o) They have also the faster models, but those are in BGA packing :o) I'm thinking about using this one and also having smaller, slower, 32 bit version with FLASH at hand for those microcontroller jobs, where speed is not so critical, but space, cost and money are... Also, Hitachi makes nice things, but those are AFAIK not MIPS-compatible Branko - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:50:51 +0200, BRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yeah. I have seen it. > > > > A couple of questions/remarks: > > > > -is this legal ? I remember contacting MC regarding making MC68000 in > > FPGA > > some years ago and their answer was a firm NO-they would not allow me to > > use 68000 ISA. > > > > - there is a related project somewhere, called IIRC V68000, which has the > > same instruction set as 68000 but it isn't binary compatible. > > > > -even if guy gets his off the ground and even if he uses the newest > > Spartan-3 FPGA, he will never reach the speeds even comparable with > > Coldfire > > 5307, let alone 5407 or the newest, yet-to-be-out 5471 or 5472. > > > > branko > > > > > Legality is a big issue. I came across this while I was reading about a > ZX81-on-a-chip clone (T80 core). I thought that it would be a good > alternative when Motorola gives up the 68K family. As for the new > Coldfires... have you seen : a. Their prices?, b. That Motorola won't make > them really available in anything less than batches of 1000? > > Phoebus > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "QL Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:54 PM > > Subject: [ql-developers] K68 Core > > > > > >> > >> Anybody seen this? > >> > >> Phoebus > >> > >> http://www.opencores.org/projects/k68/> > >> > >> -- Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS > >> Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS > Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA > > >
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:45:16 +0200, BRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I didn't know anything about the price. I plan to finally buid a decent homebrew machine and I had my eyes on 5407.Nice machine, but nothing really spectacular and no MMU. Just the other day I have posted the question to their support service, when will the 5471 be available, since it has MMU also (besides having enhanced core etc). I have got no answer still... And it will take sometime until you get one if any :-) Nonetheless, the problem is that a MIPS won't do us (QLers) any good for a machine for the future, unless of course the whole OS is ported and then again we could use anything in that case even a x86 class CPU (brr) Phoebus -- Phoebus Dokos - Quantum Leap Software Authorized SMSQ/E reseller Visit us at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/>
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
- Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core > > And it will take sometime until you get one if any :-) > Nonetheless, the problem is that a MIPS won't do us (QLers) any good for a > machine for the future, unless of course the whole OS is ported and then > again we could use anything in that case even a x86 class CPU (brr) > > Phoebus MIPS is awesome architecture and mora than capable of emulating 68K at decent speeds. Mazbe not at 5407 speeds, but probably close. Besides, at this point having Linux option seems more important than being merely QL-compatible. I even think it should be possible to make some simple recompiler that would compile 68000 code for MIPS. Yeah, you could do it for Intel, but here the whole machine could churn less than 15W. Only Intel-compatible platform that could do something like that is VIA C3-Eden, which is crap performance-wise. (I have tried it).
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:41:31 +0200, BRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, you could do it for Intel, but here the whole machine could churn less than 15W. Only Intel-compatible platform that could do something like that is VIA C3-Eden, which is crap performance-wise. (I have tried it). Or as Zeljko suggested a Crusoe (which is not crap) :-) However because of their NDAs, binding agreements etc. it's out of the question too. Another VERY good idea is the PowerPC (especially the new offerings from IBM) which may not be that low consumption as a say a MIPS but it's definitely the best CPU around in terms of price/performance for your buck. Not to mention that it is fully supported. 68K-to-PowerPC translators already exist and it could be the stuff of dreams for all hobby-computing afficionados (our QLers included). Unfortunately that too would require a huge investment, the market just doesn't have... Maybe (I say maybe) a good idea would be (given the QLs 20th anniversary) to gather all die-hard Amiga, Atari, QL (and other currently regarded-as- obscure) platform users to provide a viable alternative to the mainstream... maybe a sourceforge project even? Phoebus -- Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS Eberly College of Business - Indiana U. of PA
Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
- Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core > Or as Zeljko suggested a Crusoe (which is not crap) :-) > However because of their NDAs, binding agreements etc. it's out of the > question too. I don't like Transmeta. Very closed design. > Another VERY good idea is the PowerPC (especially the new offerings from > IBM) which may not be that low consumption as a say a MIPS but it's > definitely the best CPU around in terms of price/performance for your buck. > Not to mention that it is fully supported. 68K-to-PowerPC translators > already exist and it could be the stuff of dreams for all hobby-computing > afficionados (our QLers included). Unfortunately that too would require a > huge investment, the market just doesn't have... > As I see it, PowerPC is not so vastly different from MIPS. I have searched for a nice model, but there is not such a thing. Everything is either in BGA, obsolete or otherwise problematic. > Maybe (I say maybe) a good idea would be (given the QLs 20th anniversary) > to gather all die-hard Amiga, Atari, QL (and other currently regarded-as- > obscure) platform users to provide a viable alternative to the > mainstream... maybe a sourceforge project even? Not a bad idea. But IMHO problem with these things is: -closed design with finite resources. Whoever does the design, tries to bake a buck (or ten) from selling it -they try to be 100% compatible and end up being uninteresting I am contemplating doing good old QL with new chips as a dead simple few_chips_design, preferably with old 68000. But problems that arise from that keep me spinning in an endless loop. With 68000, it's hard to ensure bandwidth needed for generation of a decent picture (like 800x600 with 16bp or such). If design is beefed up for this, it stops being simple. If I consider alternatives, it causes chain of design changes which end with whole thing being awfuly degeneric and mutated. Only few_chip_design that would capture true QL spirit while still being simple that I can envision is to do whole thing with Analog Devices ADSP-2192 DSP, emulating 68000 with DSP/blitter/FPU extensions. Everything else could be packed in a simple CPLD, along with a couple of SDRAMs. Unfortunately, ADSP-2192 is not cheap, until recently it was unavailable and there is no free development software for it. Besides, it could probably emulate 68000 at some 30/50 MHz. With incredible math performance, but still quite dated integer performance. So, after all this it seems to me that using MIPS (or similar machine) with Linux and optinally emultaing native QL seems like a optimal solution... Regards, Branko
