What's Your Favorite Processor on an FPGA?

On 4/25/2013 12:21 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:10:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>>
>>    Yet the PDP-11s have all been scrapped.
>
> Sure. There's not a lot of demand for fractional-mips computers with kilobyte
> core memories. Lots of Univacs, Crays, GE, and IBM PC-XT computers have been
> scrapped too.

Actually there is a huge demand for such processors, and smaller.  Do 
you wear a digital watch?  What's in your microwave, your TV remote, 
ect...  DEC's problem was they didn't know how to package.

BTW, learn to trim your posts...

-- 

Rick

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:54:32 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>John Larkin wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:40:51 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >John Larkin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:50:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John Larkin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 22 Apr 2013 12:59:27 GMT, Allan Herriman <allanherriman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:05:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The annoying thing is the CPU-to-FPGA interface. It takes a lot of FPGA
>> >> >> >> pins and it tends to be async and slow. It would be great to have an
>> >> >> >> industry-standard LVDS-type fast serial interface, with hooks like
>> >> >> >> shared memory, but transparent and easy to use.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You've just described PCI Express.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No. PCIe is insanely complex and has horrible latency. It takes something like 2
>> >> >> microseconds to do an 8-bit read over gen1 4-lane PCIe. It was designed for
>> >> >> throughput, not latency.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We've done three PCIe projects so far, and it's the opposite of "transparent and
>> >> >> easy to use." The PCIe spec reads like the tax code and Obamacare combined.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Next up is Thunderbolt, probably worse.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >   Have you ever worked with PCI-X?
>> >>
>> >> No, but it's mostly dead, as PCI will soon be. Intel busses only last a few
>> >> years each.
>> >
>> >
>> >   It's alive & well in real servers for their RAID controllers and
>> >Ethernet or FC ports.  I've never seen it used in a computer that sold
>> >for under $3K.
>> 
>> Do current Intel chip sets support PCI-X? Or even PCI?
>
>
>
>   Ask Intel.

The last time I tried to ask Intel anything [1], they insisted that I
be certified first. That involved furnishing all sorts of company info
and presenting a plan that proved we would build at least 10K systems
the first year. All that to get a datasheet!

Go ARM!

[1] info about Thunderbolt bridge chips


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro   acquisition and simulation

You just can't learn to trim your posts, no matter what.  Did you ever 
see the movie Memento?  Maybe we need to get you a tattoo?

I bet if you reply to this post it is trimmed. lol

-- 

Rick


On 4/24/2013 11:22 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:34:09 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2013 8:14 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:45:07 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/23/2013 10:03 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but it's mostly dead, as PCI will soon be. Intel busses only last a few
>>>>> years each.
>>>>
>>>> A *few* years?  PCI has been around for 20 years!
>>>
>>> But mobos seldom have PCI slots any more. It's all PCIe now. And
>>> Thunderbolt will displace PCIe.
>>>
>>> Motherboard slots are going away. Hell, motherboards are going away!
>>
>> Sure, for that matter PCs are going away for the mainstream.  In 10
>> years it will literally be like working on the Enterprise... the space
>> ship Enterprise.  Everyone will be using tablets and pads, there just
>> won't be a need for the traditional PC except for specialties... like
>> PCB layout, lol
>>
>> There won't be any busses really.  It will all be wireless.  Maybe it
>> will all be powered by a Tesla type power source too. lol
>>
>> That doesn't change the fact that PCI was mainstream for well over a
>> decade, more like 15 years!
>>
>> BTW, are you capable of learning?  Or have you reached your learning
>> capacity?
>
> This week's project is to learn all about synchros, resolvers, control
> transformers, and the many other related critters, and to figure out the
> conventions, voltages, phases, and the trig for acquiring and simulating all of
> that stuff.
>
> I did win a burger and a beer. I guessed that the GCC atan2 function would take
> about 10 us on our ARM processor, and Rob bet it would take one. He wanted to
> bet based on 5.5 as the cut point, but I suggested that the geometric mean was
> more fair. Ok, it takes just about 4 us, so I won by about 800 ns.
> Now he wants to hack the source code to eliminate some paths we don't need, like
> the checks for infinity and NAN and such, and speed it up. That would be a lot
> of work for a burger and a beer.
>
> And I'm about to learn a lot about kilowatt bar lasers, preferably without
> losing any important body parts.
>
>
>

On Apr 26, 8:04=A0pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:33:32 -0800, Robert Baer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> >> John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:38:23 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >>> <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>> John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:48:53 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >>>>> <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >>>>>>> <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> DEC wrote operating systems (TOPS10, VMS, RSTS) that ran for mo=
nths between
> >>>>>>>>> power failures, time-sharing multiple, sometimes hostile, users=
. We are now in
> >>>>>>>>> the dark ages of computing, overwhelmed by bloat and slop and c=
omplexity. No
> >>>>>>>>> wonder people are buying tablets. DEC understood things that In=
tel and Microsoft
> >>>>>>>>> never really got, like: don't execute data.
>
> >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0I've had Win2K run over nine months, between power failur=
es that
> >>>>>>>> lasted longer than the UPS batteries. =A0DEC had more control ov=
er the
> >>>>>>>> computers, and a tiny fraction of the number running Windows or =
Linux.
>
> >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0If DEC was so damned good, why were they unable to surviv=
e? =A0Their
> >>>>>>>> IBM 'clone' (Rainbow 100) was very overpriced, not compatible, a=
nd did a
> >>>>>>>> very quick death spiral. =A0Admit it. =A0It was a dinosaur compa=
ny with a
> >>>>>>>> very tiny customer base.
>
> >>>>>>> It was *the* minicomputer company and that changed the world.
>
> >>>>>> =A0 =A0Really? =A0Could it have handled any modern application, le=
t alone
> >>>>>> dozens or hundreds of them at once.
>
> >>>>> As I recall, Unix and C were invented for the PDP11. As was Arpanet=
 and the
> >>>>> Internet. The PDP8 was the first "personal" computer, a computer th=
at one person
> >>>>> could buy and use all by himself, to automate a lab experiment or (=
in my case)
> >>>>> simulate a steamship power train. That changed everything.
>
> >>>>> DECs RT11 OS was cloned to become CPM and Microsoft DOS, and lives =
on in the
> >>>>> Windows command line.
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0CP/M<>DOS and never was. =A0'Control Program for Microcompute=
rs' was
> >>>> written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research, Inc, and the later MP/M=
 for
> >>>> multiple users was written for the 8080 from scratch. =A0If that is =
a
> >>>> clone, so is every other OS.
>
> >>>>> What sort of computing system did you have in 1969? I had a PDP8 ru=
nning Focal.
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0Did you own it?
>
> >>> No, but my employer bought it for me; cost $12,800 with 4k 12-bit wor=
ds of core
> >>> and a teletype, when you could but a Chevy for a tenth of that. It wa=
s mine in
> >>> the sense that I was the main, usually only, user. A couple of years =
later, 1972
> >>> I think, we got one of the first PDP-11s. The PDP-11 was a wonderful
> >>> architecture; it taught a lot of people, including me, how to think. =
x86 is a
> >>> pig by comparison.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 Yet the PDP-11s have all been scrapped. =A0I scrapped a lot of=
 them in
> >> the early '90s. =A0Tractor trailer loads of off lease CAD systems.
> > =A0 Yeah, for the PDP-11, designing specialized interface boards and
> >programming for them was very nice and straight-forward.
>
> The 11 had no i/o instructions, which was cool. Devices were memory
> mapped, so no opcodes were wasted on klunky IN and OUT instructions,
> and any memory opcode could operate on i/o, too. 68K worked like that,
> too. The 68K was just a better PDP-11.
>

with IO instructions you don't need to do a whole lot of address
decoding
for if you need a few IO registers, you can easily make io a different
speed
than memory, if the opcode aren't used for anything else they are not
wasted

And nothing prevents you from memory mapping devices instead of using
the
IO instructions


-Lasse

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT), "langwadt@fonz.dk"
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>On Apr 26, 8:04&#4294967295;pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
>wrote:

>> The 11 had no i/o instructions, which was cool. Devices were memory
>> mapped, so no opcodes were wasted on klunky IN and OUT instructions,
>> and any memory opcode could operate on i/o, too. 68K worked like that,
>> too. The 68K was just a better PDP-11.
>>
>
>with IO instructions you don't need to do a whole lot of address
>decoding
>for if you need a few IO registers, you can easily make io a different
>speed
>than memory, if the opcode aren't used for anything else they are not
>wasted

The PDP-11 allocated 8 KiB for the I/O page. This was of course much
if you only had 64 KiB address space (no MMU), not so bad with 256 KiB
logical address space (such as PDP11/34) and insignificant in the 4
MiB address space (such as PDP11/70).

With 8 KiB I/O page, it was not a problem to allocate register space
for a large number of Unibus/QBUS cards, each peripheral register
could have its own address in the I/O page.

Compare this to some processors with specialized I/O instructions with
perhaps up to 256 I/O-registers. This caused some nasty consequences,
there might be only two bytes on a peripheral card, first you write a
register number select to select the actual register and then use the
other byte for the actual data transfer to the recently selected
register. 

The IN instruction might read from one register, but OUT to the same
address would cause writing a completely different register, i.e. no
register readbacks. 

Some exotic cards might have some nasty side effects of the IN
instruction (e.g. advancing the register select) and you could not
safely use some diagnostics tools to peeking such registers.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:04:05 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:


>The 11 had no i/o instructions, which was cool. Devices were memory
>mapped, so no opcodes were wasted on klunky IN and OUT instructions,
>and any memory opcode could operate on i/o, too. 68K worked like that,
>too. The 68K was just a better PDP-11.
>
>The PDP-11 was programmed in octal, and with a little practice you
>could assemble instruction in your head and map them directly into
>octal. I can still do some.
>
>MOVB (r1)+, R5  is (I think) 112105 octal.

The dual operator instruction format was 1+3+(3+3)+(3+3) bits and most
single operation instructions 1+9+(3+3) bits, thus it was quite easy
to write small test programs directly with the binary front page
switches. Of course, calculating the relative branch offsets in your
head was a challenge :-).

It is interesting to note that the Intel 8080 had the MOV instruction
in the 2+3+3 bit format and most other instructions in the 5+3 bit
format. In some early documents, Intel used octal, which worked fine
for this instruction mapping. Unfortunately, Intel then switched to
hexadecimal notation and it became quite hard to program it in machine
language.

John Larkin wrote:
> 
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> >   Ask Intel.
> 
> The last time I tried to ask Intel anything [1], they insisted that I
> be certified first. That involved furnishing all sorts of company info
> and presenting a plan that proved we would build at least 10K systems
> the first year. All that to get a datasheet!


   Yet you asked me what they newest chips support.

   Based on the number of boards in use, VME/VXI is obsolete.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:28:00 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/24/2013 5:19 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> On 2013-04-23, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Who else made fatal mistakes were made in the computer industry?  Who=
 at
>>> Osborn decided to promote the next generation before they were ready =
to
>>> ship and killed the current sales?
>>>
>>> Why did the Alpha die?  Was that more an issue of DEC going away?  I
>>> don't recall who ended up with it.
>>> Was it Intel who let it die a  lingering death?
>>
>> HP  http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver
>
>Ah, it was HP who ended up with it.  It lasted up until 2008, that's not=
=20
>too bad really.

Ah.  Now i get it.  That is why HP wanted Compaq.

?-)

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>=20
>> DEC wrote operating systems (TOPS10, VMS, RSTS) that ran for months =
between
>> power failures, time-sharing multiple, sometimes hostile, users. We =
are now in
>> the dark ages of computing, overwhelmed by bloat and slop and =
complexity. No
>> wonder people are buying tablets. DEC understood things that Intel and=
 Microsoft
>> never really got, like: don't execute data.
>
>
>   I've had Win2K run over nine months, between power failures that
>lasted longer than the UPS batteries.  DEC had more control over the
>computers, and a tiny fraction of the number running Windows or Linux.
>
>
>   If DEC was so damned good, why were they unable to survive?  Their
>IBM 'clone' (Rainbow 100) was very overpriced, not compatible, and did a
>very quick death spiral.  Admit it.  It was a dinosaur company with a
>very tiny customer base.

Same old management problem.  Even though the Alpha ran rings around =
Vaxes
and PDP10s, and those were the current cash cows.  They crippled Alphas =
to
keep their old "core" business.  That decision destroyed them.  See also
the Rainbow. =20
IBM has barely survived similar mistakes with the PC.  Also where is Data
General (who had the Nova mini and the Micronova chip), Sequent, Sierra,
Nixdorf, Pyramid, Non-stop computing, and many other minicomputer (and
transaction server) vendors of the time.  All gone or morphed into
something else.  Sun was the last one standing and they focused on
engineering workstations. SGI Iris workstations are gone as well.  Mentor
and Daisy have morphed into software companies.

?-)

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:59:05 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>
>DECs RT11 OS was cloned to become CPM and Microsoft DOS, and lives on in=
 the
>Windows command line.

Absolute idiotic poppycock.  Neither CPM nor Portland Software's 8086 DOS
had anything but some incidental common commands to RT11.  They were
utterly different creatures written from scratch.
>
>What sort of computing system did you have in 1969? I had a PDP8 running=
 Focal.
>What did you compute on in 1975? I had a PDP11 timeshare system with =
around 20
>users.=20
>
In 1975 i had a AN/UYK-7 which was about equivalent to a small VAX of the
time.  It was designed as a dedicated real time military sensor and
weapons control platform (NTDS), the precursor of C3I.  It did about 1
32-bit VAX MIPS.

?-)