I was clued in by that whole.... no developments in twelve years aspect ;)
One of those times I'm happy to be spectacularly wrong. :D
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Peter Graf <pg...@q40.de> wrote:
> Hello Tony,
> it is good to read something from you.
> > 1) You need a system development environment that
> > a) will support different processors - ruling out assembler
> That depends on where one looks for a niche market. Things have changed
> inasmuch small to medium sized FPGA have become large enough to contain
> a whole 32 bit CPU.
> In addition to that, patents on the original 68000 have expired.
> Because of the high code density, I found the 68K architecture best
> suited for use with the limited internal RAM resources of an FPGA. I
> have tried several 32 bit architectures, and 68K allows the smallest
> memory footprint.
> Within small to medium sized FPGA systems, having a real-time operating
> system would often advantageous, but existing systems are simply too large.
> For such targets, the best would be an assembler written OS, still
> allowing application code in C. Like SMSQ/E and C68, but capable of real
> time operation and oriented toward embedded systems instead of personal
> > 2) You need to develop interface modules (drivers?) for a wide range of
> > "peripheral" devices - the device manufacturers will not develop them
> > for you.
> This also improves with FPGA - once there is a peripheral device in HDL
> (Hardware Definition Language) you can at least keep it th the same for
> the next product generation.
> > 4) You need to develop entirely different hardware architectures - this
> > century, architectures have become ever more tightly dedicated to UNIX
> > (Linux, Windows NT, ...)
> Maybe you can take the Q68 as a modest proof that a new hardware
> architecture can be close to 68K and the driver requirements of an
> assembler OS. I developed the Q68 as a hobby project, so is now 10 years
> old. Therefore it can not demonstrate the lastest chip performance, and
> of course the Q68 has a homecomputing flavour.
> But updated to latest chip generation, and adapted to an embdedded
> application, such a system suddenly could make a lot of sense with Stella.
> > 1) A first version of the Stella core was coded in MC68000 assembler and
> > benchmarked [...]
> So nothing would be better to continue development of the Stella than
> the 68K architecture.
> > 3) There is still no end in sight to the discovery of new "exploits" in
> > all sorts of Unix based devices.
> This is an important point. I have been joking with friends, that we
> might have to go back to 68K for internet use, simply because the
> architecture is too exotic to be exploited. Also, security requires
> lowest possible complexity.
> All the best
> QL-Users Mailing List
QL-Users Mailing List