Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Hi Dave, I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to the list. I suggest the CP2200. It is the easiest to solder, least pins, smallest, simple connection to the QL bus. More importantly, it is already used on the Q68. Please read the data sheets and form an opinion about which would perform better on a QL at 7.5MHz or a SGC system at 25 MHz. I think connectivity is the point, not performance. Whatever increases likelihood of completing the project - especially the software side - should be the favorite. That depends more on the work that has already been done, and the software developers who do the work. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Hi, I would think the most important criteria would be to choose a solution that reduces the software load on 68K. It seems after a brief look at the data sheets that the W5300's interface is at socket level, is that right? Malcolm On 14/04/2014 22:39, Dave Park wrote: I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to the list. I would like there to be a *polite, friendly, respectful, constructive*debate about the relative merits of the two devices. Once you have expressed a view, that's enough. No need to restate it, unless you add something further. It is very important that discourse be *focused entirely*on solving the problem of getting ethernet onto the QL. Please read the data sheets and form an opinion about which would perform better on a QL at 7.5MHz or a SGC system at 25 MHz. There is already a TCP stack in existence; whether you wish to use it or not is a matter for you - one of the chips is a microcontroller that has its own stack. Here are the contenders: Wiznet WS5300 http://www.wiznet.co.kr/UpLoad_Files/Re ... _V128E.pdf versus Cirrus Logic CS8900 http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatash ... 00A_F5.pdf If there is a clear consensus, I will assemble some functional prototype boards using the favored device, then send boards and documentation out to a limited number of people who express an interest in doing development work with them. There would be some gentle conditions: 1. You'd join a developer mailing list and report occasionally on progress you'd made to the other three people and me. Others could join the list to provide feedback, etc. The list would allow you to self-co-ordinate your efforts within the group. I would not be the boss of you. I would not own your work. There is no schedule or deadline. 2. Anything you do, once reaching a state of development greater than alpha, would be open source and freely distributable. A GIT repository or similar would be nice. 3. I would, upon release, host information and downloads at SinclairQL.com so people can explore the code or develop it further. If anyone develops anything to a point that it becomes possible to add ethernet to a future board, or standalone, I would work out a way to produce them for the community. If not, you can keep the card as a curio/plaything/collectible, or send it to someone else who has shown an interest. So, let's begin, shall we? ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Yes, Malcolm, the interface is at the socket level. Both of the devices have some pros and cons. I am still open to suggestions for other options. One thing I am not concerned about is the pitch and number of pins on the WS5300 or any other device. I don't hand solder SMD boards. I use a solder mask to apply paste, position the devices then flow them in an oven. I have done a fair amount of QFP100 and 1mm BGA work with no problems. Although the WS5300 is technically superior as a device (it is more modern, it acts as an ethernet co-processor) the work that has already been done with the CS8900A is very important. Without the work being done on drivers, extensions for languages, etc, it doesn't matter how fly the device is. The CS8900A has some support already. Peter, could you outline what is available for the CS8900A, please? This is why I have opened up the discussion. I dread these discussions :) but I am sat here with two equally good choices for two very different reasons. The WS5300 is a very persuasive CHIP, and the CS8900A has some very persuasive CODE. Since CODE is such a big problem... If the CS8900A is chosen, we'll have a less capable or future-proof device that has much work already done. If we choose the WS5300, it maybe has an extra ten years of useful life but we have to start from scratch with supporting code. That's the balance. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Malcolm Lear malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: Hi, I would think the most important criteria would be to choose a solution that reduces the software load on 68K. It seems after a brief look at the data sheets that the W5300's interface is at socket level, is that right? Malcolm On 14/04/2014 22:39, Dave Park wrote: I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to the list. I would like there to be a *polite, friendly, respectful, constructive*debate about the relative merits of the two devices. Once you have expressed a view, that's enough. No need to restate it, unless you add something further. It is very important that discourse be *focused entirely*on solving the problem of getting ethernet onto the QL. Please read the data sheets and form an opinion about which would perform better on a QL at 7.5MHz or a SGC system at 25 MHz. There is already a TCP stack in existence; whether you wish to use it or not is a matter for you - one of the chips is a microcontroller that has its own stack. Here are the contenders: Wiznet WS5300 http://www.wiznet.co.kr/UpLoad_Files/Re ... _V128E.pdf versus Cirrus Logic CS8900 http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatash ... 00A_F5.pdf If there is a clear consensus, I will assemble some functional prototype boards using the favored device, then send boards and documentation out to a limited number of people who express an interest in doing development work with them. There would be some gentle conditions: 1. You'd join a developer mailing list and report occasionally on progress you'd made to the other three people and me. Others could join the list to provide feedback, etc. The list would allow you to self-co-ordinate your efforts within the group. I would not be the boss of you. I would not own your work. There is no schedule or deadline. 2. Anything you do, once reaching a state of development greater than alpha, would be open source and freely distributable. A GIT repository or similar would be nice. 3. I would, upon release, host information and downloads at SinclairQL.com so people can explore the code or develop it further. If anyone develops anything to a point that it becomes possible to add ethernet to a future board, or standalone, I would work out a way to produce them for the community. If not, you can keep the card as a curio/plaything/collectible, or send it to someone else who has shown an interest. So, let's begin, shall we? ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Malcolm, using the W5300 is really easy since it is a TCP stack and not an ethernet interface. Essentially you write high level command bytes to the command register (e.g. open, close, send) and read/write data from/to the w5300 memory buffers. The w3500 takes care of all the rest. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Malcolm Lear malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: I'd agree the physical package should be fine, I've even hand soldered those without problems. If the Wiznet really has a socket level interface I'd seriously consider it. I'd have thought just about all the QL's resources would be used up doing what the W5300 co-processor does and may be a reason an ethernet interface hasn't appeared before. Although the code argument is persuasive is it not true that a large part of that codes functionality would be performed by the W5300. On 15/04/2014 15:09, Dave Park wrote: Yes, Malcolm, the interface is at the socket level. Both of the devices have some pros and cons. I am still open to suggestions for other options. One thing I am not concerned about is the pitch and number of pins on the WS5300 or any other device. I don't hand solder SMD boards. I use a solder mask to apply paste, position the devices then flow them in an oven. I have done a fair amount of QFP100 and 1mm BGA work with no problems. Although the WS5300 is technically superior as a device (it is more modern, it acts as an ethernet co-processor) the work that has already been done with the CS8900A is very important. Without the work being done on drivers, extensions for languages, etc, it doesn't matter how fly the device is. The CS8900A has some support already. Peter, could you outline what is available for the CS8900A, please? This is why I have opened up the discussion. I dread these discussions :) but I am sat here with two equally good choices for two very different reasons. The WS5300 is a very persuasive CHIP, and the CS8900A has some very persuasive CODE. Since CODE is such a big problem... If the CS8900A is chosen, we'll have a less capable or future-proof device that has much work already done. If we choose the WS5300, it maybe has an extra ten years of useful life but we have to start from scratch with supporting code. That's the balance. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Malcolm Lear malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: Hi, I would think the most important criteria would be to choose a solution that reduces the software load on 68K. It seems after a brief look at the data sheets that the W5300's interface is at socket level, is that right? Malcolm On 14/04/2014 22:39, Dave Park wrote: I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to the list. I would like there to be a *polite, friendly, respectful, constructive*debate about the relative merits of the two devices. Once you have expressed a view, that's enough. No need to restate it, unless you add something further. It is very important that discourse be *focused entirely*on solving the problem of getting ethernet onto the QL. Please read the data sheets and form an opinion about which would perform better on a QL at 7.5MHz or a SGC system at 25 MHz. There is already a TCP stack in existence; whether you wish to use it or not is a matter for you - one of the chips is a microcontroller that has its own stack. Here are the contenders: Wiznet WS5300 http://www.wiznet.co.kr/UpLoad_Files/Re ... _V128E.pdf versus Cirrus Logic CS8900 http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatash ... 00A_F5.pdf If there is a clear consensus, I will assemble some functional prototype boards using the favored device, then send boards and documentation out to a limited number of people who express an interest in doing development work with them. There would be some gentle conditions: 1. You'd join a developer mailing list and report occasionally on progress you'd made to the other three people and me. Others could join the list to provide feedback, etc. The list would allow you to self-co-ordinate your efforts within the group. I would not be the boss of you. I would not own your work. There is no schedule or deadline. 2. Anything you do, once reaching a state of development greater than alpha, would be open source and freely distributable. A GIT repository or similar would be nice. 3. I would, upon release, host information and downloads at SinclairQL.com so people can explore the code or develop it further. If anyone develops anything to a point that it becomes possible to add ethernet to a future board, or standalone, I would work out a way to produce them for the community. If not, you can keep the card as a curio/plaything/collectible, or send it to someone else who has shown an interest. So, let's begin, shall we? ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
If that's the case then the driver software really shouldn't be too complex, I guess. I also see it directly supports an 8 bit bus and is 5V tolerant. With a 3.6V supply that should eliminate the requirement of bus level shifters. On 15/04/2014 16:38, Petri Pellinen wrote: Malcolm, using the W5300 is really easy since it is a TCP stack and not an ethernet interface. Essentially you write high level command bytes to the command register (e.g. open, close, send) and read/write data from/to the w5300 memory buffers. The w3500 takes care of all the rest. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Malcolm Lear malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: I'd agree the physical package should be fine, I've even hand soldered those without problems. If the Wiznet really has a socket level interface I'd seriously consider it. I'd have thought just about all the QL's resources would be used up doing what the W5300 co-processor does and may be a reason an ethernet interface hasn't appeared before. Although the code argument is persuasive is it not true that a large part of that codes functionality would be performed by the W5300. On 15/04/2014 15:09, Dave Park wrote: Yes, Malcolm, the interface is at the socket level. Both of the devices have some pros and cons. I am still open to suggestions for other options. One thing I am not concerned about is the pitch and number of pins on the WS5300 or any other device. I don't hand solder SMD boards. I use a solder mask to apply paste, position the devices then flow them in an oven. I have done a fair amount of QFP100 and 1mm BGA work with no problems. Although the WS5300 is technically superior as a device (it is more modern, it acts as an ethernet co-processor) the work that has already been done with the CS8900A is very important. Without the work being done on drivers, extensions for languages, etc, it doesn't matter how fly the device is. The CS8900A has some support already. Peter, could you outline what is available for the CS8900A, please? This is why I have opened up the discussion. I dread these discussions :) but I am sat here with two equally good choices for two very different reasons. The WS5300 is a very persuasive CHIP, and the CS8900A has some very persuasive CODE. Since CODE is such a big problem... If the CS8900A is chosen, we'll have a less capable or future-proof device that has much work already done. If we choose the WS5300, it maybe has an extra ten years of useful life but we have to start from scratch with supporting code. That's the balance. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Malcolm Lear malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: Hi, I would think the most important criteria would be to choose a solution that reduces the software load on 68K. It seems after a brief look at the data sheets that the W5300's interface is at socket level, is that right? Malcolm On 14/04/2014 22:39, Dave Park wrote: I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to the list. I would like there to be a *polite, friendly, respectful, constructive*debate about the relative merits of the two devices. Once you have expressed a view, that's enough. No need to restate it, unless you add something further. It is very important that discourse be *focused entirely*on solving the problem of getting ethernet onto the QL. Please read the data sheets and form an opinion about which would perform better on a QL at 7.5MHz or a SGC system at 25 MHz. There is already a TCP stack in existence; whether you wish to use it or not is a matter for you - one of the chips is a microcontroller that has its own stack. Here are the contenders: Wiznet WS5300 http://www.wiznet.co.kr/UpLoad_Files/Re ... _V128E.pdf versus Cirrus Logic CS8900 http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatash ... 00A_F5.pdf If there is a clear consensus, I will assemble some functional prototype boards using the favored device, then send boards and documentation out to a limited number of people who express an interest in doing development work with them. There would be some gentle conditions: 1. You'd join a developer mailing list and report occasionally on progress you'd made to the other three people and me. Others could join the list to provide feedback, etc. The list would allow you to self-co-ordinate your efforts within the group. I would not be the boss of you. I would not own your work. There is no schedule or deadline. 2. Anything you do, once reaching a state of development greater than alpha, would be open source and freely distributable. A GIT repository or similar would be nice. 3. I would, upon release, host information and downloads at SinclairQL.com so people can explore the code or develop it further. If anyone develops anything to a point that it becomes possible to add ethernet to a future board, or standalone, I would work out a way to produce them for the community. If not, you can keep the card as a
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Dave Park wrote: Peter, could you outline what is available for the CS8900A, please? For the QL? Nothing, as far as I know. Are you asking a different Peter? I proposed the CP2200. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Doesn't the CS8900a get more coverage on the Arduino space (probably why it got mentioned) Probably not a bad idea thieve the code out ine from an Arduino driver or something so you can do basic Ethernet Then add a stack du jour for the IPv4 example; http://fnet.sourceforge.net/ Personally the idea of using say a £13 tl-wr703 router as the physical interconnect and a SLIP link may be a goer. On 15/04/14 20:45, Peter Graf wrote: Dave Park wrote: Peter, could you outline what is available for the CS8900A, please? For the QL? Nothing, as far as I know. Are you asking a different Peter? I proposed the CP2200. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Incorrect emulation
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Are you aware of this: http://web.archive.org/web/20080507162255/http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/en/projects/68ktester There is a test results file which is supposed to help for exactly that kind of situation - the results are those from a real cpu. If anybody is seriously interested, I have ported the C++ code to C68 and now have a test runner for these results that works within the SMSQDOS system. I guess it could potentially also be run on any IP core if it already works most of the time. It actually uncovered a few more minor bugs in the QPC emulation, too. So minor they didn't bother anybody for 15 years, but still ;-) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Could save a lot of dev effort and choose any one of the following http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40_sacat=0_nkw=arduino+ethernet_sop=2 Then your contribution is the base board to interface the Ethernet board to the QL. Idea been start from a cheap known good solution testable on another platform then work back to the QL with minimum outlay in dev gear On 15/04/14 22:45, Dave Park wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
That device, while cheap, has no 5v tolerance. The level translation, while simple to do, is relatively expensive in terms of components + board space. In the end, it erases most of the cost benefit. Also, it doesn't fit within the package profile of how UltimIDE and UltraQ will pair together to just have this extra board and connector sticking out somewhere. The components and socket would need to be integrated into the form factor. I do appreciate the thought, and for most other uses this would be the right choice. It just doesn't work for this specific application. It's hard to set out all the parameters that put boundaries on this up front, because if I explained every design goal and restriction and 'desired element' there really wouldn't be any choices left. Whatever is chosen, there will be some compromises and some people will be unhappy. I can just try to make an informed decision. In this case, an informed decision is the decision that most gives prospect of a usable QL ethernet system. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:13 PM, John Alexander acontractor...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: Could save a lot of dev effort and choose any one of the following http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40_sacat=0_nkw= arduino+ethernet_sop=2 Then your contribution is the base board to interface the Ethernet board to the QL. Idea been start from a cheap known good solution testable on another platform then work back to the QL with minimum outlay in dev gear On 15/04/14 22:45, Dave Park wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Dave, I think I have up to 25 Wiznet chips and unpopulated PCB's (SPI interface) unused from an abandoned project. You can have them if it helps. The PCB like all my designs was created using the QL PCBDesign software so it can easily be altered to the QL bus. On 15 April 2014 22:45:55 BST, Dave Park d...@sinclairql.com wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Several different designs there but the majority of the chips used are 5V tolerant I/O. I'm glad some one appreciates the thought just wondering why there's such a problem putting a single chip Ethernet port on a computer that it's taken 30 years to do it. Any way the IPv4 stack and more importantly the Apps will consume more effort than the physical interface and as said previously you can always test on a SLIP connection On 15/04/14 23:24, Dave Park wrote: That device, while cheap, has no 5v tolerance. The level translation, while simple to do, is relatively expensive in terms of components + board space. In the end, it erases most of the cost benefit. Also, it doesn't fit within the package profile of how UltimIDE and UltraQ will pair together to just have this extra board and connector sticking out somewhere. The components and socket would need to be integrated into the form factor. I do appreciate the thought, and for most other uses this would be the right choice. It just doesn't work for this specific application. It's hard to set out all the parameters that put boundaries on this up front, because if I explained every design goal and restriction and 'desired element' there really wouldn't be any choices left. Whatever is chosen, there will be some compromises and some people will be unhappy. I can just try to make an informed decision. In this case, an informed decision is the decision that most gives prospect of a usable QL ethernet system. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:13 PM, John Alexander acontractor...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: Could save a lot of dev effort and choose any one of the following http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40_sacat=0_nkw= arduino+ethernet_sop=2 Then your contribution is the base board to interface the Ethernet board to the QL. Idea been start from a cheap known good solution testable on another platform then work back to the QL with minimum outlay in dev gear On 15/04/14 22:45, Dave Park wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Yes please :) I have five WizNet WS5300 and five CP8900A here. I don't have any CS2200. Having another 20 or so is about $120 of reduced cost just for the chips alone, which is very attractive since I am trying to do this project as affordably as possible for buyers without making a profit myself. I'll mail you off-list. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Malcolm malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: Dave, I think I have up to 25 Wiznet chips and unpopulated PCB's (SPI interface) unused from an abandoned project. You can have them if it helps. The PCB like all my designs was created using the QL PCBDesign software so it can easily be altered to the QL bus. On 15 April 2014 22:45:55 BST, Dave Park d...@sinclairql.com wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Hi Dave, I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. I used it with QDOS Classic - even sent email from my Q60 to this list, where you could see in the header that it was not Linux ;-) But QDOS Classic had other shortcomings (absence of maintainer, no highres graphics, etc.) which didn't motivate me for a release. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
If the parts are decided then the final choice is merely how many and how much as you state here On 15/04/14 23:37, Dave Park wrote: Yes please :) I have five WizNet WS5300 and five CP8900A here. I don't have any CS2200. Having another 20 or so is about $120 of reduced cost just for the chips alone, which is very attractive since I am trying to do this project as affordably as possible for buyers without making a profit myself. I'll mail you off-list. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Malcolm malc...@essex.ac.uk wrote: Dave, I think I have up to 25 Wiznet chips and unpopulated PCB's (SPI interface) unused from an abandoned project. You can have them if it helps. The PCB like all my designs was created using the QL PCBDesign software so it can easily be altered to the QL bus. On 15 April 2014 22:45:55 BST, Dave Park d...@sinclairql.com wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any QDOSMSQ* versions. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Graeme Gregory gra...@xora.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Wiznet: + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy. + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway. - Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have, but still not exactly many. - IPv4 only with no way to upgrade if it is ever deemed necessary. All in all I'd say a real Ethernet chip would be much more future-proof... if you can get the software for it working. Of course the W5300 is also a proper ethernet chip as well, linux has a driver for it not using the internal stack! G ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Thank you for being understanding, John. If we get to do ethernet, it will be integral to the UltraQ board and will be fitted to every UltraQ made. There would probably be a standalone board too, because it would be a horrible limitation to have to buy UltimIDE plus the UltraQ upgrade just to get ethernet - if for example you already have a SGC. Here are the physical/dimensional constraints: SuperRAM will initially be sold as a thru-conn interface for the QL. When the UltimIDE is released, it will have a riser to accept SuperRAM and, eventually, UltraQ. The riser version of SuperRAM will have a pin header facing down, instead of a DIN connector facing right. Same for the UltraQ. Converting a thru-conn SuperRAM to a daughtercard SuperRAM means removing the DIN connector to add the turned pins facing down, and adding a single solder bridge on the power supply (the riser feeds regulated 5v power.) UltimIDE will be sold with or without SuperRAM, and with or without UltraQ when that becomes available. Thus, a bare 0k or SuperRAM 896K equipped UltimIDE can be upgraded to a 4MB UltraQ with ethernet later, and the SuperRAM can be adapted for use in a BBQL, sold to someone with a bare UltimIDE, or possibly traded in for credit. *As currently planned*, the UltimIDE sticks out of the QL case a very small amount - about 20mm. The UltraQ will stick out slightly further, about 40 or 50mm. *This might change.* However, this creates a very low profile expansion and a not overly-long QL. This set-up can also be used in cased backplane systems. The intention is for the ethernet port to face backwards from the rear left corner of the UltraQ board. The floppy would face rearwards to the right of it. Both connectors would be mounted on the lower side of the PCB. LEDs would be on the top side of the PCB facing up, visible through a small slot in the black ABS cover. I hope to show veroboard mock-ups of the two boards in a few weeks, once SuperRAM is released. I have no preference for any chip, or hesitancy about any of the candidates. They're just chips that would have a schematic done then be incorporated onto a PCB that I'd assemble. I'm not going to be doing the drivers, it's all just hardware to me. The chip doesn't matter to me at all. It matters to whoever has to code for it. That's why I turned it over to you, humble code-tweakers. Which device is most likely to have code written for it that gets it to a useful state, be it a 'driver' or SuperBASIC routines that peek and poke their way to victory or assembly or whatever? Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:34 PM, John Alexander acontractor...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: Several different designs there but the majority of the chips used are 5V tolerant I/O. I'm glad some one appreciates the thought just wondering why there's such a problem putting a single chip Ethernet port on a computer that it's taken 30 years to do it. Any way the IPv4 stack and more importantly the Apps will consume more effort than the physical interface and as said previously you can always test on a SLIP connection On 15/04/14 23:24, Dave Park wrote: That device, while cheap, has no 5v tolerance. The level translation, while simple to do, is relatively expensive in terms of components + board space. In the end, it erases most of the cost benefit. Also, it doesn't fit within the package profile of how UltimIDE and UltraQ will pair together to just have this extra board and connector sticking out somewhere. The components and socket would need to be integrated into the form factor. I do appreciate the thought, and for most other uses this would be the right choice. It just doesn't work for this specific application. It's hard to set out all the parameters that put boundaries on this up front, because if I explained every design goal and restriction and 'desired element' there really wouldn't be any choices left. Whatever is chosen, there will be some compromises and some people will be unhappy. I can just try to make an informed decision. In this case, an informed decision is the decision that most gives prospect of a usable QL ethernet system. Dave On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:13 PM, John Alexander acontractor...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: Could save a lot of dev effort and choose any one of the following http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40_sacat=0_nkw= arduino+ethernet_sop=2 Then your contribution is the base board to interface the Ethernet board to the QL. Idea been start from a cheap known good solution testable on another platform then work back to the QL with minimum outlay in dev gear On 15/04/14 22:45, Dave Park wrote: Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration. I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example. I am a little disheartened
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:46 PM, John Alexander acontractor...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: If the parts are decided then the final choice is merely how many and how much as you state here No part is decided. It does look like the WS5300 has a couple of advantages, but a couple of people whose opinions I hold in high esteem prefer another device. Since it's about likelihood of coding, not the device itself, there's no clear actual leader. -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
So, here's the summary of my thinking. From a coding point of view, one chip stands out from the others. If installed in a system, anyone who reads the datasheet can write a BASIC, C or ASM program that directly transfers data to and from the WS5300. No need to deal with a TCP/IP stack whatsoever. This naturally fits in with the QL design philosophy of having intelligent peripherals. It looks like, with even a little prompting, even a less skilled programmer like myself could get the WS5300 working at a basic level. That cannot be said for any of the other options presented. The second attractive thing about the WS5300 is that it can work as well on a 7.5MHz QL as a 25MHz one. The system overhead would be relatively light. Now, the reality is that the WS5300 does have some limitations; for example, it only supports 8 ports when used in intelligent mode. However, that limitation disappears if used in the same mode the other options are used in. Therefore it has the same development hurdles, no more and no less if used in that mode. I suspect the quick start nature of the WS5300 means we will quickly see new applications developed for it, or existing applications made aware of how to use it. The CS2200A which is used in the Qx0 is the other contender. What I struggle with is that this option has been available to owners for 15+ years and yet nobody has used it in QDOSMSQ... Since it is unsupported, using a different chipset doesn't create a compatibility split - which was something I expressly wanted to avoid. My fear is that the same thing will happen if the WS5300 is used. What if I build it and they don't come? So, currently, my thinking is to use the WS5300. It represents the best opportunities for use at the widest range of skill levels. It is easy to incorporate. It's just the path of least resistance. The feedback so far has been very interesting to read. I want to express my gratitude to you all for keeping things civil and constructive. I'll leave discussion open for another day. This period will be for anyone to raise a specific objection / deal-breaker to using the WS5300 *that hasn't already be addressed*. This isn't a democracy: Sandy get to decide what's a deal breaker, because Sandy will be making the commitment to build it and support it. I have a couple of very skilled advisors guiding me, and I trust their judgment. It will also be the time for those who are interested in doing any development work with the WS5300 to email me *off-list* with a two-paragraph outline of what they'd do if they had one: what they'd work on, and where they expect things to go with it in the future. You also need to give a commitment to the openness principles in the first post: 1. You'd join a developer mailing list and report occasionally on progress you'd made to the other three people and me. Others could join the list to provide feedback, etc. The list would allow you to self-co-ordinate your efforts within the group. I would not be the boss of you. I would not own your work. There is no schedule or deadline. 2. Anything you do, once reaching a state of development greater than alpha, would be open source and freely distributable. A GIT repository or similar would be nice. 3. I would, upon release, host information and downloads at SinclairQL.com so people can explore the code or develop it further. If I get more than 3-4 interested people I might have a couple more questions for some of you - or if your ideas are really great I might make a couple of extra prototypes. Remember, email me off-list if you're interested in the beta program. :) Thank you. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Dave Park d...@sinclairql.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:46 PM, John Alexander acontractor...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: If the parts are decided then the final choice is merely how many and how much as you state here No part is decided. It does look like the WS5300 has a couple of advantages, but a couple of people whose opinions I hold in high esteem prefer another device. Since it's about likelihood of coding, not the device itself, there's no clear actual leader. -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
Remember, email me off-list if you're interested in the beta program. :) I'm interested, but I have some W5100 chips here (in development boards) and resources to build one just for the QL. So I think I can help. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
