...and found some more savings. *now down to 85 bytes*! Leaving 65 bytes for more patch fun.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:24 PM Stephen Adolph <twospru...@gmail.com> wrote: > In T200, the video subsystem was really reworked to take advantage of > hardware scrolling. > From a quick scan, it seems like the basic operation is the same for M100 > and T200 (upper and lower portions of the LCD), so the same "organization" > should be applicable to the M100. > > Could T200 video subsystem be back ported to M100? Perhaps a much deeper > dive into the code could make the M100 truly work as well as the T200 from > this perspective, but I would worry that the end result would be so > substantially different that software compatibility may become an issue. > > I guess they got away with software scroll on M100, but T200 would have > been completely unacceptable with such a slow scroll across 16 lines rather > than 8. > > Anyhow, I have streamlined the patch now to only 95 bytes, leaving 55 > bytes for more stuff. I may try to augment what is there with coverage for > some of the additional scroll corner cases. > > Steve > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:48 AM Joshua O'Keefe <maj...@nachomountain.com> > wrote: > >> > On Feb 23, 2022, at 7:17 AM, Stephen Adolph <twospru...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I did a write up on the two patches that are needed. >> >> Steve, I remember seeing you mention this a while back and I'm glad you >> were able to get back to it. Your write-up was clear, informative and >> interesting. Thanks for sharing it. >> >> I wonder why this controller feature was never exploited. Was there >> perhaps a similar, earlier part lacking the feature that was swapped out >> late in the design cycle? Simple time constraints like every engineer in >> history has faced? I can imagine all kinds of scenarios and it's a shame >> we'll never know the real story of why the ROM is the way it is. > >
