On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
> > Small numbers of cycles are not possible. But usually, the number of
> > cycles needed is about 50 or 100.
>
> JoyNet singal propagation doesn't need waits that long. On 3.5MHz I got
> speeds of about 3.5 kilobyte per second, that is 3500*8=28000 bits per
> second, which is 125 clocks for a total 1-bit cycle (data + ack). Given the
> fact that there are quite a few instructions executed for every bit, there is
> hardly any waiting at all.
In that case I am truely convinced that the unidirectional solution is
also the quickest (given the joynet hardware).
> > Adriano wrote that he would like someone to write some code to use joynet
> > in uzix. I would like to do it, when the protocol is finished. If anyone
> > else wants to do it (or doesn't want me to do it :P ), let me know, since
> > I could use my time on other things as well.
>
> I could do it, but I have too many projects already, so if you are willing
> to, I prefer that you do it.
It looks like I am the best person to do it anyway. I have experience in
writing drivers for linux and designing operating systems and computers.
It should be pretty easy (with my knowledge, that is).
> > I would also like to write a network driver for linux, so you can connect
> > it to a router as well and connect the internet and all that.
>
> For Linux, the best solution would be to write a serial driver for JoyNet.
> Then pppd can be used to connect to UZIX and you can use the existing PPP
> network device.
Not at all. Linux knows the `network driver' as a special object. I should
just write a network driver, so the parallel port is treated as a network
device. Then you can just use the connection as if it is an ethernet card
, which means there is no need for a point to point link. It also means
that UZIX will need to use 4 byte host addresses (actually interface
addresses), at least in the JUMP driver.
> You can also make a user-mode solution, that sends stdin over JoyNet and
> sends JoyNet input to stdout. That program can then be connected to pppd
> using pipes. It's less flexible than a kernel driver, but it's also easier to
> write
Not at all. Just hacking the plip driver is done in a few minutes.
> and won't crash your system if it's buggy.
That is true. Well, let's just hope I'm a good programmer :P
> It can be a good intermediate step towards a kernel driver.
It can be, but I prefer to write a kernel driver directly.
> > > > Hmm, ok. So the parent must be named in every document. By the way I
> > > > don't keep my old versions of it and I don't expect others to. There is
> > > > no archive of them, which makes it a bit useless, since you cannot see
> > > > the tree anyway.
> > >
> > > There is the mailinglist archive on msxnet.org...
> >
> > But I don't post the document to the mailinglist every time I change it.
>
> It's doesn't matter what kind of version system you use personally. The
> proposed versioning system is only intended for published documents. So it
> should refer to the last *published* parent document.
All documents I make are directly published on my homepage
(www.cpedu.rug.nl/shevek/JUMP.txt). I do not keep an archive of that. But
the evolution tree doesn't really matter anyway, IMO. The reason to give
version numbers to the documents is to make them distinguishable, so you
know you are talking about the same thing.
Bye,
main(){int c[4] ,x=4 ,l=getpid() ,i;; for( srand(l);c[ x]=- rand
()%6 ,x-- ;);; for( ;44> x;){ char a[9] ,*p=
"%.1f\n", b[9];x=i=0; gets(a);for (l=4 ;l-- ;)x+=-(a[l] -=48)==
(b[l ]=c[ l]); ;for (l=0;16 >i;l =++i %4)x
+=(b[i/4]+ a[l] ?0:( a[l]=b[i/4] =10)) ;printf(p,x *.1) ;};}
****
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
****
