FPGA programming (was Re: MSX Revival Project - One Chip MSX)
Laurens Holst wrote: I don't think you can program 'parts of' the FPGA, you have to program it as a whole in one go. No not necessarily. Hans Oranje told me this, and I saw it on one of Tsujikawa's designs: The FPGA gets its information directly from a FlashROM. Change something in the flashrom and the FPGA instantly changes too! And you know it's possibly to program part of a FlashROM. Greetz, Patriek -- For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
Re: MSX Revival Project - One Chip MSX
Hi, ] I think it's strange the computer runs on Linux. First, as far as I know Linux ] is a Unix-clone for IBM-compatibles. The one-chip-msx is not an IBM-compatible. Linux started-off as a 386 Unix clone. But soon it also got ported to other architectures. These days it runs on every major 32-bit (and higher) processor. Furthermore, another big advantage of Linux is that you do not have to pay ANY license costs to a software house. Which is an important factor if the machine must be on the market for less then 100$. Any other OS with the power and maturity of Linux costs more then the entire new 'MSX' box. ] ] It's based on fMSX so according to the GNU public licence (or whatever it's ] called) it _must_ be open source. Hence adaptations can easily be made. One: fMSX is not based on GNU public license. It is entirely copyright by Marat and may only be used for commercial purposes with Marat's explicit permission Two: Even if the emulator would be GNU licensed, that still would not imply that the software that you run on it (like games) must be GNU licensed. There are for examply many applications available for Linux that are non-free, non-GNU and actually cost a lot of money. Kind regards, Alex Wulms -- Visit The MSX Plaza (http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms) for info on XelaSoft, Merlasoft, Quadrivium, SD-Snatcher on fMSX, the MSX Hardware list, XSA Disk images, documentation, Japanese MSX news from Ikeda and lots more. -- For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
Re: MSX Revival Project - One Chip MSX
Very true; there was even a Linux port for the SH-4 processor, intended for Dreamcast. One website actually has as its server a Dreamcast running Linux! Original Message Follows Linux started-off as a 386 Unix clone. But soon it also got ported to other architectures. These days it runs on every major 32-bit (and higher) processor. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
MSX Revival Project - One Chip MSX
I had some doubts about Nishi's presentation though... I have the feeling that he wants to 'market' his one-chip-solution by using the MSX 'brand' as marketing point (especially in Japan).. It's great so see efforts to improve FMSX though and any attempt to survive (keep nearly alive) MSX could be a noble one but in 2004 it'll be nothing more than a marketing stunt.. Some things about this... He claims they want to keep the clockrate of the CPU down to spare battery power, but also want people to program for the thingy in MSX code instead of native 'intend?' code... Seeying that a CPU needs to be between 10-30 times as fast as the original emulated CPU this seems an illogical remark.. imho he does not mean the people to program in MSX code for the one-chip-msx, rather he wants to support old software. for the rest the one-chip-msx has little to do with msx (from a hardware point of view, not a philosophical). he does mean the people to program in Basic though. intent by the way is just a uniform os which runs java code. so it's machine-independant. Actually I'm more exited about that one-chip idea that the idea that it has something to do with MSX... Respects go to Nishi though... even though he seems to claim that he invented the wheel from time to time. Bush 'invented' the internet (or was it Gore?). And Gates also 'invented' lots of stuff... The one-chip MSX is like 100% MSX in philosophy, 75% MSX in software and 50% MSX in hardware. Important thing is, it will be compatible. I had long discussions with Laurens and Tsujikawa during diner tonight and I'm really convinced this one-chip MSX using an ARM9 core is the best thing ever. It's truly limitless in possibilities! Yes, but since you got an ARM9 and FPGA -- why write software for the "old" system? It would be a waste of cycles to begin with. The possibilities are endless with a fast CPU and FPGA, so you'll write stuff for that. yes, ofcouse. but that will always be the case with a new system, even if it were fully hardware-compatible. besides, I do think this is a logical step (or rather that the opposite would be _very_ illogical), because it would be nuts to use the old msx architecture with its limits. msx had very little preparation for extensions. take the z80 for example, the instruction set is crammed full, and there is hardly room for extension. there are only a few 'open' 2-byte opcodes. except from a nostalgia-perspective I wouldn't have done it either. it would be a waste of transistors. And then you end up doing something which is completely incompatible with the original MSX. It just have well been an Amiga -- it's stuffed with custom chips. The point is, it's not MSX anymore. It's a completely new system with the name MSX. very true. but that doesn't make it a bad idea, imho. I'd agree that's not more than actually marketing his new idea -- which is a nice idea indeed. Assuming this is true, why did he come to Tilburg see 50-odd people to tell us about his new "MSX"? To Spread The Word (word of mouth is very powerful marketing tool of course). Another reason is to tell MSX developers that they can publish their software through ASCII once the MSX Server is up. would he have to come to holland for that? anyways I _do_ know that it had a great impact (at least on me). I asked Nishi the question "If there is also Linux and Intend on the same machine, why would developers choose to program MSX?". Nishi stated that they didn't have to program MSX, they could choose freely. In practice, this means most developers will choose Intend, because it's easy (compared to plain Linux) and powerful (compared to MSX). MSX emulation is there to allow old games to run and maybe a handful of new MSX productions, but certainly not the majority of software written for this new device. I think it's strange the computer runs on Linux. First, as far as I know Linux is a Unix-clone for IBM-compatibles. The one-chip-msx is not an IBM-compatible. But I guess the name Linux is more common and more 'accessible' to the public than Unix (which sounds even more complex for the common user than Linux does). Second, Intent can run on it's own, it doesn't need another layer like Linux. So why is Linux there? Ah, ofcourse I am glad it is there because it's not a JIT, like Intent is, and therefor faster. But it's less portable. Also, filling the FPGA with MSX related programming is just one of the options. It could also be GameBoy emulation, or video (de)compression or whatever needs relatively simple tasks done at a very high speed. The name "new MSX" is a bit misleading, it's actually a flexible machine that is very suitable for MSX emulation, but is not inherently MSX compatible. Yep. MSX is just one of the possible configurations. It's NOT emulated. The one-chip-solution is on FPGA, which can be loaded with an MSX. So it is NOT emulated; the FPGA can easily handle MSX speeds. As I
Re: MSX Revival Project - One Chip MSX
On Sunday 22 April 2001 10:08, you wrote: intent by the way is just a uniform os which runs java code. so it's machine-independant. Intent also has its own virtual machine, AFAIK. It's optimized for multimedia, which is an area where Java is not strong. Actually I'm more exited about that one-chip idea that the idea that it has something to do with MSX... Respects go to Nishi though... even though he seems to claim that he invented the wheel from time to time. Bush 'invented' the internet (or was it Gore?). And Gates also 'invented' lots of stuff... That was (wasn't) Gore. I doubt Bush ever invented anything... I think it's strange the computer runs on Linux. First, as far as I know Linux is a Unix-clone for IBM-compatibles. It started that way, but today Linux can run on PowerPC, Alpha, Sun Sparc, embedded devices, even on mainframes (and that's not the full list). The one-chip-msx is not an IBM-compatible. But I guess the name Linux is more common and more 'accessible' to the public than Unix (which sounds even more complex for the common user than Linux does). The average buyer of a device running Linux will probably never notice Linux. And there is no reason they should, an OS should just do its job quietly. Note that on Linux the GUI is separated from the OS, unlike Windows. Second, Intent can run on it's own, it doesn't need another layer like Linux. So why is Linux there? Ah, ofcourse I am glad it is there because it's not a JIT, like Intent is, and therefor faster. But it's less portable. Linux code is pretty portable, but at source level, not at binary level like Java or Intent. Why Linux? Partially marketing: it attracts programmers, others use it (PS2 devkit). Linux is cheap (no license costs). And there is an increasing amount of driver support from manufacturers. the MSX-player is also a platform on which they can experiment with the server-database (or whatever it is called) idea. They call it "MSX Server". The idea of reconfiguring a chip to act as another chip is great though. yess! why waste transistors (hence speed and expandability) on old hardware if you can _perfectly_ emulate it through software??? FPGA uses a lot of transistors as well. And currently unused FPGA gates could be considered wasted transistors, but they are necessary to add new functionality in the future. Also, Nasu informed us today that manufacturing embedded FPGA at an affordable price is not possible yet. It may be possible in the future, Nishi is actually doing research on that at MIT. I doubt "for free" will be true. ASCII will want to make some money using the MSX Server and the company who made the game will probably not license it for free either. It's not sure the MSX Player will accept ROM and DSK images from arbitrary sources. It's based on fMSX so according to the GNU public licence (or whatever it's called) it _must_ be open source. Hence adaptations can easily be made. fMSX is not under GPL. Besides, even with GPL licenses, a piece of software can be released under multiple licenses. Since commercial use is not allowed by the public fMSX license, ASCII will have to buy a license from Marat. Depending on the details of that agreement, ASCII may or may not be required to open up anything. Or if for example the games section on funet won't be closed down after pressure from ASCII. that might be an issue, yes. but instead you will get a huge database featuring those same games. only usable in MSX-Player and One Chip MSX though, yes. but don't forget the Funet CDs... I just wanted to indicate the implications this project could have on the MSX world. Currently no company cares about ROMs on funet, because they don't lose money on it. But if the games are being sold again, their attitude might change. Basically, it depends a lot on how easy it is to use illegal images. Napster was acted upon by record companies, yet binary newsgroups with MP3s still thrive. However, binary newsgroups are too hard for many users, while Napster is easy to use. Copyright holders only care whether the masses are able to copy their product. One problem is that it's almost impossible to make a distinction between illegal images and custom images. What if I want to cheat in some game? I would want to use the modified ROM image in the MSX Player. Or if I made my own game, I want to test that ROM image. So MSX Player should accept custom images, but if it does that, it will also accept illegal images, because it cannot see the difference. eZ80 or similar chips suffice for most IP enables devices. The one-chip "MSX" is unique because of it's FPGA, but that also makes it more expensive and programming the FPGA is more difficult than programming an ordinary processor. So manufacturers will only use it if they can actually do something useful with the FPGA, like signal processing or emulation or anything else that performs poor
Re: MSX Revival Project - One Chip MSX
Bush 'invented' the internet (or was it Gore?). And Gates also 'invented' lots of stuff... That was (wasn't) Gore. I doubt Bush ever invented anything... no. he's too narrow-minded for that. (sorry I think I just vented a political opinion). yess! why waste transistors (hence speed and expandability) on old hardware if you can _perfectly_ emulate it through software??? FPGA uses a lot of transistors as well. And currently unused FPGA gates could be considered wasted transistors, but they are necessary to add new functionality in the future. but those are flexible which is imho an advantage which exeeds the disadvantage. One problem is that it's almost impossible to make a distinction between illegal images and custom images. What if I want to cheat in some game? I would want to use the modified ROM image in the MSX Player. Or if I made my own game, I want to test that ROM image. So MSX Player should accept custom images, but if it does that, it will also accept illegal images, because it cannot see the difference. you can use patch-files (like zSNES does). XGA-like graphics is a separate block in the design, which is either switched or overlayed with video output from the FPGA. I don't know why really, it would seem to be easier if the FPGA would just write it's video output into the framebuffer of the video chip (like good TV cards do). ah. yes. but I think it's all still subject to change. at least it will probably simplify the VDP implementation. ~Grauw -- For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
