Re: [Ql-Users] FGPA Anyone (Mister)
Daniel Baum via Ql-Users wrote: > You seem to have done an outstanding job with the Mister core. It runs very > nicely, and ,at least under SMSQ/E at full speed and 4MB of memory, seems > very stable. Thanks, good to hear! > I have one tiny niggle - on the keyboard, + and = are where the \ should > be, and KBD_TABLE appears to do nothing, but seriously, this is literally a > Quantum Leap for the Mister. I feared that this is a problem, I changed a few keys for my German keyboard but was not sure if this breaks other layouts or if the layout was broken anyway. For people not following the forum, I just released another core that can mount .WIN files directly without a need for a second SD card. This needed a new QL-SD driver v1.08, but the change has not impact whatsoever on real QL-SD devices, so there is no need to update. Cheers, Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
68080...miracle could happen?:-) I am using mainly the Q60 with Peter solution on a modern LCD using the new PLCC developped by him (1024x512 leaving the lower part of the screen black). I am also playing time by time with Q68 and Mister, for the QL (used rarely) i used a standard VGA converter that work nicely (not perfect, but acceptable) Future is FPGA, I am then ready for a Q68 Gold Version Fabrizio However, and as you perfectly know, there are other solutions, based on "IP cores" and FPGAs. I recently stumbled upon: https://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/doku.php/apollo_core:start That "68080" core (implemented with current FPGAs) is 3 times faster than a 68060 @ 66MHz ! Sadly it does not implement a MMU, so it won't be able to run Linux and some programs under SMSQ/E would pose issues (IIRC, QLiberated programs use the MSB of the address registers to store data, and the Q40/Q60 uses its MMU to "mask" it). Perhaps a cut-down MMU support (i.e. MSB address "masking") could be added to the "68080" core so to solve the issue under SMSQ/E... A hint for a successor to the Q68 ?... :-D Regards, Thierry. ___ QL-Users Mailing List ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:20:16 +0100, pgraf--- via Ql-Users wrote: > If the OSSC wasn't such an expensive, clumsy setup, I would also just > say: Issue solved. Period. All what matters for me is that it plain works and secures the usage of my Q60 in the future. "Clumsy" or not, the fact the OSSC is Open Source is also a big plus compared to other commercial "solutions" (that won't even work at all in the first place). > It's very good that you published your experience - I would never > spend the money without knowing that it actually works with the Q60. > For the BBQL, I have a better HDMI solution, so I have no other use > for an OSSC. If it has not happened yet, I would encourage you to > post your result on the QL forum also. In my case, the OSSC also allowed me to make use again of a QL and of the Thor XVI, both of which became unusable after my good old NEC Multisync 3D died. It also works nicely with my Atari 1024 STE and Falcon 030... > Or a different board that would run with the 68060 pulled out of the > Q60, hence my original question. While the 68060 is a wonderful CPU (much superior to *any* of its contemporary competitors), it is alas "dead" (no more produced, almost impossible to find, even as a second hand product, and when you find one, you must pay a fortune for it; I know it "first hand" for having bought a second hand MC68060RC50 a few years ago). So, a different board to host it sounds like a dead end project. However, and as you perfectly know, there are other solutions, based on "IP cores" and FPGAs. I recently stumbled upon: https://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/doku.php/apollo_core:start That "68080" core (implemented with current FPGAs) is 3 times faster than a 68060 @ 66MHz ! Sadly it does not implement a MMU, so it won't be able to run Linux and some programs under SMSQ/E would pose issues (IIRC, QLiberated programs use the MSB of the address registers to store data, and the Q40/Q60 uses its MMU to "mask" it). Perhaps a cut-down MMU support (i.e. MSB address "masking") could be added to the "68080" core so to solve the issue under SMSQ/E... A hint for a successor to the Q68 ?... :-D Regards, Thierry. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On 16 Jan 2020 at 0:43, Thierry Godefroy via Ql-Users wrote: > > Those are small PLDs, optimized almost to the last gate, not FPGAs, > > and 800x600 is not doable. > > Surprising, since it's "just" a change in divisors/counters/ > frequencies, but if you say so (I'm certainly no expert in PLD/FPGA > programming). Maybe you can look at it this way: The video controller of the Q60 squeezes _more_ functionality than a contemporary Lattice reference design, into a PLD with less than _half_ the resources. This came not only from manual optimization using every possible trick, but also at the cost of flexibility. I had to exploit constraints that are not given at 800 x 600. I clearly remember that I tried hard to implement 800x600 some time after flatscreens came up, and came to the conclusion there is absolutely no chance. > > I would find an answer to my original question interesting. > > As I already explained, the OSSC has brought to me the solution for > the Q60 (and since a 800x600 mode is ruled out, I don't see any > point in modifying it now). Thanks for clarification. If the OSSC wasn't such an expensive, clumsy setup, I would also just say: Issue solved. Period. It's very good that you published your experience - I would never spend the money without knowing that it actually works with the Q60. For the BBQL, I have a better HDMI solution, so I have no other use for an OSSC. If it has not happened yet, I would encourage you to post your result on the QL forum also. > But you'd have to ask other Q40/Q60 owners about what they would > prefer (i.e. the use of a scan converter (*), or a heavy modification > of their Qx0 to output a higher resolution compatible with modern > monitors). Or a different board that would run with the 68060 pulled out of the Q60, hence my original question. > (*) In fact, a "cut-down" OSSC (that would only be able to deal with > the Q40/Q60 and QL video modes, and with just the VGA input and no > LCD display, no remote) could be a cheaper and easier solution. Of course. And also smaller, nicer, decently cased. If not for time shortage _plus_ other priorities even for the QL hobby, that would be an intersting project. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
