Hi,
I forward here an exchange with Doug about the DSP X and Y timings.
It may be interesting to keep a trace of this for later.
Laurent
-------- Message original --------
Hi Doug,
I've taken 5 minutes before leaving to upload the patch.
I've retested it with your DSP benchmark V2 program and it
always gives 100% now.
I think some more tests with L:XY would be nice too, as I still
have a doubt on this special case.
And probably a general tester would be great too (at least for
non regression testing).
Regards
Thanks again for the help and good luck for Bad Mood (a lot of
remembers for me ;) )
Laurent
Le 02/02/2013 11:29, Douglas Little a écrit :
Hi Laurent,
Ok this makes sense. It's probably quite hard to do
everything straight from the manual - it repeats the same info
in different ways all over the place. It helps to conduct
tests on real HW for confirmation.
I may expand the tests to cover other things soon but it
seems like DSP emulation is settling towards perfection and
perhaps I won't find anything else.
D.
On 2 February 2013 00:02, Laurent
Sallafranque <laurent.sallafranque@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi,
I see where this comes from.
I can easily remove it.
But, I've looked at the motorola DSP doc, and it reads
:
MOVE 2 + mv
mv :
[...]
X:Y: XY Memory Move ea + axy
[...]
Maybe this confused me :
axy table :
L: XY: Ext Ext — — — — — — 2 + wx + wy
Maybe they should have written in the doc : X:Y: XY
Memory Move ea + ax + ay
If you're OK (a ""bug"" in the DSP doc), I can upload
a simple patch
The patch will be : in dsp_cpu.c in the function
static void dsp_pm_8(void), there's just to comment 3
lines as described below
/* 2 more cycles are needed if X:address1 and
Y:address2 are both in external memory */
// if ((x_addr>=0x200) &&
(y_addr>=0x200)) {
// dsp_core.instr_cycle += 2;
// }
Regards
Laurent
Le 01/02/2013 22:56, Douglas Little a écrit :
Yes here it is...
I began to wonder if it is actually an EA
calculation complicating matters because the opcode
used for all the work has circular buffers
configured for X: and Y: (the DSP 'm' registers)
However even if this is the case the timings
don't match a real machine so it's worth a look
anyway.
I'll try a simpler addressing mode later.
D.
On 1 February 2013 21:48,
Laurent Sallafranque <laurent.sallafranque@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Very interresting, I look at it
immediatly.
Could you send me your benchmark program,
so I can launch it and have a look at the
instructions in detail ?
Regards
Laurent
|