Re: [hatari-devel] fdc test for real hardware

[Nicolas Pomarède <npomarede@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/09/2013 21:49, Roger Burrows wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2013 at 19:32, Nicolas Pomarède wrote:
> > I'm improving the timings for the floppy controler and I'd like to have
> > some results for the attached program on real hardware (STF or STE, not
> > TT or Falcon).
> >
> > Could someone with a working STF/STE test this program and post the
> > results ? I need results from different machine to measure the relation
> > between RPM and index duration.
> On my 1040STF:
> Run 1:
>    0000994d 000002fd
>    0000994a 000002fd
>    00009949 000002fd
>    0000994a 000002fd
>    00009949 000002fd
> Run 2:
>    0000994e 000002fc
>    00009949 000002fd
>    00009949 000002fc
>    0000994a 000002fc
>    0000994a 000002fc
>
> On my 1040STe:
> Run 1:
>    00009acd 00000218
>    00009afe 000001e7
>    00009b31 000001b4
>    00009b61 00000259
>    00009abc 00000229
> Run 2:
>    00009b3e 0000027c
>    00009a9d 00000248
>    00009ace 00000216
>    00009afe 000001e8
>    00009b30 000001b4
>
> Roger
> P.S. The 1040STe is not used very often.

Thanks for your results ; are these pal or ntsc model ?

ragnar75 also sent me some ste results and like yours, they're much less 
stable than the stf ones :

00009a03    00000234
00009a45    000001f2
00009a89    000001ad
00009acd    0000023e
00009a3b    000001fb

I don't really understand why ; my test program set SR to 2700, so I 
don't think my waiting loop is delayed by some STE specific hw. This is 
as if the RPM was not constant as on STF.
But anyway, 1 unit in the 2 measured values is 40 cycles, so in the end 
it makes only a very small rpm variation.

Nicolas