|Re: [hatari-devel] test needed on a 4MB STF|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
Nicolas Pomarède schrieb:
> But if you can take the same photos for the STE setup, then it will be
> of use to me too in the near future.
I can do that later...
> Do you mean different MMU on STE instead ? I thought the STF ones were
> all the same and that it was the STE which had different versions and
> "bugs" (like applying bank0 settings to bank1, prenventing to mix
> different bank sizes) ?
No, I really mean different MMUs on the *STF*. It's long been known that
IMP MMUs in STF for example don't support 2,5 MiB configurations:
<http://www.verycomputer.com/10_212253af0208b980_1.htm>. The reason is
that these MMUs also use bank0 settings for both banks, i.e. they don't
allow the banks to differ.
> If they really differ on STF, then I'm interested in the one where you
> can have different values for bank0 and bank1 (my test program assumes
> they can differ)
Please find my photos here:
the STF with 4 MiB RAM and IMP MMU -- as expected -- nothing happens
when I press F5 or F4, as the MMU ignores these settings. There are
however three pictures of my 4MiB STF with "non-IMP" MMU, that are
> Yes, I read it as a base from my code, especially the MAD <-> CAS/RAS
> mapping was very interesting. But I found some more "stranger" results
> when using 128 K banks, I'd like to check all the cases and write a
> small doc about my findings later.
You should know that the memory address lines (MAD9/MAD8) that are not
actively used with a given bank size still do toggle, at least on the
IMP MMU. So, for example if you really have 2048 kiB in a bank but set
the MMU to 512 kiB, MAD9 won't stay constantly high or low. In fact, if
I remember correctly, it follows MAD8 then. This obviously doesn't make
a difference when there really only are 512 kiB in a bank, since MAD9
isn't even connected then.
Christian Zietz - CHZ-Soft - czietz@xxxxxxx
PGP/GnuPG-Key-ID: 0x52CB97F66DA025CA / 0x6DA025CA