Re: [hatari-devel] Allowing/supporting additional ST-RAM amounts? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Allowing/supporting additional ST-RAM amounts?
- From: Thomas Huth <th.huth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:36:45 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1587101807; bh=zJ6nXDrt3xCstDJcSSuuhaay1c8hv1I3XY7FpI9HnIg=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=qttkHQusGqNDMtqtM0uSiFpTmSoGH9cDSmFsslYoJgJCd84qB6Y8ESImb/Em2x1SK L+YPg8+aTHtiPYOqpyrzpBD2d6SuicvCZNiInwzIPj54JI/tiVKjE8oVvxNF4mLOIt e5GzLPSJVLGi074L9d0d4qtcb1MD7Dh2qAI5Hkr8PGJyydbY1rfh2JmY1lxTkK6PHF iCdSmq5k2hDZp0goQbxbM/7uVqQGpNkI61zNxO2by2bQT/jtPF0wbOhnYvuFs/uIMh B/wlAjIiu0PzkmXJaolQYnQS0kJ1wI8AYZWh02NAVZA1INmZoLjRI59XLuilLpb3YT ch8a0HZZIwoTg==
Am Wed, 15 Apr 2020 01:47:23 +0300
schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/13/20 6:27 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Am Sat, 4 Apr 2020 00:05:27 +0300
> > schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> What else than the attached patch is needed to properly support
> >> additional ST-RAM amount?
> >
> > The GUI should be updated accordingly, too, I think.
>
> Does the attached patch look OK?
Looks ok to me. Maybe replace
STRamEnd = ConfigureParams.Memory.STRamSize_KB * 1024;
with
STRamEnd = STMemory_CorrectSTRamSize();
instead of calling it additionally?
> >> I'm asking because the real max ST-RAM limit for TT and MegaSTE
> >> machines is 10MB (not 8MB nor 14MB that Hatari currently allows).
> >
> > If 10 MB is a valid configuration, I guess we should allow it,
> > too... the difference shouldn't matter on normal ST/STEs since
> > their real maximum was 4 MB anyway, and on Falcon we could simply
> > fall back to 8MB after showing a warning to the user.
>
> I opted selecting next Falcon mem amount on
> assumption that user selected memory amount so that it's enough for
> his/her use-case, so using
> smaller one wouldn't be right.
>
> Should something about this be mentioned in
> manual page too?
I think it's enough to issue a warning in this case (which your patch
is doing already).
Thomas