English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01 June 2016, 22:47   #301
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 11,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiroglyph View Post
As for Fpga, if you make a card that looks just like the original chip, you're stuck with only the capabilities of the original. The driver can't do anything more than that.
Because memory bandwidth will much higher and clock rate much much higher. It should be possible to exceed the capability of the original. Just like Apollo core does with single cycle instructions, improved pipeline efficiency higher clocks etc.

You're right. It's not ideal. But it's a direction to take if P96 licencing remains problematical
alexh is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 01 June 2016, 23:23   #302
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiroglyph View Post
I'm still trying to work that out, it's a big job and it's looking more like patches like the original Cgx and P96.
The hack and patch may be a good place to start but I hope you have a bigger goal. Part of my goal would be a graphics.library replacement which supports both planar and chunky gfx. This is needed if you want to make enhancements because you can't SetFunction() what doesn't exist (P96 uses SetFunction for most graphics.library calls where it checks for chunky bitmaps and jumps to the original function if planar). It makes sense to add some of the functions in the newer AmigaOS and AROS graphics.library which would make software development easier. I could probably create an assembler version of a graphics.library with chunky and planar support in a few weeks but it would take much longer to optimize (think of PeterK's icon.library here). This would not be as nice as clean C code but some of it is fairly low level where assembler has advantages and Amiga 68k C compilers are not generating the greatest code quality (better performance than the original graphics.library or P96 would help adoption for classic Amigas). The CGFX emulation layer on top of it and the RTG driver interface could be in C. I am not motivated unless the FPGA hardware guys come together to help create and adopt standards based on what is best for the Amiga. The Amiga is going nowhere without some of these camps joining forces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiroglyph View Post
As for Fpga, if you make a card that looks just like the original chip, you're stuck with only the capabilities of the original. The driver can't do anything more than that.
This would be a good reason to start with a more capable chip but being able to make enhancements would be good. Some resources would likely be used to emulate some hardware also. It is not an optimal solution.

Last edited by matthey; 01 June 2016 at 23:43.
matthey is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 00:06   #303
Lord Aga
MI clan prevails
Lord Aga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthey View Post
Sure it is. Look in an English dictionary. This is the generic definition for emulation which we can't re-define.
Well sure it's sure If you call everything emulation, that's pretty easy then. Is it though ?

Are you typing this post ? No, you're emulating a friend you first saw typing decades ago.
Are you eating something ? No, you're emulating your parents.
You're saying something ? Well guess what, you're not the first one to talk.

So shall we just call everything an emulation ?
Lord Aga is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 00:38   #304
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Aga View Post
Well sure it's sure If you call everything emulation, that's pretty easy then. Is it though ?

Are you typing this post ? No, you're emulating a friend you first saw typing decades ago.
Are you eating something ? No, you're emulating your parents.
You're saying something ? Well guess what, you're not the first one to talk.
You are doing a good job of emulating your English teacher. Your English comprehension is very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Aga View Post
So shall we just call everything an emulation ?
Not everything. Sure, humans are living emulators (everything learned) but some instinctive and intuitive behavior is not. There is nothing wrong with this English although less open minded people might have trouble understanding. There may be more appropriate words which are easier to understand .
matthey is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 00:51   #305
Lord Aga
MI clan prevails
Lord Aga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 901
Thank you, but we have to find the way out of this emulation conundrum

My point - we never said "My emulator card" back in the days. We called them turbo, accelerator, CPU cards... Why the sudden craze to call new hardware emulation ?
Lord Aga is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:06   #306
Zetr0
Ya' like it Retr0?
Zetr0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 43
Posts: 9,769
LOL, this "FPGA - emulation or not?" Thread would be a blast indeed, probably lots of quote bait but who doesn't like a good multi-quote reply while eating toast and drinking coffee
Zetr0 is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:07   #307
-Acid-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South Shields
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Aga View Post
MC68020 isn't MC68000. Is it an emulator ?
You are getting yourself confused with this specific emulation argument.

The definition: reproduce the function or action of (a different computer, software system, etc.)

The 68020 is a real cpu, a piece of hardware which is backward compatible with the 68000 another piece of hardware which exists. The 68020 is a different cpu a compatible continuation of the 68000 line so it doesn't emulate it as it is superseding it.

The FPGA version is imitating a piece of real hardware in it's entirety therefore it is emulating it. The whole point of it's existence is to mimic a real physical cpu which is not contained within it. This fits the exact definition of emulation in computing terms.
-Acid- is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:15   #308
Lord Aga
MI clan prevails
Lord Aga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 901
But the 68020 is a completely different piece of silicone compared to 68000.

It reproduces the functions and actions of a 68000. Plus it has some more, but this is irrelevant.

It fits your definition of emulation perfectly.

Not to mention 68060. It is as different from 68000 as a FPGA CPU is. Why is then one emulation and the other isn't ?
Lord Aga is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:17   #309
Zetr0
Ya' like it Retr0?
Zetr0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 43
Posts: 9,769
@Thread O/T - "This is just too fun!"

@-Acid-
An FPGA is a real physical CPU - with the exception on how the logic gates are implemented they are fundamentally identical in process.

I ask this question, I design a completely different revolutionary processor, I implement this NEW processor into an FPGA and then move it onto an ASIC ... is the ASIC emulating my FPGA implementation since that came first?

I think matthey has come the closest by saying that an FPGA is a simulation, but that only exists when in comparison, what happens if its not?

Interesting... very interesting discussion.
Zetr0 is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:25   #310
-Acid-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South Shields
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Aga View Post
But the 68020 is a completely different piece of silicone compared to 68000.

It reproduces the functions and actions of a 68000. Plus it has some more, but this is irrelevant.

It fits your definition of emulation perfectly.

Not to mention 68060. It is as different from 68000 as a FPGA CPU is. Why is then one emulation and the other isn't ?
The 68020 is not an 68000 it doesn't claim to be, the 68020 is the direct replacement of the 68000. The Vampire is emulating an 68000 while an 68020 is not it's a different CPU.

The 68020 does not fit the definition of emulation at all, it's an entirely different cpu with a different name with new functions etc. The only thing the Vampire is doing is emulating the 68000... if you cannot see the difference then there is no hope of you ever comprehending why it's not the same thing.
-Acid- is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:33   #311
-Acid-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South Shields
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
@-Acid-
An FPGA is a real physical CPU
Yes but in this context it is emulating a different cpu. The 68000 is a real physical piece of hardware... the FPGA is also real but it is not a 68000 it is pretending to be one. The technicalities about how the logic gate functions are (almost) identical are irrelevant.

As a tangible object it is not a 68000 as manufactured by Motorola, therefore it is emulating one.
-Acid- is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:35   #312
ShK
Apollo Team
ShK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Lahti / Finland
Age: 46
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
I ask this question, I design a completely different revolutionary processor, I implement this NEW processor into an FPGA and then move it onto an ASIC ... is the ASIC emulating my FPGA implementation since that came first?
Yep, like TK68020 CPU which is verified in FPGA:

"The basic design flow in this project was to extract a transistor level netlist from the layout, convert it into standard, synthesizable logic, verify it in an FPGA, and then make it. We are now in layout, though like everything else in this project, layout has also been a difficult task."

Tekmos TK68020 - TK68020 Update : http://archive.constantcontact.com/f...377342324.html
ShK is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:35   #313
Lord Aga
MI clan prevails
Lord Aga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Acid- View Post
The 68020 is not an 68000 it doesn't claim to be, the 68020 is the direct replacement of the 68000. The Vampire is emulating an 68000 while an 68020 is not it's a different CPU.

The 68020 does not fit the definition of emulation at all, it's an entirely different cpu with a different name with new functions etc. The only thing the Vampire is doing is emulating the 68000... if you cannot see the difference then there is no hope of you ever comprehending why it's not the same thing.
But an FPGA CPU (Vampire if you will) is also not an existing 680X0 CPU and it doesn't claim to be. It is a completely different CPU (superior architecture, better IPC, more instructions and everything). It is not a copy of any existing CPU. Different name, new functions, etc. Everything you said about 68020 also stands here.

They are either both emulations or neither of them is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Acid- View Post
Yes but in this context it is emulating a different cpu. The 68000 is a real physical piece of hardware... the FPGA is also real but it is not a 68000 it is pretending to be one. The technicalities about how the logic gate functions are (almost) identical are irrelevant.
Wrong, and wrong. Read up on the Vampire CPU architecture.

Last edited by Lord Aga; 02 June 2016 at 01:42.
Lord Aga is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 01:59   #314
Zetr0
Ya' like it Retr0?
Zetr0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 43
Posts: 9,769
LOL, sod the P96 licensing status, if the new owners over reach - then other options will appear - this new discussion is far more interesting!

@-Acid-
FPGA's do no pretending at all, gate for gate logic - identical in operation.

I wonder if this argument has any roots that stem from a notion of : that non-volatile logic systems are REAL where where volatile ones are not ?

@Shk - well put =)


@O/T Thread
When Motorola were developing the 68000 processor they would have engineers holding cards that represented logic gates of the CPU - before the CPU was even built - were they emulating it or did the ASIC chip produced emulate them?

... or perhaps, as matthey has suggested - they synthesised it?
Zetr0 is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 02:56   #315
-Acid-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South Shields
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Aga View Post
Wrong, and wrong. Read up on the Vampire CPU architecture.
Vampire architecture is irrelevant in this context.

Take a Motorola 68000 CPU and put it side by side with a Vampire board. Is it the same object? No simply put it is not, the Vampire is emulating the function of one in this context.

It might have extra functions and it's obviously faster but that is irrelevant as at it's core the main function of it is to emulate the 68000 and without doing that it has no use in an Amiga as a cpu. As an Amiga cpu it cannot function without emulating a 68000 as it's base and that is what it's doing as it does not contain a real silicon 68000 Motorola chip.

To differentiate your 68020 argument, the 020 is not trying to be a 68000. It is the next iteration of the cpu - the intended successor by the manufacturer. It was developed and sold by Motorola as the next more advanced CPU with additional hardware in it.

As a last comparison on the subject you don't look at the latest 4K HD TV's and say "oh look it's emulating an old black and white TV from the 1920's" do you? It's called product development and that's what the 68020 is to the 68000.

I'm not going to reply to you again if you try to refute this explanation, if you won't accept the difference then carry on in ignorance. In the general meaning of the word it's emulation.

@zetro

When they were developing the cpu with breadboards or whatever they used don't they call that development or the prototype? When it was finished it was then manufactured and sold in silicon form and that is the end physical form of the 68000. It's like saying is a complete car the emulation of the developed chassis, suspension, engine, brakes, bodywork etc.
-Acid- is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 03:03   #316
UberFreak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: the world
Posts: 267
Man, this feels like arguing with religious people on the existence of god! hehe
UberFreak is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 03:23   #317
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Acid- View Post
I'm not going to reply to you again if you try to refute this explanation, if you won't accept the difference then carry on in ignorance. In the general meaning of the word it's emulation.
I don't think it is important what it is. We know what it does and it is more important what it does and less important what anyone calls it. Seven pronouns in two sentences. See, English allows us to not call it a name at all and it is even easier for non-native English speakers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Acid- View Post
When they were developing the cpu with breadboards or whatever they used don't they call that development or the prototype? When it was finished it was then manufactured and sold in silicon form and that is the end physical form of the 68000. It's like saying is a complete car the emulation of the developed chassis, suspension, engine, brakes, bodywork etc.
The CPU is finished before it ever is turned into a processor (verification is extensive but there can still be missed errors and problems creating a hard chip). I expect only early versions of the prototypes used wire wrapped breadboards. Later versions of the 68k probably used FPGAs and software simulations to test parts of the logic. I believe the logic layout was still done by hand for the 68060 (gives very good results but tedious). The ColdFire is fully synthesizable so the logic fits fully in an FPGA and can quickly be loaded into an FPGA. I don't know of much info available which talks about the creation of the earlier 68k processors. It would be an interesting read.
matthey is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 07:32   #318
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 11,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
I ask this question, I design a completely different revolutionary processor, I implement this NEW processor into an FPGA and then move it onto an ASIC ... is the ASIC emulating my FPGA implementation since that came first?
It is termed prototyping but your FPGA will not contain the same implementation or even logical representation of your ASIC. It can't. The technologies employed are too dissimilar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
FPGA's do no pretending at all, gate for gate logic - identical in operation.
Not true. There's a ton different logic structures an FPGA cannot replicate. They weren't designed to handle complex clock switching and clock gating nor lots of analog or even some asynchronous stuff. Their built in SRAM usually works much differently too. But all close enough for an approximate prototype

Last edited by alexh; 02 June 2016 at 07:40.
alexh is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 11:20   #319
chiark
Needs a life

chiark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,621
Alex, you're arguing from a position of practical knowledge here... Don't go bringing facts and experience into a discussion about semantics! ;-)

Is there any chance of splitting this discussion off and having a conversation relevant to p96 again?
chiark is offline  
Old 02 June 2016, 11:59   #320
clebin
Registered User
clebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiark View Post
is there any chance of splitting this discussion off and having a conversation relevant to p96 again? :d
+1
clebin is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Status of 5x A4000. Turran Hardware pics 7 06 January 2014 14:05
Status LEDs xArtx support.WinUAE 4 14 June 2013 12:08
Poseidon Licensing paulo_becas support.Apps 6 18 April 2013 09:12
C64 Forever ROM licensing Rixa Retrogaming General Discussion 13 21 July 2009 14:46
CARE status AmiGer project.CARE 11 28 August 2006 11:47

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.62328 seconds with 12 queries