6502.org Forum  Projects  Code  Documents  Tools  Forum
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:31 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:24 am
Posts: 740
Location: A missile silo somewhere under southern England
drogon wrote:
banedon wrote:
Hi guys

I'm trying to design a very compact, basic board for prototpying I/O.
The project will consists of :

Mainboard
Power rail at 5V
Clock & reset circuits
65816 cpu - planned 8MHz speed, higher if I can wangle it
1 to 16MB SRAM
12KB ROM
Glue logic CPLD
Upper 8bit address Latch


Hi,

Hope it works out well - always good to have more '816 systems out there!

Mine "only" has 512KB of RAM, although I ought to be able to take it to 1MB without much difficulty (well, piggy-back chip soldering which I did for the 2 x 32KB chips on my 65C02 board) but really not sure what I'd use it for...

Re. your 12KB ROM - I treated bank 0 in mine like a BBC Micro, so 32KB RAM, 16KB "language" ROM, then 16KB OS (minus IO at $FExx) although it's really all RAM but that was the general idea. I can load BBC Basic into the language area at $8000 and run that in emulation mode, or my BCPL OS which runs in native 16-bit mode.

I have all that on a single board with 2 GALs for the address bus latch and address decoding (and some other little bits)

Cheers,

-Gordon


That sounds like an interesting setup. I used to use 22v10 GALs, but got frustrated with the lack of I/O/Q pins, so moved to ATF1504AS's as they are how much more and work at 5V (which seems to be a bit uncommon these days as it's all going 3.3V and lower).
What do you use for video/keyboard or is it a serial console-only one? Mine is going to be the latter as my video implementations are not much better than Ben Eaters "worse video card in the world" one :lol: - and mostly this is about VIA type I/O at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:09 am
Posts: 8545
Location: Southern California
banedon, see the pinout of my 4Mx8 10ns 5V SRAM module I offer, at http://wilsonminesco.com/WM-1_4Mx8SRAMmodule4-23-20.pdf . The pinout is on page 2. Power and ground pins are distributed for best AC performance, and the pinout is also such that you can even plug the module in backwards and it will still work. (As an aside, my soldering has definitely improved since I took the early pictures in the data sheet. I think you won't be able to tell it wasn't done on automated machines.)

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:33 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Scotland
banedon wrote:
What do you use for video/keyboard or is it a serial console-only one? Mine is going to be the latter as my video implementations are not much better than Ben Eaters "worse video card in the world" one :lol: - and mostly this is about VIA type I/O at the moment.


Serial to a "smart" terminal running on my Linux desktop. It understands Acorn MOS VDU commands so can draw lines, etc. There are some extensions I've added and it can do sprites, read the mouse, play BBC Micro sounds too.

The 'host processor' (and ATmega 1284p) is smart enough to recognise either the RubyTerm or an ANSI terminal and do conversions on the fly.

Simple graphics demo (C program on the 65C02): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPGCT0lah4Q

On a real serial terminal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg-DcjrJ8g0

I have a "graphics card" planned, but it will be along the lines of something that has a parallel port that you send commands to, so essentially a faster version of my smart serial RubyTerm..

Cheers,

-Gordon

_________________
--
Gordon Henderson.
See my Ruby 6502 and 65816 SBC projects here: https://projects.drogon.net/ruby/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8508
Location: Midwestern USA
banedon wrote:
Thanks for looking at the circuit :). I've gone through your points below with one or two questions:

1 & 2. Thanks for clarifying this. I've bnecome warey of using AC(T) due to warnings baout the high-low and low-high transitions speed causing ringing so have gotten into the habit of using HC(T)> i've modified the circuit.

I've used 74AC logic in all my POC units and have not had any real issues with ringing. The physical arrangement of your machine will be a significant influence on that. Short and direct paths are less prone to ringing, since the propagation time through the path is a fraction of the rise/fall time of the signal. As the propagation time through the circuit path starts to approach the rise/fall time of the signal, reflections may occur, causing ringing. Ringing is the result of the very rapid signal transition between states exciting the natural resonance of the circuit.

In an ideal circuit, the output impedance of the device driving the circuit (the source), the input impedance of the device at the other end of the circuit (the load), and the characteristic impedance of the conducting path (wires, PCB traces, etc.) are identical. In such a case, all of the energy in the signal emitted by the source is absorbed by the load. If there is an impedance mismatch, some energy is lost as reflections from the load end collide with the signal emitted by the source. The load will not see exactly what was emitted by the source and the circuit may briefly oscillate with each voltage transition.

The phenomenon that gives rise to this behavior is referred to as "transmission line effect," since it was first observed in long-distance telegraph lines in the 19th century. Transmission line effect theory is complex and understanding how it affects a high-speed circuit is something that scientists such as Dr. Howard Johnson have made into a career—Dr. Johnson is considered the expert among experts on transmission line theory. I studied it back during my Navy days with regard to the operation of radar wave guides but cheerfully admit that I've forgotten most of it. :D

Impedance mismatch can be neglected in really short circuit paths, or in circuits in which switching speeds are low. However, taking the buses off-board in a computer doesn't equate with either of those conditions, and hence creates the conditions that may lead to reflections that may cause instability or outright failure. Note that the Ø2 frequency is not the primary issue here. It is the rate of signal transition, e.g., from logic 0 to logic 1, that matters. Even the older, slower logic families switch their outputs very rapidly and can trigger ringing. The newer, faster families do so even more rapidly, and exponentially exacerbate the ringing problem.

Ringing that occurs on a low-to-high transition is usually less an issue than high-to-low, as the latter causes the circuit to momentarily go below ground level—the affected device may not tolerate that well. Low-to-high ringing will not cause trouble as long as the voltage seen by the affected device's input stays in a solid logic 1 range during the ringing's greatest amplitude. Ringing on a high-to-low transition is something best avoided—driving a device's input negative could result in undefined behavior. Series resistance can help in some cases. Other cases may require Thévenin or active termination. In severe cases, Schottky diode arrays at the load end are used to suppress ringing.

74AHC logic generates the slower output transitions that are characteristic of 74HC, so the former may be thought of as a "kinder, gentler" logic. The "gentler" output transitions are less likely to excite ringing. If there is anything that will need the stronger drive of 74AC it will be your data bus, due to it going off-board. Both logic families have comparable prop times.

Quote:
5. I've changed the note to reflect R14 is not optional/should be metal film if possible.

Metal film resistors are stock items with most electronics distributors, so there should be no problem in procuring them.

Quote:
6. I'll add a SIP in as you recommend. Can you advise why this is needed?

The 74AC74 flop has very fast outputs, on the order of 1ns rise/fall time. See my above explanation about ringing. Hence the series resistance to act as a damper.

An alternative is to use a 74AHC74, which has the same performance at any given voltage as the 74AC74, but with weaker drive and slower output transition speed. However, since you plan to run the clock off-board, the weaker AHC drive may be a problem.

Quote:
7. The D input connects to both the /PHI2 line which is in turn connected to /Q of the same flip flop? This is for IC4A.

Correct. However, to avoid confusion, may I suggest you call the signal PHI1 instead of /PHI2. The latter is easily confused with PHI2. Also, PHI1 is technically not an inversion of PHI2, as it is a separate output on the same flop (/Q), not something that was run through an actual inverter. In your CPLD logic you will have to make this differentiation, so doing so in the circuit itself maintains consistency.

Quote:
8...Would the CPLD be fast enough considering your comments about the need for speed that you emntion in 1) ?

Yes. As a hedge against possible race conditions involving the generation of the bank bits (A16-A23), I suggest you use the 7.5ns version of the 1504. It's overkill for other parts of the system, but in generating the bank bits, speed is like money: no such a thing as too much. :D

Quote:
9. The CPLD deals with IRQ arbitration, but as I may need to free up pins for 8) I could move that to an AND gate IC (74HC21D). I'll also add a pull up for the Opendrain line which I forgt to add.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the speed of that AND gate is not critical, and a 74HC21 is more than adequate. IRQs are asynchronous events, so if one arrives at the MPU 15ns after the fact instead of 5ns it's not a big deal. None of your I/O devices will get uppity if it takes 10ns longer to say "hello" to them after they ring the doorbell.

You could use the CPLD for interrupt arbitration (logically it's not complicated) but will likely find yourself pinched for I/O pins after you account for everything else that is needed. This might be something better implemented in the next version of your system, in which you can use a CPLD with more inputs—the 1508 comes in PLCC84, which has 64 uncommitted I/O pings, versus 32 for the PLCC44 1504. In your first 816 build, you probably shouldn't get carried away with features.

Quote:
11. JP3 is a stand in for a JTAG header, although not connected/realised yet. I will be adding one in properly.

Keep in mind the industry-standard JTAG header is 10 pins. Also, all four signal leads should be pulled up through 4.7K resistors. Here again, a bused SIP is a good choice.

Quote:
12. I'll add a 3k3 to both RESB and the D1812

You mean the DS1813?

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:19 pm
Posts: 116
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
GARTHWILSON wrote:
The recommendation in the 6502 primer not to run the buses off the board has to do with AC performance, not drive capability. WDC's processors' pin drivers are more than ten times as strong as the data sheet lets on, as discussed in the middle of the page of the 6502 Primer's section 5. 74ACxx outputs' rise and fall times will be just as troublesome for putting out on a bus. That's not to say it can't be done; it's just that you'll have to really pay attention to line lengths and reflections and so on. It was a lot easier decades ago when parts didn't have the super-fast rise and fall times that cause the "splashing" when the math of transmission lines is not paid close attention to. Putting memory on small daughter boards on the main board will be far less troublesome than putting everything out on a backplane, as the connections will be shorter.


Gonna jump into this thread a bit late, but I'm in initial design phases of a new SBC project and this directly affects some decisions I need to make.

Let's say I have a somewhat legit need to include at least one slot on my board (and ideally 2 or even 3). This would be (probably) card edge connectors on a four layer board, running at 4 MHz to start but ideally up to 14 or 16 in the future. What would be a good way to go about this? I was thinking of just buffering some of the bus lines to the expansion slots with 245s to keep the busses separated.

The reason for this, btw is primarily related to video. I really want my system to have VGA output at some point, but my last project ended up collapsing due to feature creep, so I am starting simpler. I want a system that by default has a serial console, but which leaves me the ability to build discrete video cards down the road. Thus, the slot(s).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:12 am
Posts: 155
^^ Seconded! Very interested to hear about this too. As I am in the same situation.

Much easier to design something in a modular approach than it is to just throw it all on to one board and hope it all works. At least in the proof of concept stages.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8508
Location: Midwestern USA
jmthompson wrote:
Gonna jump into this thread a bit late, but I'm in initial design phases of a new SBC project and this directly affects some decisions I need to make.

You probably should start a new topic for your project, rather than hijacking banedon's topic. :D

That said, Garth goes into some detail on his website's 6502 primer about caveats involved in going off-board with the buses. Perhaps you should give it a good read.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:09 am
Posts: 8545
Location: Southern California
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
That said, Garth goes into some detail on his website's 6502 primer about caveats involved in going off-board with the buses. Perhaps you should give it a good read.

The section about expansion buses and interfaces is section 10, at http://wilsonminesco.com/6502primer/ExpBusIntrfc.html . It's right after the section on avoiding AC-performance problems. Since VGA was mentioned: The Primer's section 15, about displays, gives links to tiny VGA and other video modules you can incorporate onto your main board. http://wilsonminesco.com/6502primer/displays.html

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:12 am
Posts: 155
GARTHWILSON wrote:
The section about expansion buses and interfaces is section 10, at http://wilsonminesco.com/6502primer/ExpBusIntrfc.html . It's right after the section on avoiding AC-performance problems. Since VGA was mentioned: The Primer's section 15, about displays, gives links to tiny VGA and other video modules you can incorporate onto your main board. http://wilsonminesco.com/6502primer/displays.html


That's the thing though. Building a VGA circuit is a whole field in itself.

I know there was mention of mounting external boards directly from header pins to reduce the path lengths, which is possibly a viable option as far as project separation goes.

In practice, does it make a huge difference? That's a serious question and not meant to come across as a 'smarty pants' type thing. You guys have a hell of a lot of experience under your belts and we are here to learn from the best. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:19 pm
Posts: 116
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
jmthompson wrote:
Gonna jump into this thread a bit late, but I'm in initial design phases of a new SBC project and this directly affects some decisions I need to make.

You probably should start a new topic for your project, rather than hijacking banedon's topic. :D

That said, Garth goes into some detail on his website's 6502 primer about caveats involved in going off-board with the buses. Perhaps you should give it a good read.


I've read Garth's entire site a bajillionty times but the general takeway I've gotten is just "don't do it", not 'how do to this if you really need to".

Anyway I will start a new thread. I just posted here because it seemed relevant to the conversation and I feel like half the time starting a new thread just gets a "oh go over to this thread where we talked about that" reply. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:28 pm
Posts: 10986
Location: England
jmthompson wrote:
Anyway I will start a new thread. I just posted here because it seemed relevant to the conversation and I feel like half the time starting a new thread just gets a "oh go over to this thread where we talked about that" reply. :)

Hmm, that's an interesting observation. I think it's most likely still worth a new thread, when building a unique new system with your own personal goals and tradeoffs. It wouldn't hurt, though, in that new head post, to note that you have read something or other, and provide links to the things you've read.

That way, whatever the outcome of the thread, it serves nicely when someone else finds it when searching, trying to do something similar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:50 pm
Posts: 3367
Location: Ontario, Canada
banedon wrote:
I went for the current arrangement mostly to keep the number of pins down and also allow for me being a twit and plugging the card in the wrong way around
Oops, okay -- I overlooked that aspect. But FWIW here's a mod that achieves both goals. Variations are possible.

-- Jeff


Attachments:
header pinout'.png
header pinout'.png [ 16.8 KiB | Viewed 513 times ]

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:24 am
Posts: 740
Location: A missile silo somewhere under southern England
Ok here's the latest and greatest version. I haven't yet sorted the RAM/ROM header pins out, but I'll do that probably over the weekend - along the lines of Garth's memory card pin out and also Jeff's suggestion.

Changes are mostly cleaning things up and making corrections, but here's a few explanatory notes

1) *I've moved the IRQ arbitration out of the ATF1504AS to an AND gate IC (IC2A/2B) allowing for some future expansion if I somehow manage to wangle some I/O into the ROM/RAM card (see below).
2) Lots of corrections as it was a rough design, and also plenty of modifications (and corrections) made thanks to the efforts of BDD.
3) As recommended by BDD, I've moved the banking in to the ATF1504AS and dumped the '573 and also swapped the ATF1504 for the 7ns version
4) Stripped out the RAM/ROM header connections and will be redoing those as stated above
5) Added in a GAL 22V10 to do the I/O and ROM arbitration - see below
6) Added in a proper 10 pin JTAG header with pullups
7) /PH2 renamed to PH1 as recommended by BDD

Memory & I/O decoding

The ATF1504AS deals with latching of the bank address bits in conjunction with PH1 being high, VDA being high, VPA being low. So if PHI1=1 & VDA=1 & VPA=0 then latch data bus.
If the bank is known to be entirely RAM then RAM0_SEL to RAM3_SEL are enabled on the ATF1504AS. I might play with the number of select lines, but at the moment it's 4.
If the bank is known to be the I/O and/or ROM bank (they can both be the same bank. i.e. bank 0) then RAM selects are disabled and IO_BANK and ROM_BANK lines are enabled.
These tell the address GAL to allow the I/O and/or ROM selects to be used based off of A15 to A8 (or possibly down to A5 depending on how many terms it can handle/are used).
*The GAL has 2 extra I/O / ROM lines which can be connected via fly lead. This allows for another seperate bank or two of ROM or VIA to be used on the RAM/ROM card. In the case of VIA then another fly lead can connect to the IRQ expansion headers on IC2A & 2B.
My concern about the above is the speed of the GAL as I think the best one I have is a -15. I might just pop in another ATF1504AS and then jumper the JTAG header.

[edit] * I might run the expansion selects/IRQ lines through the RAM/ROM header as really I doubt they will be used anywhere else which is practical. Trouble is, is the number of pins in the header keeps growing :D .

Here's the circuit (sorry it's a bit big, but if I shrink it down the text component labels start being unreadable):
Attachment:
65c802_busmem2.gif
65c802_busmem2.gif [ 157.78 KiB | Viewed 497 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8508
Location: Midwestern USA
banedon wrote:
5) Added in a GAL 22V10 to do the I/O and ROM arbitration - see below

Why?

Quote:
The ATF1504AS deals with latching of the bank address bits in conjunction with PH1 being high, VDA being high, VPA being low. So if PHI1=1 & VDA=1 & VPA=0 then latch data bus.

VDA & !VPA means the MPU is performing a data fetch/store. What about opcode fetch (VDA & VPA) and operand fetch (!VDA & VPA)? As you have it, all code would be read from bank $00, no matter the address, and only data would come from the correct address.

In latching the bank bits, the state of VDA and VPA is a "don't care." The only thing that is needed to latch the bank bits are the appropriate data bus signals (on the MPU side of the transceiver) and Ø1 (!Ø2). The resulting A16-A23 bank address can be output without further qualification.

Where the state of VDA and VPA matters is in generating chip selects, since !(VDA # VPA) means the address bus cannot be considered to be in a valid state (# is logical OR in CUPL). So your logic would be <chip_select>=<select_condition> & (VDA # VPA).

Quote:
If the bank is known to be entirely RAM then RAM0_SEL to RAM3_SEL are enabled on the ATF1504AS. I might play with the number of select lines, but at the moment it's 4.

You might want to give that a little more thought. :D The way you've described it, all the RAM chip selects would be simultaneously asserted.

Quote:
If the bank is known to be the I/O and/or ROM bank (they can both be the same bank. i.e. bank 0) then RAM selects are disabled and IO_BANK and ROM_BANK lines are enabled.

The bank is not relevant in determining which chip select to assert. It's the effective address range you have to consider. Banks only matter to the MPU, and only in specific cases.

In your logic, you define the address range for ROM (e.g., $00D000-$00FFFF, which is what I am using in POC V1.3) and the I/O block (e.g., $00C000-$00C7FF, also in my V1.3 unit). If the effective address being emitted by the MPU is not in the range of ROM or I/O then it must be RAM. Relatively simple logic can be used to set up conditions internal to the CPLD based on the address being emitted by the MPU. Those conditions would then be used to determine which chip select to assert.

The amount of RAM physically present would be detected during POST—it's a two-step process. The first step determines how many extended banks (i.e., banks $01-$FF) are present. The second step tests every address from $010000 to $xxFFFF, where $xx is the highest bank found during the step 1 testing. The results of the second step tells your system how much extended RAM is present. When added to the address range $000000-$00FFFF, the result is the address range of the entire machine.

Quote:
These tell the address GAL to allow the I/O and/or ROM selects to be used based off of A15 to A8 (or possibly down to A5 depending on how many terms it can handle/are used)...

Decoding down to A8 gives you 256 bytes of address range per device. Using A7 will get you down to 128 bytes per device, which is probably as granular as you should go. You have to balance what you think you want against the amount of logic resources you are willing to consume to decode the I/O block. Also, the more granular you make it the more pins required to wire up all those address lines to the CPLD.

If you place your ROM and I/O in the same bank (conventionally $00—using an extended bank makes ROM and I/O initially inaccessible at reset and when an interrupt hits) and make them adjacent in the memory map (i.e., not creating a "hole" in ROM in which I/O appears), the address logic becomes relatively simple. A convoluted memory map will cost you in logic resources.

Also to consider, the GAL working in concert with the CPLD may create logic race conditions that could be difficult to track down and fix (also, you will be cascading logic). Better to do all of it in a single CPLD, where you are much less likely to run into obdurate timing issues. The only consideration in putting it all into a single CPLD will be the number of I/O pins that will be needed to hook up everything.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Last edited by BigDumbDinosaur on Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:24 am
Posts: 740
Location: A missile silo somewhere under southern England
Thanks for clearing up the VDA / VPA
Sorry I mispoke (mistyped?): I should have said that one of the RAM selects would be enabled out of the pool of 4.
The reason for the GAL is decoding the I/O as there are not enough pins to do it* on the ATF1504AS. Been looking around to find an ATF1504 with a prop delay of 7.5ns along with 84 pins - all seem to be out of stock/discontinued. The only 7.5ns one I can find is 44 pin. - at least in PLCC. So it looks like I'll have to go with the 10ns one (ATF1504AS-10JU84), but I'll keep looking just in case someone has some nos (new old stock).
By the way, those PLCC84 sockets are (naturally) huge :D.
Decoding lower than A8 was more a possibility - "if I leave the pins connected then I can always see what I can squeeze out of the GAL afterwards" type of thing. Wasn't really fussed. Anyway, GAL is not going to be used now.

* Pins required on the CPLD:
16 for D0-7 (in) & for A16-23 (out) - bank latch
2 for PHI1 & PH2 (in)
1 for RWB (in)
2 for RD & WD (out)
2 for VDA/VDP (in)
8 for A15-A8 (in) - used to determine IO and ROM select lines
3 for VIA0, VIA1 and SER select lines
2 for expansion I/O select lines
4 for RAM select lines
1 for ROM select line
----
41

Additionaly, I can move the IRQ arbitration back in:
1 for OPEN DRAIN (in)
1 for VIA0 (in)
1 for VIA1 (in)
1 for SER (in)
2 for expansion I/O (in)
1 IRQB (out)
----
7

So 48 I/O pins needed which is for the the 84 pin ATF1504AS-10JU84. Hopefully it'll have enough macro cells.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: