6502.org • View topic - My 65816 Computer Concept

View unanswered posts | View active topics

Board index » 6502.org Users Forum » Newbies

All times are UTC

My 65816 Computer Concept

Page 2 of 2

[ 20 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Author

Message

BigDumbDinosaur

Post subject: Re: My 65816 Computer Concept

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 4:55 am

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8510
Location: Midwestern USA

dagenius wrote:

I do like the relocatable page 0 of the '816, so 1 page of I/O allows apps that use it often to switch their ZP to it.

There's is a booby trap involved with pointing direct page at the I/O block: if you do so you can't get to any pointers, indices and/or flags that are on the real direct page. Given that much I/O involves accessing such data structures, you may find mapping direct page onto I/O to not be viable.

When I implemented SCSI on my POC V1.1 unit, I went through a fairly lengthy exercise of getting throughput as high as possible. One experiment was that of pointing direct page at the SCSI host adapter's base address (which falls on a page boundary) and using a 16-bit index register to point to the buffer. In order to get at the direct page variables needed by the SCSI driver I had to force the assembler to use absolute addressing so the '816 wouldn't mistakenly try to fetch or store from/to the host adapter's address space when the access was supposed to be RAM in the real direct page.

After running a series of tests reading and writing 32KB chunks of data from one of the disks and comparing the throughput to not having the host adapter appear in direct page, I abandoned the idea. Code compaction and better anticipation of branches that might be taken proved to be more productive.

The reality is much of the activity involving I/O is managing buffers, queues and pointers, which is all compute-bound. So while having an I/O port appear in direct page improves access to the port, it may actually degrade overall performance if you have to resort to using absolute addressing to get at direct page variables. Even if that isn't the case, it's only one instruction of many in an I/O loop that is saving a clock cycle.

A good use of direct page redirection is pointing direct page at the stack in a subroutine after that sub has allocated some stack space. Doing so opens the door to allocating a fugacious direct page for any subroutine that has to make use of direct page addressing. The code to do so is surprisingly simple:

Code:

         phd                   ;save current direct page
         rep #%00100000        ;16-bit accumulator
         sec
         tsc                   ;current stack pointer
         sbc #tmp_spac         ;number of bytes needed (16-bit value)
         tcs                   ;reserve stack space
         inc A                 ;point at offset $00 in temp space
         tcd                   ;which is now direct page
;
;   —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
;   At this point, the instruction LDA $00 would actually fetch
;   from SP + 1, which is the bottom of the reserved stack space.
;   —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
;

        .....                  ;program does things...

         rep #%00100000        ;now we clean up...
         clc                   ;after ourselves
         tsc                   ;current stack pointer
         adc #tmp_spac         ;number of bytes that were used
         tcs                   ;get rid of them
         pld                   ;restore old direct page location
         rts                   ;we're done

I use this technique extensively in much of my code.

Worth noting is if DP is not pointing at the start of a page a one cycle penalty will occur on each fetch or store to direct page. The main value in doing the above is in using direct page addressing modes to get at data structures elsewhere in RAM. You can do indirect-long addressing on the stack, whereas if you want to do long addressing with stack-relative instructions you'd have to change DB and would be limited to a maximum of 64KB of addressable space. With DP pointing at the stack and use of indirect-long addressing you would have 16MB of addressable space.

Quote:

There definitely is a shortage of 65816 projects. A lot of people say it's harder, but the circuits for decoding the upper address lines are readily available in the datasheet, and the 16-bit operations make a lot of code smaller and easier.

There are other '816 projects around here: Marco Demont's, 8BIT's, mine, etc. However, they definitely are outnumbered by eight bit projects.

As for generating A16-A23, the data sheet circuit appears to have a potential timing issue as the Ø2 clock rate closes in on the 65C816's upper limits. Mostly, the use of an inverter to generating the latch strobe may not be satisfactory due to the cumulative lag of the inverter's propagation time and the time required for the latch to close when its /LE input goes low. There is discussion elsewhere on this.

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

Top

drogon

Post subject: Re: My 65816 Computer Concept

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 6:36 am

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:33 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Scotland

dagenius wrote:

As you're planning to use a CPLD, then that part of it ought to be simple. If you have enough IO on the CPLD, then you could use it to output a fully decoded address bus with additional signals for hardware selects.

Ruby816 uses a single GAL for the top 8 address-line latch. The 65816 side of the board is just 5 chips; 65816, 65c22, 512KB RAM and 2 x GALs (One does the address bus latch also an interrupt combiner, the other address decode and the r/w qualify, as well as some signals to facilitate the shared memory access from the ATmega (the 6th chip on that board). That all runs at 16Mhz

-Gordon

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

Top

BigEd

Post subject: Re: My 65816 Computer Concept

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 6:54 am

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:28 pm
Posts: 10986
Location: England

Hmm, I wonder if anyone's considered a 128 byte area for I/O? That would allow for access to both the I/O and some supporting pointers and counters in the same direct page.

Top

dagenius

Post subject: Re: My 65816 Computer Concept

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 7:00 am

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2020 11:21 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Australia

BigEd wrote:

Hmm, I wonder if anyone's considered a 128 byte area for I/O? That would allow for access to both the I/O and some supporting pointers and counters in the same direct page.

I can't remember which one but one project I was looking at had 256 bytes but only decoded 128 bytes. 128 bytes is still plenty for just VIAs and ACIA, so I might do this.

Top

dagenius

Post subject: Re: My 65816 Computer Concept

Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 2:03 am

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2020 11:21 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Australia

I'm working on a new memory map now based on the feedback I've got:

Code:

$000000-$00DEFF: 56KB system RAM
$00DF00-$00DFFF: 256 bytes I/I memory
$00E000-$00FFFF: 8KB EEPROM
Higher banks: Extra RAM and ROM

The code in the EEPROM could load an application like EhBASIC into RAM from a serial EEPROM or over a computer, or it could take the CPU out of emulation mode so it can access applications in higher banks.

Top

Page 2 of 2

[ 20 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

Board index » 6502.org Users Forum » Newbies

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ojanhk and 30 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