Re: Fluke compiler software

<x-flowed>

Ramblings....

I wasn't thinking of emulating 6502's or Z80's, rather I am trying to
disassemble them to get a proper view of error codes the pods generate. I
have had a bit of success figuring out the error codes, but I really am not
an expert at disassembly so this is taking some time...the goal was to
understand all the codes the pod can handle and then use that for the
parallel port emulation.

The reason I was thinking of emulating the 9010A was that might be a way
around my slow cracking of the error codes by enabling one to skip that
step in the process of converting 9010s (and 9100) to be used, instead of
on a PC's parallel port. Certainly emulating the 9100 would be a far
superior solution especially if it has a number of routines that would save
a lot of time in creating in the first place.m But that is WAY beyond my
abilities I think, so with that in mind, just how would someone go about
emulating the OS/9 operating system? I am happy to work towards that
solution but my time is limited (as are my skills) and I want to spend my
time on a 'possible' solution (parallel or emulate base) rather than
drifting too far off course.

I am a bit concerned about how well the IBM parallel port (PP) can handle
this application, I understand that W2K probably won't allow it to work, so
one either uses W98/95 or DOS. It appears that the PP can handle the pod's
codes, handshakes etc, but can the PP run at 1Mhz? Anyone know?

The big bottleneck in my shop for using the pods is the programming. It is
very time consuming to write a program, troubleshoot it, send it to the
base, test it, revise it, figure out the limitations....I want to simplify
as much as possible the USE of the pods so a person with limited
understanding of CPUs could use these to service game boards. Currently the
system is rather complex and the learning curve is fierce.

My goal is to have a menu driven pod that asks:

1) Do you know the beginning RAM (ROM, I/O...)? Enter here (box)

2) If you don't know would you like to have the system try to identify
RAM/ROM, I/O? (run Learn) Why don't you go have coffee/tea while you are
waiting...(perhaps the process can be speeded up by adding a Rom/RAM module
to the pod that can be used to run QuickTests - more on this at a later date)

3) etc..(well, I'm no expert here, someone else can make a menu, me I'm
trying to be the idea guy here...)

John :-#)#

At 09:52 AM 04/04/2002 -0500, Corey Stup wrote:

> > Yes the idea is to figure out how to communicate with the PODs & emulate
> > what the base does, not necesarily emulate the base.
>Well, thats what I thought from the initial talks, but then when the
>focus was shifted to emulating 6520's and Z80's, it seemed to drift...
>
> > Heck if we are thinking emulating bases then why aren't we focused on the
> > bigger brother, 9100 series? I only know of one list reader that even has
> > one of these beast.
>I have 2 9100's. Its a FAR more advanced system, especially
>when coupled with all the extra physical hardware testing. I have
>a really nice automated setup for testing the 6532's on Gottlieb
>Sys80 boards. I can clip a 6502 pod "over top" the micro, and run
>test code to exersize the 6532 I/O ports, reading all 40 pins state,
>real time, using the 9100 I/O adaptors.
>
>If we are going to emulate ANY Fluke hardware, the 9100 makes
>far more sense. Its 68000 based, with OS/9 running as a simple
>RTOS. Fluke has some really powerful software included with the
>system, including a trace diagnosis system that follows a decision
>tree.
>
> > Well we need to know the basics first, and there is no know
> documentation on
> > the inner workings of the communication between the base & the pods. Once
> > this is know, documented & available we can then concentrate on which
> way to
> > go.
> >
> > I belive it is also important to make steady progress rather than trying to
> > think of every enhancement we want and then build it. Just look at the
> > Arcade ICE or RatBox projects if you want to see what that thinking
> > produces.
>I agree. I just don't see what you even "get" in the end by
>emulating the 9010A exactly. Figuring out the communication
>between the base and the pod is not dependant on getting a
>emulated 9010A setup on a PC.
>
>I don't consider this feature-creep at all. Just a better direction, in
>my opinion.

</x-flowed>
Received on Thu Apr 04 10:30:02 2002