Once again I reported a post, not posted as a comment. Sorry about that.joska wrote:IDE is an integral part of the Falcon custom chipset, so replacing it does not make sense.
For a couple bucks users can purchase a small iDE to SATA adapter.
Moderators: Mug UK, Zorro 2, spiny, Greenious, Moderator Team
Once again I reported a post, not posted as a comment. Sorry about that.joska wrote:IDE is an integral part of the Falcon custom chipset, so replacing it does not make sense.
When reading through the MOT docs, it states the 56301 is object code compatiblejoska wrote:If TOS needs to be changed to work with the 56301, how would compatibility with games and demos be?mikro wrote:Awesome. Just want to mention it - in this case some minor changes to the TOS are going to be needed.mpattonm wrote:Switching DSP to 56301 will be a little setback, but hey - its a fun project and thats where the fun is. So back to the schematics.
Not sure if I understand correctly, do you mean something like.... this?mikro wrote: Your gut feeling was right, it can not work like that. I even guessed it, Videl is indeed using VID32 to sync with the Combel (for ST-RAM access). So *that* is the reason why they put 32.08... for compatibility on the external pin when master clock was changed. You are free to modify 25.175 or external clock (they work independently from the system bus) but not VID32, must be the same as master clock.
So you can rewire it a bit - instead of switching between 32.08.../custom clock on VID32 you keep the line from the master clock on VID32 and put the exact same switch on the external clock pin.
Uhm, stop listening to me. Your v2.1 is totally fine, I don't know what I was thinking (it seems that I'd overlooked that the masterclock *is* shared with both the Videl and the Combel input).mpattonm wrote:Not sure if I understand correctly, do you mean something like.... this?
This is completelly new board with different layout and certainly, different routing. All clock signals were routed manually (as the only signals actually) on a GND layer. Thus the above does not apply on the new board.Rustynutt wrote:Visually check the SDMA CLKIN point. The common trace from the COMBEL to both the FPU clock and SDMA clock makes a small but severe dog leg turn around another IC's resistor. From normal view, the "jump" under the resistor is left of the SDMA clock pin, about 20mm.
F030NG is designed with 56303 DSP, which, while code compatible, is significantly faster then 56001 and is coupled with 128kx24b memory. Compared to three 32kx8k modules on original Falcon030, it has four times bigger memory capacity.Rustynutt wrote: Could you also consider a PGA or modified DSP pinout where the DSP can relatively easily swapped out?
Without a 56k sheet in front of me, recall the 56002 and upward compatible have a few pins swapped. They may also include increased memory management.
Again, clock generation is way different form original Falcon. For example, instead of plain 32.089MHz crystal, F030NG features PLL programmable from 32 to 50MHz in 10 steps. There is also a switch to bypass Combell clock to CPU and FPU, allowing these two to be fed from PLL directly. Meaning you will have number of options and combinations to overclock your system, there will be no use for the basic speeders. With the exception of CT family, of course.Rustynutt wrote: 68030 PGA socket.
Kind of out from the scope of "the long journey", a nice additional feature would be to add separate oscillator sockets for IC's which in the past have had traces cut to insert a different clock. ie, DSP, FPU, MIDI and KB IC, VIDEL, VIDEL Genlock.
Pretty much any speeder, accelerator, CPU upgrade, basically all the reasons more Falcons didn't make it out from the System 7 wars
Yes, I will make a wiki page eventually.calimero wrote:And what are final specs.?![]()
Really? I did not know that. All I have ever seen was 6 layer PCB versions. That would perhaps explain some of the weird routing artefacts that make no sence at all.calimero wrote:Btw
Original Falcon board was also 4 layered?
Eventually yes, but not from the day one.calimero wrote:Btw2
Will you made this opensource so anybody can make their Dream-Falcon?
I think he was asking, see the question mark.mpattonm wrote:Really? I did not know that. All I have ever seen was 6 layer PCB versions. That would perhaps explain some of the weird routing artefacts that make no sence at all.calimero wrote:Btw
Original Falcon board was also 4 layered?
This probably rules out the CT6x, since it needs the original 030 to be present during boot (god knows why).Greenious wrote:I'm impressed by the work so far and really like where this is going!
A thought... given that most ppl interested in this new mobo probably want something faster than 030 & FPU, how about lifting them off the mobo to a daughterboard for the expansionbus instead? You can save some more space and people dont have to buy a CPU they will not use...
I'll speculate here and say it is because R. Czuba didn't want people to manipulate the 030 in any way. AFAIK you have to ground pin 17 (BGACK-, Bus Grant Acknowledge) to signalise that another device (CT60) has become the bus master.shoggoth wrote:This probably rules out the CT6x, since it needs the original 030 to be present during boot (god knows why).
F030NG is designed with 56303 DSP, which, while code compatible, is significantly faster then 56001 and is coupled with 128kx24b memory. Compared to three 32kx8k modules on original Falcon030, it has four times bigger memory capacity.Rustynutt wrote: Could you also consider a PGA or modified DSP pinout where the DSP can relatively easily swapped out?
Without a 56k sheet in front of me, recall the 56002 and upward compatible have a few pins swapped. They may also include increased memory management.
Rustynutt wrote:
Have yet the chance to work with a couple of Motorola DSP developer cards picked up last year.
They may or may not be of interest.
After upgrading my Milan, will install the PCI DSP card in this machine for some simple experiments.
Installing the CTPCI on a Falcon is down the road a bit more.
The audio development board looks as if it could be interfaced directly to the CT card, honestly have not looked into that possibly, yet still has other interface designs.
The photos are located here open to public if you have a Facebook account.
https://m.facebook.com/michael.grove.39 ... 952377519/
Three to six months. This includes one qualification cycle. Lets hope its enough.christos wrote:Just a thought. It is not really far from a falcon clone now, is it?