From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c14576d1 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 853659C139; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:32:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A989C0FD; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:30:58 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="E7e12rNQ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7E0389C0FD; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:30:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com (mail-qt1-f176.google.com [209.85.160.176]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C84559BFE6 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:30:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id c24so2736088qtp.5 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 06:30:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6cX4UTu3ZhiQjAQdZfoaLPMy5DBlYnmtSQZuwhs1PY8=; b=E7e12rNQuE0vDT2iin/JUbC32W2K/N7fI7ePgHbAaygTdYZqLCV+YsVuVSiVKbUzb7 T3PmbzFLOegZbvAdNECx+QrdgdEVs0VfCbN5fipoVNmNuwWMf6Thrf547WFSQWnEIJlK +suvPvZldRrXq6QGLcaAqTNg6HQGV/UDT+6K4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6cX4UTu3ZhiQjAQdZfoaLPMy5DBlYnmtSQZuwhs1PY8=; b=CWJfDbpi245HnXTMT5phE4odbbxkuYgvrYJtkqz8uiwrpWhi4nOEecS3FuxNO3D8M4 ycws8gdjRRy3bQh/h44WG7sTg6UDQtQ5JPA4ZNb7TgS8ZhcJpJpEWzop1ik+LL5AuSU8 xqedjxcpPBTL0DkYHpj7Sdlbe3NAogo645AIVN5jE3PfcB1mVI6qLlJSqYul1+76hX6R Rz8uEPle1vcqq/JuA0U51jv61znA6Rt//NjKUopZUm16b5aQTFPH67lfeQ97im3WgzjX w7a0w2CpzzrjM144ZUQvq0Y89s7Ra6N3yJjeqDZwfT/UGll85QvQSnaQNm2CsLJMPRGc FhZA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUJSQeF/R2R1YGx77acmpZrsWdLCLzgOrboVs+lyhk+PsdcwCMl JwFFAk8QRw3Bi4wy0uPt1rRw3uaAYgmbqI32Yk/YQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdenOfTri1Rv5qQ96LTZio7wEE0/f0iH0JXoVCKkZN3aGwdCGki8dEdtBFE0qMuLdCm4OqLe2FsAJNCOE1jc0= X-Received: by 2002:aed:36e5:: with SMTP id f92mr4753122qtb.354.1579617050446; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 06:30:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200117195908.GF15253@ancienthardware.org> <20200118035051.GC481935@mit.edu> <20200118041913.GB67053@eureka.lemis.com> <20200119024900.GA15860@mit.edu> <20200119031225.GI67053@eureka.lemis.com> <20200119035808.GK67053@eureka.lemis.com> <20200119132551.GC15860@mit.edu> <20200120180432.GJ28686@mcvoy.com> <202001201946.00KJk5er3071186@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <7wk15l70u3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> In-Reply-To: <7wk15l70u3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> From: Clem Cole Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:30:39 -0500 Message-ID: To: Lars Brinkhoff Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002c646f059ca74135" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Early Linux and BSD X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000002c646f059ca74135 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" It's possible they added an internal register or two to help save the fault State but I don't think so. We'd have to ask Les Crudele or Nick T. to be sure. As I understand it from my days of commuting with Les to Stellar and his talking about the project on those trips, the only real difference between the 68000 and 68010 was Nick's microcode which was in the mask. I think they may have stepped the mask in a few places for better yields but I understand the impression that was not externally electrical different in function. [Les was the 68000's main logic designer and Nick wrote the microcode]. On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:59 AM Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > Jon Steinhart wrote: > > The 32032 made sense for the workstation division based on the data > sheets. > > But, it turned out to be extremely buggy, and unlike the 68K I don't > recall > > the ability to look at and patch the state of the microcode. > > Did you have the ability to look at and patch the state of 68000 > microcode? How? > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual --0000000000002c646f059ca74135 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's possible they added an internal register or= two to help save the fault State but I don't think so. We'd have t= o ask Les Crudele or Nick T. to be sure. =C2=A0 As I understand it from my = days of commuting with Les to Stellar and his talking about the project on = those trips, the only real difference between the 68000 and 68010 was Nick&= #39;s microcode which was in the mask.=C2=A0 I think they may have stepped = the mask in a few places for better yields but I understand the impression = that was not externally electrical different in function. =C2=A0

[Les was the 68000's mai= n logic designer and Nick wrote the microcode].

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at= 1:59 AM Lars Brinkhoff <lars@nocrew.= org> wrote:
Jon Steinhart wr= ote:
> The 32032 made sense for the workstation division based on the data sh= eets.
> But, it turned out to be extremely buggy, and unlike the 68K I don'= ;t recall
> the ability to look at and patch the state of the microcode.

Did you have the ability to look at and patch the state of 68000
microcode?=C2=A0 How?
--
Sent from a handheld expect more typos t= han usual
--0000000000002c646f059ca74135--