CASTalk.com

Greetings all. I am looking for a replacement to The Intel
Microprocessor, by Brey. We're switching from 8086-based machines to
ones based on the 68000. The course deals with interfacing memory and
I/O devices (which is why we liked Brey).

If anyone has some suggestions, reply or post.

Thanks
..greg

--
Greg Franks (613) 520-2600 x1749, Fax (613) 520-5727
Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University
1125 Colonel Drive (ME 4244)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/franks.html

Greg Franks wrote:

Greetings all. I am looking for a replacement to The Intel
Microprocessor, by Brey. We're switching from 8086-based machines to
ones based on the 68000. The course deals with interfacing memory and
I/O devices (which is why we liked Brey).

Wow - talk about latency - a post from the 1980s ...

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/

"Greg Franks" <greg@sce.carleton.ca> wrote in message news:7nvf9lmo0w.fsf@merlin.sce.carleton.ca...

Greetings all. I am looking for a replacement to The Intel
Microprocessor, by Brey. We're switching from 8086-based machines to
ones based on the 68000. The course deals with interfacing memory and
I/O devices (which is why we liked Brey).

The Art of Electronics has sections on 8086 and 68008.

http://www.artofelectronics.com/fanmail.htm

If anyone has some suggestions, reply or post.

Ok, I had a look at this summary of Brey

http://users1.ee.net/brey/p8.htm

and it the Art of Electronics isn't exactly a drop in replacement, but you might be able to find
some stuff there that you can use.

Why do you want to switch from the x86 to 68K BTW?

Thanks
..greg

--
Greg Franks (613) 520-2600 x1749, Fax (613) 520-5727
Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University
1125 Colonel Drive (ME 4244)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/franks.html

Greg Franks <greg@sce.carleton.ca> writes:

Greetings all. I am looking for a replacement to The Intel
Microprocessor, by Brey. We're switching from 8086-based machines to
ones based on the 68000. The course deals with interfacing memory and
I/O devices (which is why we liked Brey).

If anyone has some suggestions, reply or post.

You could have a look at:
Clements: Principles of Computer Hardware
http://www.oup.co.uk/best.textbooks/eng ... /clements/


-- Jim Garside

"Hal" == Hal Porter <spamtrap@crayne.org> writes:
Hal> The Art of Electronics has sections on 8086 and 68008.

[snip]

Hal> Why do you want to switch from the x86 to 68K BTW?

Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking. One could argue about using other "more modern" processors
-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.

Thanks.

--
Greg Franks (613) 520-2600 x1749, Fax (613) 520-5727
Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University
1125 Colonel Drive (ME 4244)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/franks.html

Greg Franks wrote:

Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking. One could argue about using other "more modern" processors
-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.

I won't say the 68020 is "more modern". It's rather more baroque. Motorola
dropped a number of 68020 extensions to the ISA in ColdFire.

If you want something more modern, and think about embedded systems, look at
ARM. That's very popular in this field.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:tvomc2-gfm.ln1@miriam.mikron.de...

Greg Franks wrote:
Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking. One could argue about using other "more modern" processors
-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.

I won't say the 68020 is "more modern". It's rather more baroque. Motorola
dropped a number of 68020 extensions to the ISA in ColdFire.

If you want something more modern, and think about embedded systems, look
at
ARM. That's very popular in this field.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

I agree that using ARM would be a better bet since its in common use. OTOH
I'm not sure that it is more modern than 68020 - its approximately the same
vintage (early to mid 1980's).

Peter

Peter Dickerson wrote:

I agree that using ARM would be a better bet since its in common use. OTOH
I'm not sure that it is more modern than 68020 - its approximately the
same vintage (early to mid 1980's).

Modernness is not just a function of time. The 68020 is one of the last
CISCs, while the ARM is one of the first RISCs.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

"Greg Franks" <greg@sce.carleton.ca> wrote

Well, 68k-based up cores are used in embedded systems

They are? I may be an exception, but in ~30 years of embedded systems
I haven't come across more than a few.

and 80X86 aren't :-).

It's a joke, right? That's what the stupid little thing at the
end of the sentence is for. How did Shakespeare ever make it
without emoticons?

-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.

Now we get to the truth. Why didn't you say so at the beginning.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

If you want something more modern, and think about embedded systems, look at
ARM. That's very popular in this field.

I'd argue for either ARM or the MPC823/555/(whatever the replacement for
the 555 is, just came out in the last year). We use the MPC823 and 555 for
our embedded classes and plan on adding adding an ARM board in the next year
or two.

Mark

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message news:tvomc2-gfm.ln1@miriam.mikron.de...

Greg Franks wrote:
Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking. One could argue about using other "more modern" processors
-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.

I won't say the 68020 is "more modern". It's rather more baroque. Motorola
dropped a number of 68020 extensions to the ISA in ColdFire.

If you want something more modern, and think about embedded systems, look at
ARM. That's very popular in this field.

ARM would be a good choice I think - it's small, elegant and ultra popular. The only
problem is that ARM buses are designed for connecting things together on an ASIC -
it's not ideal for the stuff he wants to do I think.

Hal Porter.

"Greg Franks" <greg@sce.carleton.ca> wrote in message news:7nr7k7h6fx.fsf@merlin.sce.carleton.ca...

Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking.

I dunno, I'd say go for Arm if you can live with not being able to breadboard it.

One could argue about using other "more modern" processors
-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.

I like 68000s - I learnt C on them - but they don't seem to get used anywhere
these days. I've seen embedded systems based on x86, various microcontrollers,
various Risc chips, but never a 68K.

Don't really know why - maybe Motorola screwed up the marketing, or maybe
it's hard to make a small implementation with decent performance. I remember
being horrified that my elegant assembler BitBlt code ran so slowly on a
68000 e.g. mov (a0)+, (a1)+ took something like 12 cycles. On an Arm, you
could do the equivalent in two single cycle instructions.

In fact, now Apple has switched to PPC and Palm has switched to Arm they
seem to be almost extinct.

But if you've got the boards, I guess you're comitted.

--
Greg Franks (613) 520-2600 x1749, Fax (613) 520-5727
Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University
1125 Colonel Drive (ME 4244)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/franks.html

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:38:51 +0100, HP wrote:

"Greg Franks" <greg@sce.carleton.ca> wrote in message news:7nr7k7h6fx.fsf@merlin.sce.carleton.ca...
Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking.

I dunno, I'd say go for Arm if you can live with not being able to breadboard it.

One could argue about using other "more modern" processors
-- we got some 68020 boards reasonably cheaply.


I like 68000s - I learnt C on them - but they don't seem to get used anywhere
these days. I've seen embedded systems based on x86, various microcontrollers,
various Risc chips, but never a 68K.

The market for embedded microcontrollers based on the 68k is actually very
large. The embedded market is split into many sub-fields, which are often
quite seperate. For example, x86 systems turn up almost exclusively in
the "embedded pc" area, but would seldom be seen in a car, a washing
machine, or a mobile telephone. The original 68000 microprocessor family
is a rarity, but there are vast numbers of cars running on 68332 (or
similar) microcontrollers based around a modified 68020 core and some very
nice peripherals. The original Palm Pilots (until the colour screen) also
ran on a 683xx chip. There was also a range of network and communication
processors based on the same core, which was popular in the telecoms
industry.

Around ten years (a rough estimate) ago, Motorola (now Freescale) started
the ColdFire line, which is basically a re-implementation of the 68k ISA
using more modern processor design techniques (the marketing speak for
this is a "variable length RISC architecture"). The result is a family of
cores from around 50 MHz / 40 Mips up to 320 MHz / 400 Mips, with a
selection of peripherals, memory controllers, ethernet controllers, etc.
If you open up a low- or mid-range firewall/router, there is a fair chance
that it is based on a ColdFire running ucLinux.

Don't really know why - maybe Motorola screwed up the marketing, or maybe
it's hard to make a small implementation with decent performance. I remember
being horrified that my elegant assembler BitBlt code ran so slowly on a
68000 e.g. mov (a0)+, (a1)+ took something like 12 cycles. On an Arm, you
could do the equivalent in two single cycle instructions.

The original 68000 was slow - but they got better with each generation.
The ColdFire re-implemented the instruction set to get most instructions
running at one instruction per clock, excluding memory access (whose speed
depends on the memory types, caching, etc.)

In fact, now Apple has switched to PPC and Palm has switched to Arm they
seem to be almost extinct.

Far from it. For many years, the mainstay of the 68k was the automotive
industry, not Apple, although much has now switched to PPC-based
Motorola/Freescale microcontrollers (same peripherals, different core). I
think the main areas for Coldfire are in communications systems and
general control applications - the chips are fast enough for most uses,
including a lot of DSP work, and are easy to work with on the hardware
(unlike x86) and software (unlike DSPs). Arms can make more sense if you
find (or can afford to make!) an Arm chip that matches your application
closely.

For teaching purposes, however, there is a lot to be gained by ColdFire if
you want to look at the core itself and assembly-level programming. At
the level of gcc + ucLinux, there's not much difference, but the more
flexible addressing modes of the ColdFire make it nicer for assembly
programming.

David

But if you've got the boards, I guess you're comitted.


--
Greg Franks (613) 520-2600 x1749, Fax (613) 520-5727
Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University
1125 Colonel Drive (ME 4244)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/franks.html

"HP" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:41f98948$0$13973$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de...

"Greg Franks" <greg@sce.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:7nr7k7h6fx.fsf@merlin.sce.carleton.ca...
Well, 68k-based uP cores are used in embedded systems, and 80X86
aren't :-). The students also see enough of Intel processors in lots
of other courses, so they need some exposure to other ways of
thinking.

I dunno, I'd say go for Arm if you can live with not being able to
breadboard it.

For a development type system, there are ARM boards available. For example,
Intel makes some based on their Strong Arm. You might even be able to get
an educational discount. :-)

--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:36:12 +0000, Mark W Brehob wrote:

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
If you want something more modern, and think about embedded systems, look at
ARM. That's very popular in this field.

I'd argue for either ARM or the MPC823/555/(whatever the replacement for
the 555 is, just came out in the last year). We use the MPC823 and 555 for
our embedded classes and plan on adding adding an ARM board in the next year
or two.

Mark

For ease of use and ease of understanding, I'd argue against I've built
and programmed cards using the 68332 for over ten years, recently
upgraded one to use the MPC561, and now started using the MCF5234
(ColdFire). I haven't got far into working with the ColdFire card yet,
but the chip is much nicer to work with, as well as being smaller, cheaper
and faster. The MPC chip has some advantages, depending on the
application, but ease of learning is not one of them.