| |
Zibri Account closed
Registered: May 2020 Posts: 304 |
VIA 6522 latching still unemulated.
let's imagine that on disk are recorded 5 bytes:
we call them x1 x2 x3 x4 and x5
now imagine we positioned in front of them, we skip 3 and read the fourth.
if to do that you use this code:
CLV
LDA $1C01 ; A here contains X1
LDY #$03
loop:
BVC loop
CLV
DEY
BNE loop
LDA $1C01 ; A = X1 on RH and X5 on emulators
on vice, pi1541 and ultimate64/u2+
A will contain "x5".
But on real hardware it will contain X1.
The following code instead will work on both:
CLV
LDA $1C01 ; A here contains X1
LDY #$03
loop:
BVC loop
CLV
DEY
BNE loop
LDA $1C0F ; A = X5
That happens because 1C01 keeps the last byte READ (with any LOAD operation or any other cpu instruction that does a READ) while 1C0F contains the actual shift register.
Note:
also putting a "useless" LDA $1C01 inside the loop and the reading 1C01 will work too. But still I think that's an important feature present on BOTH VIA CHIPS that should be emulated. |
|
... 25 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts.... |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 11073 |
You are the one who said "this is very easy to fix" - so that question goes right back to you. |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003 Posts: 1625 |
You guys |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 2800 |
As Groepaz implies, there is a reason why two of the most popular emulators don't do this right. (Does Z64K, btw.? :D)
While it seems easy to implement that latch from a high-level description, there may be various subtle timings and corner cases to observe. Stuff that could potentially break many things, and thus requires extensive testing and even then might suffer regressions temporarily.
So again, i can see why things that work in a given emulator but don't work on original hardware are not exactly at the top of to-do lists, contrary to the other way around. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 11073 |
Indeed. The first step would be to create an extensive set of testcases (an not just a bunch of code snippets, but programs that actually work in the testbench). |
| |
Zibri Account closed
Registered: May 2020 Posts: 304 |
I also found a discrepancy in how a varying series of zeroes is handled by real hardware and emulators...
Writing on a disk for example: FF FF FF 88 84 82 80 00 FF FF FF and then reading it back gives very identifiable results.
The best results I have seen come from U2+/Ultimate64 (which only misses wobbling emulation and speed setting to be perfect)
Vice and pi1541 give very identifiable results.
Moreover if you write that series of bits at "density" 3 (32 cycles per byte) and read it back at density 1 (28 cycles per byte) the result is even more different form a real hardware in good condition. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 11073 |
That kind of stuff even varies between real drives, eg the "long board" will allow reading more zeros in a row reliably. Its also highly sensitive to rotation speed, and various other subtle factors. As long as existing weak bit protections pass, i doubt anyone will loose his sleep over it (ie what krill wrote above). |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007 Posts: 621 |
$1C0F should be the same as $1C01 except that $1C0F doesn't produce a handshake. Page 3 of http://archive.6502.org/datasheets/rockwell_r6522_via.pdf
The interesting thing is that in the standard 1541 code, $1c0f doesn't seem to be referenced at all. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 11073 |
Those VIA Datasheet arent actually very useful to understand the detail behaviour of the VIAs (and they contain various mistakes too). |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 2800 |
Quoting Martin Piper$1C0F should be the same as $1C01 except that $1C0F doesn't produce a handshake. I seem to remember that reading $1c0f doesn't clear the latch, while reading $1c01 does. On real hardware, that is. =) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 11073 |
IIRC that part is mentioned in a single sentence in the MOS datasheet though :) |
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |