(edited)Re: Did not succeed... Suggestions? (was: Any NoV32 owner out there?) Message #11 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 13 Apr 2006, 4:54 p.m., in response to message #10 by Cameron Paine
Hello, Cameron; thank you for your support and help.
I see what you mean, and I think I based all of my reasoning on Diego's original documentation. Now that you mentioned, it conflicts with what is written in his last post. I think you are right.
In Diego's original documentation, bit #9 @4100h is considered by the NoV32 as a control bit, not bit #0. So, the pattern I believe he used is the following: (consider the regular weight for a bit: rightmost is the lowest, leftmost is the highest)
bit# 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
value 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 -> 00F
RAM/page - - F E D C B A 9 8 As we are dealing with 10-bit data, the lefmost character (hex) is in the range 0h->3h.
The eight rightmost bits enable/disable any of the eight RAM blocks, 4KRAM, 10-bit words each, in their corresponding pages. I tested the standard configuration, meaning any value from 000 to 00F, and the related RAM pages behaved accordingly: 002 - only RAM in page #9 active, 00F - all low-numbered four RAM pages active, and all possible conbinations, respecting that page #9 must always be active (NoV32 configuration restriction). Then I tested 20F, meaning:)
bit# 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
value 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 -> 20F
and I got the same contents, i.e., either 00F or 20F address the same four 4KRAM blocks, and they are located in the same pages, from page #8 to page #B. I also tested 3xx, meaning:)
bit# 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
value 1 1 x x x x x x x x -> 3xx and the calculator locks. In Diego's original documentation related to the NoV32, he mentions the overlapped mode, i.e., when bit 9=1, then bit 8 accepts either 0 (lower 4 RAM blocks) or 1 (upper 4 RAM blocks). But he mentions that the overlapping was supposed to be fully implemented at the end of 2005. Well, based on all that Diego has already done, I'd like to help him more than to wait for he to achieve results, but I do not know how. That's the main reason I'm doing so many experiments (and seeing my HP41's to freeze so much...)
I agree with what you wrote, and you see, the contents @4100h are actually a `control word`, right? And based on what I tried so far, I thought Diego followed the standard weight for each bit. And please, if you find any flaw in my reasoning, I`d like very much to read about it. And, of course, this wish of mine extends to the text I post in the other thrad, too. BTW, would you, please, add the link to your HP16C site again? I lost it, cannot remember, sorry...
Best regards and thanks again.
Luiz (Brazil)
Edited: 14 Apr 2006, 12:02 a.m.
|