Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I have a desire to create an 80386 CPU in FPGA form, one which will plug in
to the 132-pin socket of existing 80386 motherboard as a replacement CPU. I
want to be able to provide the features of the 80386 on that machine, but
through my FPGA, to then allow me to extend the ISA to include other
instructions and abilities.

Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU that
connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's abilities?

For example, the 80386 uses 5V and the Altera board I have drives 1.xV and
3.3V max, so I'd have to use a level converter. At speeds up to a max of
40 MHz, would there be any issues?

Also, I'd like to create a "monitor board," which is a board with a 132-
pin male socket connecting to the CPU on one side, and a 132-pin female
socket on the other side to which a real 80386 CPU would connect, and then
to be able to pull signals off the wires between the CPU socket and the
CPU itself. I had assumed I would use opto-isolation for this, but I don't
know if it would work or be best.

In addition, and specific to the 80386 CPU, AMD manufactured an Am386 CPU
that is 100% compatible with the Intel 80386, but it has the ability to
underclock down to even 0 MHz in a standby mode (allowing it to consume
only 0.001 Watts). I'm wondering if anyone has any experience underclocking
an 80386 motherboard down into the KHz range, or even Hz range, and if it
would still work at those slow speeds on the board?

My goals in slowing down the CPU are to detect and isolate timing protocols,
which I can then scale up to higher speeds once identified.

In any event, any help or advice is appreciated. Thank you.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[rickman]

On 4/5/2016 3:15 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I have a desire to create an 80386 CPU in FPGA form, one which will plug in
> to the 132-pin socket of existing 80386 motherboard as a replacement CPU. I
> want to be able to provide the features of the 80386 on that machine, but
> through my FPGA, to then allow me to extend the ISA to include other
> instructions and abilities.
>
> Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU that
> connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's abilities?
>
> For example, the 80386 uses 5V and the Altera board I have drives 1.xV and
> 3.3V max, so I'd have to use a level converter. At speeds up to a max of
> 40 MHz, would there be any issues?

Even at 40 MHz you will need to be tidy with your routing to keep the
signals from ringing, etc. I don't know the details of the 386 chip I/O
specs, but quickswitch type parts will do a good job of level shifting
between 3.33 and 5 volts without adding much delay. Because the signal
passes between the source and drain there is very little delay. They
don't pull up to 5 volts, but 5 volt logic usually only need 2.x volts
anyway. But you'll need to check the parts you are interfacing to on
the mother board or just give it a wing. You can add pullups on the 5
volt side, but pullups tend to be slow. Even a few ns of added delay
can cause a 386 not to work. Many of the early mobos had timing issues
because of the TTL logic used. I don't think 386 mobos had chip sets in
place of the TTL, did they?

> Also, I'd like to create a "monitor board," which is a board with a 132-
> pin male socket connecting to the CPU on one side, and a 132-pin female
> socket on the other side to which a real 80386 CPU would connect, and then
> to be able to pull signals off the wires between the CPU socket and the
> CPU itself. I had assumed I would use opto-isolation for this, but I don't
> know if it would work or be best.

Opto-isolation is pretty slow compared to 40 MHz, but maybe there are
faster converters these days. Why do you need isolation?

> In addition, and specific to the 80386 CPU, AMD manufactured an Am386 CPU
> that is 100% compatible with the Intel 80386, but it has the ability to
> underclock down to even 0 MHz in a standby mode (allowing it to consume
> only 0.001 Watts). I'm wondering if anyone has any experience underclocking
> an 80386 motherboard down into the KHz range, or even Hz range, and if it
> would still work at those slow speeds on the board?

No experience, but the parts that would give trouble at slow clocks were
the NMOS devices that went out long before the 386. Certainly TTL and
CMOS don't normally have a problem with slow clocking.

> My goals in slowing down the CPU are to detect and isolate timing protocols,
> which I can then scale up to higher speeds once identified.
>
> In any event, any help or advice is appreciated. Thank you.

I have a book somewhere on the ISA bus with timing info. ISA was never
fully specified. I think there was an effort to produce a spec, but it
got canned and retracted at some point. You can't even find draft
versions of it now. But that was more of an 8086/80286 thing. I'm not
sure the ISA bus was still mapped directly to the 386 bus. I just don't
remember.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 3:15 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > In addition, and specific to the 80386 CPU, AMD manufactured an Am386 CPU
> > that is 100% compatible with the Intel 80386, but it has the ability to
> > underclock down to even 0 MHz in a standby mode (allowing it to consume
> > only 0.001 Watts). I'm wondering if anyone has any experience underclocking
> > an 80386 motherboard down into the KHz range, or even Hz range, and if it
> > would still work at those slow speeds on the board?
>
> No experience, but the parts that would give trouble at slow clocks were
> the NMOS devices that went out long before the 386. Certainly TTL and
> CMOS don't normally have a problem with slow clocking.

I assume the entire system is clocked off the single source? So, would it
be as simple as removing the crystal circuit and replacing it with a soft
circuit operating at the same frequency driven from an FPGA output? And
then taking the FPGA output and bringing it down slowly to underclock the
system?

I have two standard 80386 motherboards, and one 80386 motherboard with an
expansion socket. I also have an 80486 motherboard with an i80486DX, and
two Pentium motherboards, 33 MHz and 60 MHz I believe.

Here's an online image I found which matches the 80386 I'm interested in
underlcocking:

http://www.armanax.com/placa-base-m321-rev-2-5.html

It has an 80 MHz timing circuit, as the clock speed for the 80386s were
always double-pumped.

I want to get a case, power supply, VGA and MDA setup on it. I have a
custom 80386 OS I wrote that I'll use for bootup and testing (loads
from a floppy disk). I would write a simple test algorithm that does
some screen output, processes keystrokes, mouse movement, etc., and
have that test running as it's underclocked... assuming I'm on the
right path.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

> On 4/5/2016 3:15 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > I have a desire to create an 80386 CPU in FPGA form, one which will plug in
> > to the 132-pin socket of existing 80386 motherboard as a replacement CPU. I
> > want to be able to provide the features of the 80386 on that machine, but
> > through my FPGA, to then allow me to extend the ISA to include other
> > instructions and abilities.
> >
> > Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU that
> > connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's abilities?
> >
> > For example, the 80386 uses 5V and the Altera board I have drives 1.xV and
> > 3.3V max, so I'd have to use a level converter. At speeds up to a max of
> > 40 MHz, would there be any issues?
>
> Even at 40 MHz you will need to be tidy with your routing to keep the
> signals from ringing, etc.

If I can get the machine underclocked, I'd like to bring it down into the
low KHz or even Hz range if possible, but something 100 KHz or lower at
least.

I envision the Cyclone V GX being mounted a couple inches above the 80386
socket. I would use the HSMC to GPIO port to connect to the CPU socket.

I had considered at first using the co-processor socket and emulating the
80387 ISA at first. I may still do that, but regardless, there are only
90 pins that are active on the 80386, and 64 of those are direct address
and data pins, with another 20 being control pins for when those lines
are active, and in what mode they're active.

There really isn't much logic involved in hooking up an 80386, which is
why I'm attempting this project.

To be honest, I wouldn't even mind dipping back down to a 4.77 MHz 8086
system and starting there as part of the ISA I'll support for the 80386
contains a full 8086 subset.

> I don't know the details of the 386 chip I/O
> specs, but quickswitch type parts will do a good job of level shifting
> between 3.33 and 5 volts without adding much delay. Because the signal
> passes between the source and drain there is very little delay. They
> don't pull up to 5 volts, but 5 volt logic usually only need 2.x volts
> anyway. But you'll need to check the parts you are interfacing to on
> the mother board or just give it a wing. You can add pullups on the 5
> volt side, but pullups tend to be slow. Even a few ns of added delay
> can cause a 386 not to work. Many of the early mobos had timing issues
> because of the TTL logic used.

Excellent information, thank you.

> I don't think 386 mobos had chip sets in place of the TTL, did they?

Not originally, but later on. These motherboards were manufactured in
the early 90s, and came with Am386 CPUs manufactured in 91 or 92. I
believe the boards I have had switched to chip sets by then.

> > Also, I'd like to create a "monitor board," which is a board with a 132-
> > pin male socket connecting to the CPU on one side, and a 132-pin female
> > socket on the other side to which a real 80386 CPU would connect, and then
> > to be able to pull signals off the wires between the CPU socket and the
> > CPU itself. I had assumed I would use opto-isolation for this, but I don't
> > know if it would work or be best.
>
> Opto-isolation is pretty slow compared to 40 MHz, but maybe there are
> faster converters these days. Why do you need isolation?

I may not need it. However, when I was working on stepper motors back
in the mid-90s, I believe we used them to maintain a low power draw on
the circuits we were monitoring.

> > In addition, and specific to the 80386 CPU, AMD manufactured an Am386 CPU
> > that is 100% compatible with the Intel 80386, but it has the ability to
> > underclock down to even 0 MHz in a standby mode (allowing it to consume
> > only 0.001 Watts). I'm wondering if anyone has any experience underclocking
> > an 80386 motherboard down into the KHz range, or even Hz range, and if it
> > would still work at those slow speeds on the board?
>
> No experience, but the parts that would give trouble at slow clocks were
> the NMOS devices that went out long before the 386. Certainly TTL and
> CMOS don't normally have a problem with slow clocking.

From what I've read, Intel's 80386 CPUs would not clock below 10 MHz well.
But AMD's would clock down to any clock speed including 0 MHz. It's why
I've wanted to try to target these systems which came with the Am386 CPU,
for their underclocking abilities.

> > My goals in slowing down the CPU are to detect and isolate timing protocols,
> > which I can then scale up to higher speeds once identified.
> >
> > In any event, any help or advice is appreciated. Thank you.
>
> I have a book somewhere on the ISA bus with timing info. ISA was never
> fully specified. I think there was an effort to produce a spec, but it
> got canned and retracted at some point. You can't even find draft
> versions of it now. But that was more of an 8086/80286 thing. I'm not
> sure the ISA bus was still mapped directly to the 386 bus. I just don't
> remember.

IIRC, it operated at 4.77 MHz for 8-bit bus, and 6 MHz or 8 MHz for the
16-bit bus. I don't know if that speed is required, or if it's the
standard clock speed when the system was operating at its normal clock
speed as would be setup by early BIOS during boot. I assume once it boots
up, the entire system can be overclocked or underclocked by altering the
frequency emitted by the clock circuit, and the whole system would rise
and fall in relative speed parity. Just a guess though.

[rickman]

On 4/5/2016 5:11 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>> On 4/5/2016 3:15 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> I have a desire to create an 80386 CPU in FPGA form, one which will plug in
>>> to the 132-pin socket of existing 80386 motherboard as a replacement CPU. I
>>> want to be able to provide the features of the 80386 on that machine, but
>>> through my FPGA, to then allow me to extend the ISA to include other
>>> instructions and abilities.
>>>
>>> Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU that
>>> connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's abilities?
>>>
>>> For example, the 80386 uses 5V and the Altera board I have drives 1.xV and
>>> 3.3V max, so I'd have to use a level converter. At speeds up to a max of
>>> 40 MHz, would there be any issues?
>>
>> Even at 40 MHz you will need to be tidy with your routing to keep the
>> signals from ringing, etc.
>
> If I can get the machine underclocked, I'd like to bring it down into the
> low KHz or even Hz range if possible, but something 100 KHz or lower at
> least.

Running with a slow clock doesn't assure a lack of problems from edge
rates. The edges usually are still just as fast and that is what
creates problems.

> I envision the Cyclone V GX being mounted a couple inches above the 80386
> socket. I would use the HSMC to GPIO port to connect to the CPU socket.

I don't know about the HSMC port, but I don't think you need anything
special for a 40 MHz interface.

I recall that because there was no "standard" for the design of the
motherboard other than what IBM had done, there were some differences
between the various chip sets. In those days they *were* chip sets as
the whole shebang didn't end up in one chip like was used later and
still called a "chip set". lol

>>> Also, I'd like to create a "monitor board," which is a board with a 132-
>>> pin male socket connecting to the CPU on one side, and a 132-pin female
>>> socket on the other side to which a real 80386 CPU would connect, and then
>>> to be able to pull signals off the wires between the CPU socket and the
>>> CPU itself. I had assumed I would use opto-isolation for this, but I don't
>>> know if it would work or be best.
>>
>> Opto-isolation is pretty slow compared to 40 MHz, but maybe there are
>> faster converters these days. Why do you need isolation?
>
> I may not need it. However, when I was working on stepper motors back
> in the mid-90s, I believe we used them to maintain a low power draw on
> the circuits we were monitoring.

Optos are the opposite of low power draw on busses. Enough current is
required to drive an LED on the sensing side. Optos are typically used
to provide isolation from circuits that can have ground swings or
otherwise be noisy or have high voltage spikes, like motor circuits.

>>> In addition, and specific to the 80386 CPU, AMD manufactured an Am386 CPU
>>> that is 100% compatible with the Intel 80386, but it has the ability to
>>> underclock down to even 0 MHz in a standby mode (allowing it to consume
>>> only 0.001 Watts). I'm wondering if anyone has any experience underclocking
>>> an 80386 motherboard down into the KHz range, or even Hz range, and if it
>>> would still work at those slow speeds on the board?
>>
>> No experience, but the parts that would give trouble at slow clocks were
>> the NMOS devices that went out long before the 386. Certainly TTL and
>> CMOS don't normally have a problem with slow clocking.
>
> From what I've read, Intel's 80386 CPUs would not clock below 10 MHz well.
> But AMD's would clock down to any clock speed including 0 MHz. It's why
> I've wanted to try to target these systems which came with the Am386 CPU,
> for their underclocking abilities.

I've forgotten more than I knew, lol. That may be accurate. I know the
original NMOS circuits used dynamic circuits where values were
remembered on capacitance and so had minimum clock rates. Maybe even on
CMOS designs they did the same thing.

>>> My goals in slowing down the CPU are to detect and isolate timing protocols,
>>> which I can then scale up to higher speeds once identified.
>>>
>>> In any event, any help or advice is appreciated. Thank you.
>>
>> I have a book somewhere on the ISA bus with timing info. ISA was never
>> fully specified. I think there was an effort to produce a spec, but it
>> got canned and retracted at some point. You can't even find draft
>> versions of it now. But that was more of an 8086/80286 thing. I'm not
>> sure the ISA bus was still mapped directly to the 386 bus. I just don't
>> remember.
>
> IIRC, it operated at 4.77 MHz for 8-bit bus, and 6 MHz or 8 MHz for the
> 16-bit bus. I don't know if that speed is required, or if it's the
> standard clock speed when the system was operating at its normal clock
> speed as would be setup by early BIOS during boot. I assume once it boots
> up, the entire system can be overclocked or underclocked by altering the
> frequency emitted by the clock circuit, and the whole system would rise
> and fall in relative speed parity. Just a guess though.

It's not actually a synchronous bus. Everything is timed by the read
and write strobes with some other signals helping to control data
directions on buffers. It started with the 8088 I/O bus controls and
remained compatible I believe, but I'm not sure. If you don't mind
stretching the cycles a bit it can be run synchronously. I'll see if I
can find that book.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom socket
connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it requires?

The Am386 CPUs operated at speeds from 0 MHz to 40 MHz. Since they can
actually clock at any speed, I could take the CPU completely away from the peculiar and bizarre 80386 motherboard design, and instead provide the
facilities which basically allow the FPGA to be its motherboard, feeding
it whatever it's required.

Possible?

BTW, if I haven't said so you, I greatly appreciate your assistance and
advice. It is very kind of you to help me in this way, and much, very
much appreciated.

[rickman]

On 4/5/2016 10:47 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
> the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom socket
> connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it requires?
>
> The Am386 CPUs operated at speeds from 0 MHz to 40 MHz. Since they can
> actually clock at any speed, I could take the CPU completely away from the peculiar and bizarre 80386 motherboard design, and instead provide the
> facilities which basically allow the FPGA to be its motherboard, feeding
> it whatever it's required.
>
> Possible?

Sure. Booting one of these things may be a bit complicated, but not
likely any worse than booting a modern high end ARM processor. Likely a
lot easier.

> BTW, if I haven't said so you, I greatly appreciate your assistance and
> advice. It is very kind of you to help me in this way, and much, very
> much appreciated.

No problem. This an interesting if not mysterious project.

--

Rick

[o pere o]

If you plan to slow down the CPU by slowing down the FPGA clock be
careful: FPGAs like clean and relatively fast edges and some slow
generators don't work well.

Pere

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 10:47 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> > Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
> > the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom socket
> > connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it requires?
> >
> > The Am386 CPUs operated at speeds from 0 MHz to 40 MHz. Since they can
> > actually clock at any speed, I could take the CPU completely away from the peculiar and bizarre 80386 motherboard design, and instead provide the
> > facilities which basically allow the FPGA to be its motherboard, feeding
> > it whatever it's required.
> >
> > Possible?
>
> Sure. Booting one of these things may be a bit complicated, but not
> likely any worse than booting a modern high end ARM processor. Likely a
> lot easier.

Agreed. The 80386 manuals document the power-on state, and provided I
setup the SRAM emulation to point to the correct addresses with proper
80386 binary code, it should start processing away like gangbusters. :-)

My next step is to construct the board that has the 132-pin socket, and
the mated ports for the GPIO cables that the HSMC-to-GPIO board has.

Do you have any particular recommendation as to where I should go to get
the board manufactured? I've seen a host of online services where you
either use their tools, or provide a black-and-white bitmap for each
layer outlining the vias, pin locations, and wires, along with scaling
info.

> > BTW, if I haven't said so you, I greatly appreciate your assistance and
> > advice. It is very kind of you to help me in this way, and much, very
> > much appreciated.
>
> No problem. This an interesting if not mysterious project.

:-) I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to get it to work, but if
I can, it would be really nice to be able to have my CPU side-by-side with
a real-world product, able to test out compatibility.

And if it works, then for my ARM-based ISA, I would do something similar
with a slower ARM core, something also around 32 MHz or so.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 8:16:26 AM UTC-4, o pere o wrote:
> If you plan to slow down the CPU by slowing down the FPGA clock be
> careful: FPGAs like clean and relatively fast edges and some slow
> generators don't work well.

I plan on using the FPGA clock as it is, and then creating logic within
the FPGA to drive a pin high and low which produces the simulated clock
signal at a speed I can vary.

Since the Am386 can operate at a wide range of frequencies, I'll start
out at a 2 Hz clock and see what happens. :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 8:20:35 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> My next step is to construct the board that has the 132-pin socket, and
> the mated ports for the GPIO cables that the HSMC-to-GPIO board has.

And the level converters and any debug ports or vias for the scope.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:22:32 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 5:11 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> >> Opto-isolation is pretty slow compared to 40 MHz, but maybe there are
> >> faster converters these days. Why do you need isolation?
> >
> > I may not need it. However, when I was working on stepper motors back
> > in the mid-90s, I believe we used them to maintain a low power draw on
> > the circuits we were monitoring.
>
> Optos are the opposite of low power draw on busses. Enough current is
> required to drive an LED on the sensing side. Optos are typically used
> to provide isolation from circuits that can have ground swings or
> otherwise be noisy or have high voltage spikes, like motor circuits.

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

[rickman]

On 4/6/2016 8:20 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>> On 4/5/2016 10:47 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>
>>> Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
>>> the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom socket
>>> connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it requires?
>>>
>>> The Am386 CPUs operated at speeds from 0 MHz to 40 MHz. Since they can
>>> actually clock at any speed, I could take the CPU completely away from the peculiar and bizarre 80386 motherboard design, and instead provide the
>>> facilities which basically allow the FPGA to be its motherboard, feeding
>>> it whatever it's required.
>>>
>>> Possible?
>>
>> Sure. Booting one of these things may be a bit complicated, but not
>> likely any worse than booting a modern high end ARM processor. Likely a
>> lot easier.
>
> Agreed. The 80386 manuals document the power-on state, and provided I
> setup the SRAM emulation to point to the correct addresses with proper
> 80386 binary code, it should start processing away like gangbusters. :-)
>
> My next step is to construct the board that has the 132-pin socket, and
> the mated ports for the GPIO cables that the HSMC-to-GPIO board has.
>
> Do you have any particular recommendation as to where I should go to get
> the board manufactured? I've seen a host of online services where you
> either use their tools, or provide a black-and-white bitmap for each
> layer outlining the vias, pin locations, and wires, along with scaling
> info.

There are a number of places to have PCBs made, but I would avoid
strongly using a bitmap graphic file to convey the design data. PCBs
are complex beasts and if you have never done a PCB design before, I
suggest you spend a lot of time learning how to do that.

I like oshpark.com, but there is also www.pcb-pool.com/

You will want to use a PCB layout package and either use Gerber file
output to have the boards built, or some fab houses will take the native
format files of the layout package. One place I found would accept many
different kinds. I think they prefer that because it is not hard to
send Gerber data that can be misinterpreted. Gerber is a lousy format
really because it was the proprietary format of one company and never
intended to be a universal tool.

>>> BTW, if I haven't said so you, I greatly appreciate your assistance and
>>> advice. It is very kind of you to help me in this way, and much, very
>>> much appreciated.
>>
>> No problem. This an interesting if not mysterious project.
>
> :-) I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to get it to work, but if
> I can, it would be really nice to be able to have my CPU side-by-side with
> a real-world product, able to test out compatibility.

You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.

386 Chip
____________
++++++++++++ FPGA
============== _____________
|||||||||||| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
=================================================== PCB
||||||||||||
Plugs into 386 Mobo

When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket. When emulating the
mobo, unplug from the mobo. When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.

If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design. I can use
this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been
meaning to do.

> And if it works, then for my ARM-based ISA, I would do something similar
> with a slower ARM core, something also around 32 MHz or so.
>
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
>

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I think this sounds like a great solution. I've never programmed an
FPGA outside of the dev board and dev environment (Quartus), so I have
no idea how I'd program the on-board FPGA as you indicate. If it's
possible, your design looks amazing.

How is the FPGA programmed when it's not on a dev board? Is it that
certain pins feed into its programming mechanism, and those would be
wired to a usb port we'd add to the board for that purpose?

[rickman]

MCUs have a various means of programming them which often allow the use
of a simple USB port and a small chip. FPGAs have two ways of
programming... JTAG and a proprietary serial interface, each brand and
sometimes even family of FPGAs are different. The proprietary
interfaces are often very similar, but the programmers are different. I
just buy a cable from the makers and live with that. There are
"universal" cables sold on eBay but I've never tried one so I don't know
how well they work. I should as I have manufacturing needs and only
have one cable with no spares. I should either buy a new cable or try
using one of the universal ones.

If you have an eval board, it may have a chip on board to handle the
programming or it may require a cable. I have an iCEblink40 (Lattice)
eval board that uses USB. Looks like they use an AT90USB2 with custom
programming to bring up the FPGA. I bet other manufacturers do similar
things on their low end boards. If you can get the code you could copy
that, or just tie into the signals and use that programmer with your FPGA.

I like some of the Lattice chips because they have Flash. Once you
program them the programmer is no longer needed. If you are going to
use a RAM configured part you need something to program the FPGA every
time you power it up, so might as well design an MCU programmer onto
your board.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I think I asked you this before in 2014?? Do you live anywhere near
Indiana? I would be willing to drive out and spend a weekend with
you sometime on this project, listening and learning, seeing and
experiencing. I'd even be willing to buy you lunch for it. :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:38:45 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

> If you have an eval board, it may have a chip on board to handle the
> programming or it may require a cable. I have an iCEblink40 (Lattice)
> eval board that uses USB. Looks like they use an AT90USB2 with custom
> programming to bring up the FPGA.

Is it this one?

http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/ICE40HX1K-BLINK-EVN/220-1581-ND/3198285

[rickman]

I am in Maryland, VA and WV near Charlestown. I do a lot of my
electronic thinking in VA. I asked google how far it is to Indiana and
it said 630 miles to an arbitrary point north of Indianapolis.

I doubt a trip is really necessary. We can exchange emails. gnuarm dot
2007 at arius dot com

--

Rick

[rickman]

I have a similar one with the iCE40LP1K chip which is lower power and
less speed.

--

Rick

[rickman]

I started a thread in comp.arch.embedded about PCB makers. You may also
need assembly help too. Many FPGAs are BGA which can be tricky to
assemble at home.

--

Rick

[Aleksandar Kuktin]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:51:15 -0400, rickman wrote:

> On 4/6/2016 8:20 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2016 10:47 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
>>>> the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom
>>>> socket connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it
>>>> requires?

This is probably a much better idea.

The reason for that is that I would expect the motherboard manufacturer
probably didn't expect someone would be messing with the onboard clock.
And then they, presumably, didn't design it to handle it. It's enough for
a single component to misbehave at low frequency and the whole thing
would fail.

Doing things the other way around should be easier. I can't imagine the
CPU to be that picky about what it gets from the outside world.

Then again... if the memory controller is embedded in the CPU...

> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
>
> 386 Chip
> ____________
> ++++++++++++ FPGA
> ============== _____________
> |||||||||||| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> =================================================== PCB
> ||||||||||||
> Plugs into 386 Mobo
>
> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket. When emulating the
> mobo, unplug from the mobo. When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.

Oh, ok. I was really struggling to figure out how would he mechanically
intercept the signals between the CPU and the motherboard. Although this
design still has me scratching my head about those several hundred pins
that need to be manufactured and installed (by hand?), it's much better
than what I envisioned. :)

If you two really build such a PCB, would you post the design here? I'd
really like to see how you route all those wires. :)


An innocent question: why not intercept the signals running at full
speed, storing them and transmitting them later? You probably wouldn't be
able to record a whole lot of them at once, but you record a bit, power
cycle the CPU, record a bit more, power cycle the CPU, record a bit
more....

[Aleksandar Kuktin]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 12:15:35 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> I have a desire to create an 80386 CPU in FPGA form, one which will plug
> in to the 132-pin socket of existing 80386 motherboard as a replacement
> CPU.

Okay, so I'm not the only one who's into slow system design. :)

> I want to be able to provide the features of the 80386 on that
> machine, but through my FPGA, to then allow me to extend the ISA to
> include other instructions and abilities.

I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
BETTER architectures out there? :)

Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?

> Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU
> that connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's
> abilities?

Does simulation count? :D

[rickman]

On 4/6/2016 3:00 PM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:51:15 -0400, rickman wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/2016 8:20 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2016 10:47 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
>>>>> the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom
>>>>> socket connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it
>>>>> requires?
>
> This is probably a much better idea.
>
> The reason for that is that I would expect the motherboard manufacturer
> probably didn't expect someone would be messing with the onboard clock.
> And then they, presumably, didn't design it to handle it. It's enough for
> a single component to misbehave at low frequency and the whole thing
> would fail.
>
> Doing things the other way around should be easier. I can't imagine the
> CPU to be that picky about what it gets from the outside world.
>
> Then again... if the memory controller is embedded in the CPU...

You need to go much further back in time to an era where CPUs were just
CPUs and *everything* had to be done by the motherboard. The CPU has a
simple bus and doesn't actually know about your memory. But you are
right that the mobo may not be happy clocked at 2 Hz.

>> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
>> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
>> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
>> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
>>
>> 386 Chip
>> ____________
>> ++++++++++++ FPGA
>> ============== _____________
>> |||||||||||| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>> =================================================== PCB
>> ||||||||||||
>> Plugs into 386 Mobo
>>
>> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket. When emulating the
>> mobo, unplug from the mobo. When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
>> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
>
> Oh, ok. I was really struggling to figure out how would he mechanically
> intercept the signals between the CPU and the motherboard. Although this
> design still has me scratching my head about those several hundred pins
> that need to be manufactured and installed (by hand?), it's much better
> than what I envisioned. :)

Check again. I think Rick Hodgin posted the exact count at some point,
but it is not hundreds of pins. Also, they are on 0.1 inch centers (pin
grid array, right?) so you can use easy to find machined pin strips.
0.24 square posts won't cut it, but the smaller diameter pins are
available too.

> If you two really build such a PCB, would you post the design here? I'd
> really like to see how you route all those wires. :)
>
>
> An innocent question: why not intercept the signals running at full
> speed, storing them and transmitting them later? You probably wouldn't be
> able to record a whole lot of them at once, but you record a bit, power
> cycle the CPU, record a bit more, power cycle the CPU, record a bit
> more....

Reminds me of how they used to do hardware emulation in combination with
simulation. The simulator would run one cycle and then stimulate the
hardware to get the result. This would be factored into the simulation
and the next cycle would run. The hardware would then be rebooted and
two cycles of stimulus would be applied and the result captured.
Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:00:51 PM UTC-4, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:51:15 -0400, rickman wrote:
>
> > On 4/6/2016 8:20 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> >>> On 4/5/2016 10:47 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Alright ... suppose I target this from another angle. What if I take
> >>>> the CPU completely off the 80386 motherboard, and create a custom
> >>>> socket connected to my FPGA, and I provide it with everything it
> >>>> requires?
>
> This is probably a much better idea.
>
> The reason for that is that I would expect the motherboard manufacturer
> probably didn't expect someone would be messing with the onboard clock.
> And then they, presumably, didn't design it to handle it. It's enough for
> a single component to misbehave at low frequency and the whole thing
> would fail.
>
> Doing things the other way around should be easier. I can't imagine the
> CPU to be that picky about what it gets from the outside world.
>
> Then again... if the memory controller is embedded in the CPU...

Not on the 386 chips. The first memory controllers which appeared on
x86 CPUs came from AMD and that was on K8 I believe.

> > You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
> > 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
> > about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
> > your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
> >
> > 386 Chip
> > ____________
> > ++++++++++++ FPGA
> > ============== _____________
> > |||||||||||| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> > =================================================== PCB
> > ||||||||||||
> > Plugs into 386 Mobo
> >
> > When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket. When emulating the
> > mobo, unplug from the mobo. When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
> > in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
>
> Oh, ok. I was really struggling to figure out how would he mechanically
> intercept the signals between the CPU and the motherboard. Although this
> design still has me scratching my head about those several hundred pins
> that need to be manufactured and installed (by hand?), it's much better
> than what I envisioned. :)
>
> If you two really build such a PCB, would you post the design here? I'd
> really like to see how you route all those wires. :)

The 80386 used a 132-pin socket, of which 40 pins are either not connected
or only carry Vcc or Vss voltages:

http://www.electronicsurplus.com/samtec-ndas-132zsgt-h-connectors-ic-sockets-132-pin-grid-array-package-of-2

The sockets and pinouts are fairly standard, though less common these
days. I could de-solder a connector on one of the motherboards I have
for my particular application. Provided the vias were all in the right
place, it should transfer over and re-solder just fine.

> An innocent question: why not intercept the signals running at full
> speed, storing them and transmitting them later? You probably wouldn't be
> able to record a whole lot of them at once, but you record a bit, power
> cycle the CPU, record a bit more, power cycle the CPU, record a bit
> more....

That was my first desire. But, once I learned about AMD's Am386's
ability to clock down to even 0 MHz and maintain its internal state
correctly, I began to think it would be easier to examine if it were
running at lower speed.

The clock signal to an 80386 is double-pumped, so a 2 Hz input clock
would cause 1 clock cycle per second.

[rickman]

That jogged a recollection. Once the internal speeds got faster they
added phase locked loops to use a slow external clock and a faster
internal clock. These are no longer compatible with slow clocking.

Same is true of FPGAs if you use the internal PLL. It will be fairly
simple to generate a variable speed clock to drive the CPU with. Then
the FPGA can either work at that same rate, or resync the interface to a
fast internal clock which does not change rate. It all depends on what
you are doing with the data once you get it and what your other
interfaces are.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:07:55 PM UTC-4, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 12:15:35 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> > I have a desire to create an 80386 CPU in FPGA form, one which will plug
> > in to the 132-pin socket of existing 80386 motherboard as a replacement
> > CPU.
>
> Okay, so I'm not the only one who's into slow system design. :)

I am not objected to having it go faster, but the faster it goes the
most expensive it is. :-)

Okay, are you sitting down? Here goes... :-)

My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes! Once I can get that product
working, then it can be optimized and honed to more modern processes,
with my ultimate goal coming in around those process technologies used
in the late 90s around 500 nm.

> > I want to be able to provide the features of the 80386 on that
> > machine, but through my FPGA, to then allow me to extend the ISA to
> > include other instructions and abilities.
>
> I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
> BETTER architectures out there? :)

I have a long history on 80386. I wrote my own kernel, debuggers, etc.
It's been a relationship dating back to the late 80s.

However, one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I am extending
the ISA out to include 40-bit addresses, rather than just 32-bit,
which accesses memory in the Terabyte range, and to include a built-in
ARM ISA which allows the CPU to switch between ISAs based on branch
instructions.

> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?

To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was gifted
with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow man (and
not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other such things,
but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).

> > Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU
> > that connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's
> > abilities?
>
> Does simulation count? :D

Yes. Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does not
plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation. Here's an Aleksander
who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):

https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486

My goals are part of a project I'm working on called LibSF 386-x40, which
is a 40-bit extension to the 80386, and 32-bit ARM. I use a WEX register
model which extends the 32-bit registers to 40-bit registers:

https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/wex_register_mapping.png

However, in the past couple weeks I've had the idea of a pointer selector,
which operates like a segment selector, but on a specific pointer register.
When enabled, it loads an extra 8-bits into the segment register associated
with specific register, such that it then is able to reference a 4GB window
of memory within the 1 TB address space:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.arch/bcpb03mL0o0/xUBzCXDmBgAJ

These are all part of long-term plans. I'd like to have my first CPU being
shipped to a fab for real manufacturing by July 12, 2022, which I expect to
be around a 90 MHz part.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I believe that occurred on the 80486 and the DX/2, DX/3 (un-released),
and DX/4 models.

The 80387 co-processor has the ability to run dual clocks internally,
which are governed in the range of 14:10 (I believe), but they don't
have to run faster. They can be locked and always run at the same
speed.

> Same is true of FPGAs if you use the internal PLL. It will be fairly
> simple to generate a variable speed clock to drive the CPU with. Then
> the FPGA can either work at that same rate, or resync the interface to a
> fast internal clock which does not change rate. It all depends on what
> you are doing with the data once you get it and what your other
> interfaces are.

I had the idea that I would use the simulated clock output for an input
trigger back into the FPGA for doing all monitoring/sampling.

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:


> I like some of the Lattice chips because they have Flash. Once you
> program them the programmer is no longer needed. If you are going to
> use a RAM configured part you need something to program the FPGA every
> time you power it up, so might as well design an MCU programmer onto
> your board.
>

Xilinx also has he Spartan 3AN (N for non-volatile). For a couple extra
bucks, you can get get the flash memory built in. Otherwise, their Spartan
3 family will download from a fariety of serial PROMS with no additional
circuitry. I've been using SST serial EPROMS for some time, they are
something like $0.80 which seems pretty amazing. They don't make them in
DIP, however, so I have to make a little board about fingernail size so I
can plug them in to the board.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:


>
> My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
> garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes! Once I can get that product
> working, then it can be optimized and honed to more modern processes,
> with my ultimate goal coming in around those process technologies used
> in the late 90s around 500 nm.

OH, MY!!! Call out the men in the white coats! While some people have
actually made transistors and even very SIMPLE ICs at home, when you get
into more complex stuff, it starts to get real hard! Intel's version of the
'386 had 275,000 transistors! Do you have the software tools to simulate
the timing on such a chip? And, of course, all 275,000 of those transistors
have to work!

I occasionally make PC boards in my basement, and I have some professional-
grade machinery to use, such as a laser photoplotter, Kepro dry film
laminator and Kepro etcher. I still have problems with yield, and have to
touch up the boards to make them work. I can't IMAGINE how much harder that
could get with 275,000 transistors on Silicon! Uhhh, maybe you might try to
get a single FF to work, first. How are you going to make the masks? Have
you ever worked with Arsine, DiBorane, Phosphine and similar gases?

> These are all part of long-term plans. I'd like to have my first CPU
> being shipped to a fab for real manufacturing by July 12, 2022, which I
> expect to be around a 90 MHz part.

Ah, well, this is different. Let the fabs deal with the deadly gases, clean
room environment, maks making, etc.

I've been working on projects which make chips through the MOSIS service.
This is NOT cheap, by any means. We use the very old AMI C5N process, now
provided to MOSIS through ON Semi. It is a .5 um process. A small chip we
made was fabbed by them on a multi-project wafer for about $18,000. I doubt
your 80386 would fit in that size. They charge by the square mm. Their
multi-project wafer system combines 20 or more different designs onto one
reticle, and then they dice up the chips for the different users. A larger
project ended up running about $44000, but we got more instances of the chip
for that than the standard order of only 40 chips.

Jon

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:26:08 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>
> >
> > My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
> > garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes! Once I can get that product
> > working, then it can be optimized and honed to more modern processes,
> > with my ultimate goal coming in around those process technologies used
> > in the late 90s around 500 nm.
> OH, MY!!! Call out the men in the white coats! While some people have
> actually made transistors and even very SIMPLE ICs at home, when you get
> into more complex stuff, it starts to get real hard! Intel's version of the
> '386 had 275,000 transistors! Do you have the software tools to simulate
> the timing on such a chip? And, of course, all 275,000 of those transistors
> have to work!
>
> I occasionally make PC boards in my basement, and I have some professional-
> grade machinery to use, such as a laser photoplotter, Kepro dry film
> laminator and Kepro etcher. I still have problems with yield, and have to
> touch up the boards to make them work. I can't IMAGINE how much harder that
> could get with 275,000 transistors on Silicon! Uhhh, maybe you might try to
> get a single FF to work, first. How are you going to make the masks? Have
> you ever worked with Arsine, DiBorane, Phosphine and similar gases?

I plan to move in stages. :-) I also don't plan on doing it alone. I
presume there will be people at some point who would come on board and
help me manufacture chips, possibly with old fab equipment we could pick
up at that time for the price of scrap metal, and then retool as needed.

I'm not planning on making my own chips before the end of the 2020s.
Until then, I'll use commercial fabs.

> > These are all part of long-term plans. I'd like to have my first CPU
> > being shipped to a fab for real manufacturing by July 12, 2022, which I
> > expect to be around a 90 MHz part.
> Ah, well, this is different. Let the fabs deal with the deadly gases, clean
> room environment, maks making, etc.
>
> I've been working on projects which make chips through the MOSIS service.
> This is NOT cheap, by any means. We use the very old AMI C5N process, now
> provided to MOSIS through ON Semi. It is a .5 um process. A small chip we
> made was fabbed by them on a multi-project wafer for about $18,000. I doubt
> your 80386 would fit in that size. They charge by the square mm. Their
> multi-project wafer system combines 20 or more different designs onto one
> reticle, and then they dice up the chips for the different users. A larger
> project ended up running about $44000, but we got more instances of the chip
> for that than the standard order of only 40 chips.

I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early samples,
with an anticipated 50 to 100 CPU minimum, but that if I am able to create
the industry I'm hoping to create (people who are willing to buy CPUs that
are wrought of love, more than high-speed bells and whistles, looking to
them as a utility to augment man's existence, rather than as a whizz bang
eye candy newest fad ("gotta have the $12K iPhone 6 because my $10K iPhone
5 is just so last year") kind of thing).

I want to foster an industry that seeks to re-educate people that there are
needs, and then there are wants, and that people don't need to get the most
expensive, or newest things, to have things that are useful and usable, but
that it's more important for us to work together to help one another, and
to use the skills and resources we have to make better each other's lives,
than to hoard that talent behind a money wall, or an intellectual property
wall, etc.

In short: I want people helping people. I want people loving people. I
wan people being to other people the way people should be to other people,
and not for forced reasons, but for internally realized reasons, as by an
examination of what it truly means to be here in this world alongside all
the other people we're here with in this world.

It's a tremendous gift we've been given, and I want us to recognize that
gift for what it is (and from Who it comes from), and to then live our
lives as we desire to do so, but being subject to that realization, and
all it entails (remembering God who gave us these opportunities, for
example).

I want there to be love in the things we help each other with, rather
than just a pursuit of cold, hard, dispassionate, money, or of some
personally held view of what it means to have power (owning the rights
to some "intellectual property," for example).

It's not a very popular position I'm in pursuit of, but it's one I believe
in whole-heartedly, which is the one at the foundation and core of all of
these efforts I'm involved with (using the unique and special talents and
skills I possess to make other people's lives better, encouraging them to
also use the unique and special talents and skills they possess, to do the
same in the areas of life they're interested in -- I'm interested in CPUs,
in hardware and software, but other people are interested in manufacturing
houses, or bulldozers or whatever. Each of us can look to the people around
us and say within ourselves, "What can I do to make the people's lives
better, rather than the banker's lives better?").

There is real reward in giving, and in loving. There is far less reward
in cashing a fat paycheck. Real love endures. Gifts of real giving endure.
The fat paycheck comes and goes quickly, and leaves little behind which
truly fills any part of our core being.

I want more people to experience that real fulfilling from giving and
loving, and in a true and sincere "nothing to be gained except in the
giving" way.

Hope this makes sense. :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early samples,
> with an anticipated 50 to 100 CPU minimum, but that if I am able to create
> the industry I'm hoping to create (people who are willing to buy CPUs that
> are wrought of love, more than high-speed bells and whistles, looking to
> them as a utility to augment man's existence, rather than as a whizz bang
> eye candy newest fad ("gotta have the $12K iPhone 6 because my $10K iPhone
> 5 is just so last year") kind of thing).

...then the need for larger runs would be there and the price would go down.

[Jon Elson]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:


>
> I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early samples,

OK, the MOSIS standard order is for 40 parts. So, that's $40K each
revision. Unless you are truly brilliant, it is going to take a BUNCH of
respins of the part to get anything working.

> with an anticipated 50 to 100 CPU minimum, but that if I am able to create
> the industry I'm hoping to create (people who are willing to buy CPUs that
> are wrought of love, more than high-speed bells and whistles, looking to
> them as a utility to augment man's existence, rather than as a whizz bang
> eye candy newest fad ("gotta have the $12K iPhone 6 because my $10K iPhone
> 5 is just so last year") kind of thing).

Uhhh, I can imagine there will be at LEAST 5 customers for this. How many
shirts do you have? Because you are certainly going to lose your shirt on
this project!

Jon

[rickman]

Serial flash parts use extra board space and are a PITA to design in so
you can program on the board. The serial configuration of Xilinx parts
is also rather slow in comparison to the boot time of a internal flash
FPGA. I believe it is something like two orders of magnitude faster.
The Spartan 3AN is a bit of a joke in some respects, but if you are
using Xilinx parts I guess that is what you get. If it were a good
idea, why do they only do that on the 10 year old Spartan 3A line?

--

Rick

[rickman]

If you are plugged into the mobo, I don't think you can source the
clock. That would work ok if the FPGA is emulating the mobo.

--

Rick

[rickman]

How would this accomplish that, the benefit to God or man?

>>> Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU
>>> that connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's
>>> abilities?
>>
>> Does simulation count? :D
>
> Yes. Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does not
> plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation. Here's an Aleksander
> who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):
>
> https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486
>
> My goals are part of a project I'm working on called LibSF 386-x40, which
> is a 40-bit extension to the 80386, and 32-bit ARM. I use a WEX register
> model which extends the 32-bit registers to 40-bit registers:
>
> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/wex_register_mapping.png
>
> However, in the past couple weeks I've had the idea of a pointer selector,
> which operates like a segment selector, but on a specific pointer register.
> When enabled, it loads an extra 8-bits into the segment register associated
> with specific register, such that it then is able to reference a 4GB window
> of memory within the 1 TB address space:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.arch/bcpb03mL0o0/xUBzCXDmBgAJ
>
> These are all part of long-term plans. I'd like to have my first CPU being
> shipped to a fab for real manufacturing by July 12, 2022, which I expect to
> be around a 90 MHz part.

So in 2022 this will rival the $5 ARM MCU devices currently available?

--

Rick

[rickman]

I think Rick H doesn't understand that electronics works exactly the way
it does because it allows the industry to provide $25 cell phones to
those who *need* them rather than the $400 latest eye candy phones to
those who want them. (I don't know of any $12,000 phones) In some ways
the $400 phones subsidize the cheap phones, but not in a serious way.
The expensive phones just drive the "bleeding edge" market since that
always costs more initially. Then once the high initial costs are
amortized, the rest of us get the benefit of the technology at the
sustained product rate.

Producing a CPU chip with no real market in an antique technology will
not help anyone, man or God.

This project *is* starting to sound familiar now.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 4/6/2016 4:38 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:07:55 PM UTC-4, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
>
>> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
>> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?
>
> To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was gifted
> with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow man (and
> not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other such things,
> but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).

This jogged a memory of a joke I was told at work when I worked on an
IRAD project that was being graded by the government. The government
format for the write up had a few sections and two were the GOAL and the
PURPOSE. Everyone was confused about the difference in the two. So
Fred wrote his report and said his goal was to measure some parameter
and his purpose was to prove the parameter met some requirements. His
boss read his report and said, "No, your goal is to prove the parameter
met the requirements so what is your purpose?". He worked on it again
saying his purpose was to show the unit X would work in system Y. It
was reviewed by his second level boss who said, "No, your goal is to
prove unit X works in system Y, what is your purpose?"

This happened a couple more times until his report got through all the
reviewers and he presented his report to a meeting. He started out
saying... "My purpose is to get into heaven".

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early samples,
> OK, the MOSIS standard order is for 40 parts. So, that's $40K each
> revision. Unless you are truly brilliant, it is going to take a BUNCH of
> respins of the part to get anything working.

I can't remember who it was I searched a while back (2014 I think), but
I found a company that was manufacturing on 250nm and 500nm process
technologies. The mask sets were $15K each, and each run varied, but
the total cost for 100 parts was less than $100K including masks.

> > with an anticipated 50 to 100 CPU minimum, but that if I am able to create
> > the industry I'm hoping to create (people who are willing to buy CPUs that
> > are wrought of love, more than high-speed bells and whistles, looking to
> > them as a utility to augment man's existence, rather than as a whizz bang
> > eye candy newest fad ("gotta have the $12K iPhone 6 because my $10K iPhone
> > 5 is just so last year") kind of thing).
>
> Uhhh, I can imagine there will be at LEAST 5 customers for this. How many
> shirts do you have? Because you are certainly going to lose your shirt on
> this project!

Well, it's not a goal. It's not being done for money. I would like to have
assistance from those who are willing to give. I also don't intend on being
the only one who works on it. I intend others who are experts in this field
will come forward and help out. And if not, then I will do my best.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Correct. I don't plan on connecting to the motherboard though until I get
the entire ISA working. And even then it will be a minimal research effort
such that if I can't get it working in a week or two, then I'll move on to
the next thing.

After hearing all of the difficulties I may have on the motherboard side,
the re-grouping of just working with the Am386 CPU makes a lot more sense.
Plus, it actually accomplishes nearly all of my goals as my goals were to
replace the CPU's instruction set with my own, and to validate it 1:1 that
I am correct. By having a side-by-side comparison I can do that. And as
I've stated, it might even be interesting to try to get other 80386-clone
CPUs to test out side-by-side in the configuration, and then write a
paper outlining where they are different. But, that's the lowest possible
goal, just a "wouldn't it be interesting" thought. :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:46:51 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/6/2016 4:38 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:07:55 PM UTC-4, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> >> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
> >> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?
> >
> > To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was gifted
> > with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow man (and
> > not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other such things,
> > but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).
>
> How would this accomplish that, the benefit to God or man?

Well, it's difficult to describe to many people. To date, only a small
handful have seen any value in the idea whatsoever ... but, some do see
the value and I am one of them. :-)

It comes down to our fundamental reason for being alive in this world.
Am I a self-made man with all of my abilities being my abilities? Or do
I acknowledge that I was gifted with those abilities by God, and then do
I hold God in that place in my life ahead of all things?

I am not rich. I am not strong. I am not many things. What I am though
He has gifted me with. I happen to have an interest in these areas and,
despite not having a formal education, have discovered over time that
these things just make sense to me and I'm able to maneuver in them with
little difficulty. They are also a great interest to me.

So, I refocus the purposes of my life from within that knowledge and
understanding: I was created by God. God had a purpose in creating me.
I desire to do these things in my life, so I will do them for God. And
if God has another purpose for me in my life, then as I am walking on
this path, He will put up obstacles and roadblocks to move me from this
direction to some other direction, which is the one He truly wanted me
to be on.

So long as I'm moving, and doing so for Him, I'm walking as I should.
And for me, it's in this industry (hardware, and software). But for
others walking similarly in their line of work, it would be in whatever
they do, using whatever skills they possess.

-----
It's an endeavor I've been working on since July 12, 2012, when I had
instead started heading down a path of doing what I'm doing now on
this project, except for GNU and the FSF. However, just before I began,
I found out some things about Richard Stallman that were very disturbing
to me, and I resolved within myself that I could not work for that
entity, contributing to its growth or prosperity because its very
foundations were wrought of a man whose viewpoints on several things are
not only against God, but against most people's assessment of what is
true right and true wrong.

So, instead of the Free Software Foundation, I created the Liberty
Software Foundation, and dedicated all of my work to honoring God. I
have given the labor I possess on these projects away, so that others
might benefit from them. I have done my best on this project, and not
many others have seen benefit in my work, and I've observed a similar
reaction to my efforts as I see here, where people initially are very
interested in helping, but once they see any kind of an association with
God, or doing work for God, there is a recoil, and a pulling away. Of
course it makes me sad because I desire to create these hardware and
software products, and I desire to receive help from others, but I also
desire to do it in a way which gives God the credit (glory, honor, praise)
for what He first did in me, giving me the abilities to do any of these
things in the first place, and in all who participate as well.

In essence, my heart cries out to God in acknowledgement of who He is,
what He has done, and I recognize why we are here in our various short-
comings, ineptitudes, strengths, and abilities: to help one another.

We are here to compensate for one another's weaknesses, to be strong in
areas they're weak, and have others be strong in the areas we're weak.
And in these areas of hardware and software design, I would very much
like to have a part running at 4 GHz or faster, but I cannot do that
alone. My goals are more modest, though my hope remains that I will
not only have a part running at 4 GHz, but rather that God will shine
the light of knowledge and understanding in these areas of physics and
allow a part to be created which operates at 100 GHz or faster, and
does so on less power, less heat, etc.

I am confident in my relationship with God, and with who God is, so I
seek to do the things I do in my life for Him. I do this in my work, my
hardware and software pursuits, in my family relationships, in the
relationships I have/attempt with friends, etc. I make Him part of my
life, and explicitly the biggest part, and the part out front of the
things I do, and I do this because of who He is, who I am, and what He's
given me here in this world.

Bottom line: I am not a self-made man. I need His help, guidance, and
that of those around me. But I know that together, in acknowledgement
of Him, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

> >>> Does anybody have an experience or advice in creating an FPGA-based CPU
> >>> that connects to a real hardware device and simulates the real device's
> >>> abilities?
> >>
> >> Does simulation count? :D
> >
> > Yes. Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does not
> > plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation. Here's an Aleksander
> > who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):
> >
> > https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486
> >
> > My goals are part of a project I'm working on called LibSF 386-x40, which
> > is a 40-bit extension to the 80386, and 32-bit ARM. I use a WEX register
> > model which extends the 32-bit registers to 40-bit registers:
> >
> > https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/wex_register_mapping.png
> >
> > However, in the past couple weeks I've had the idea of a pointer selector,
> > which operates like a segment selector, but on a specific pointer register.
> > When enabled, it loads an extra 8-bits into the segment register associated
> > with specific register, such that it then is able to reference a 4GB window
> > of memory within the 1 TB address space:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.arch/bcpb03mL0o0/xUBzCXDmBgAJ
> >
> > These are all part of long-term plans. I'd like to have my first CPU being
> > shipped to a fab for real manufacturing by July 12, 2022, which I expect to
> > be around a 90 MHz part.
>
> So in 2022 this will rival the $5 ARM MCU devices currently available?

The part I have planned today won't. But if more people come together,
we can together create something that will exceed it. It just takes the
willingness from within to work together, and the guidance of God guiding
our hearts and minds in the right direction, for He is truth, and this
universe is His creation. If there is anyone who can guide us on the
direction we should go, it's Him. And I place my faith, hope, and trust
in Him because of who He is.

That being said, that doesn't mean I don't want to work with you on this
project. You have exhibited incredible kindness, and I have been moved
by it. I have these desires to pursue these hardware ends, and nothing
about that has changed. The only thing that's different now than it was
yesterday or the day before, is that now you know that I am desiring to
do this as an effort given over to God, in honoring Him with the fruits
of my life. I hope this won't be a stumbling block. I find your generosity
of spirit refreshing, and your knowledge and experience desirable assets
that you are willing to share so freely. It's made me happy actually. :-)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I recognize that the industry today works a particular way, and that it
has established itself in a particular manner. However, I also recognize
that there are alternate ways of doing things, and that were we to regroup
around a focused and purposed relationship with God (one-on-one, each of
us, to Him, and then to one another), then He would be guiding the entire
operation by His sight, which is to be able to orchestrate people world-
wide toward the goals we're pursuing in this world which are given over to
Him.

The Bible states that whatever we do in word or in deed, we should do all
for the glory of God the Father in Heaven. We are also told in the Lord's
Prayer that His will should be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.

That means we, as people, individually and collectively, must acknowledge
Him as He is while we are here in this world going about our daily affairs.
He can make us prosper in helping one another, in being the strength in
other people's weaknesses, in giving of our gifts, and in love and charity
with our labor.

It's a different way of looking at things, but it's the one I am committed
to, and to the best of my knowledge, it's the one which is correct as per
the guidance God's given us to be one to another here in this world: Each
of us operating in love for one another, loving one's neighbor even as our
own self.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I read this earlier this morning, but I didn't understand it, and still
don't. What does it mean?

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:46:51 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

> On 4/6/2016 4:38 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was gifted
> > with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow man (and
> > not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other such things,
> > but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).
>
> How would this accomplish that, the benefit to God or man?

To sum up my entire reply:

I want to build a complete hardware and software stack that is based
on a purposeful "considering God first" effort, so that we can have
a tool that, every time we use it, is founded upon that base, giving
it a different type of foundation than one simply bought and paid for,
for He is a foundation unlike any other, and those who found the things
they do upon Him are building this correctly, and their efforts will
bear much fruit.

Even shorter:

We are here because God made us and put us here in this universe He
made. We are here to love one another, and be part of a family of
man, loving our neighbor as ourself, and serving God in all we do.

[rickman]

Ok, but I don't understand how working with the obsolete 386 CPU design
has anything to do with God. What is your goal that is related to God?
Why does working with this chip relate to God any more than working
with a $5 ARM chip?

--

Rick

[rickman]

Ok, so you are trying to do *something* of value to God, but you don't
know what value that is. If you want to get help from people, you need
to explain to them how it will be a good thing in ways they can
understand. You can't explain it and you need the help of others to
make it happen. I think you are screwed.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 4/7/2016 11:54 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:46:51 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>> On 4/6/2016 4:38 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was gifted
>>> with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow man (and
>>> not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other such things,
>>> but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).
>>
>> How would this accomplish that, the benefit to God or man?
>

> Even shorter:
>
> We are here because God made us and put us here in this universe He
> made. We are here to love one another, and be part of a family of
> man, loving our neighbor as ourself, and serving God in all we do.

I can do all that without making an obsolete 386 CPU clone for $100,000.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

It has to do with beginning with an offering that is based on this
ongoing personal offering to God.

Think of it this way: You're given a house. Great. You have a house.
But you find out that the house was built by slave labor, or there were
people killed in the house during its construction, etc. The house
carries with it that history, and no matter what you do in terms of
paint and wallpaper, the house has that history, and it does affect
things with regards to it.

On the other hand, you're given a house. Great. You have a house. :-)
It comes from volunteers who heard about your need, and out of the love
of their heart built you a house. It's a gift, and the house will carry
with it that history. Every time you consider something about that house,
there will be that original offering given to you.

When I go buy a $5 ARM CPU, or a $100 ARM device, what am I buying? I
don't know? I hear all kinds stories about Chinese workers being
exploited in the manufacturing of this thing, the assembly of it, etc.

I don't want to be a part of that industry. I want to create from the
ground up an industry that has the purpose of giving to people from their
talents, their skills, with that being the foundation of everything done
on the project. I want it to be the origination that goes along with the
hardware and software.

I don't particular want to have ONLY an obsolete 80386 clone. As you can
seem from the designs I've made, I've upgraded it to 40-bits, and to more
than the standard eight registers, etc. I've also included not only an
80386 ISA, but also an ARM-32 ISA, which will also be extended to 40-bits.
And I have my own personal ISA in there as well.

On top of that, I have my own kernel, my own operating system, my own
assemblers, compilers, developer tools, all of which can be designed to
create our own apps, etc.

It is the foundation of knowledge given unto me by God, that I acknowledge
as coming from Him, and I desire to build from the ground up all of these
things in giving back to Him from that which He first gave me.

Make sense?

[Rick C. Hodgin]

My explanation is given. It's inherent in the work, and in the various
pages associated with my work, but more than that it comes from His Holy
Spirit living inside of me.

The explanation I give probably won't make much sense to anyone who is
not born again, or in pursuit of truth with their life. If they place
no value on these things I'm outlining here, then it won't mean anything.
The value to them would come from a $5 multi-GHz part, and not from a
foundation given over to God.

But for the born again believer, that foundation given over to God is a
real thing, and the believer desires to do everything in his/her life to
please God, and to bring honor and glory to His name.

It's not a hobby. It's not a membership in a church roster. It's an
inner and fundamental change of the person's makeup and nature. And from
within that inner change comes these outward expressions of that change,
such that the desire to serve God in all areas is manifested.

For me, that means hardware and software. For the farmer, that means in
using organic seeds. For the bricklayer, it means something else, etc.

Each of us decides why we do the things we do, and then we do them for
those reasons. For me, it is because God has saved me, and gifted me
with these talents and abilities, and I desire to serve Him with the
labor of my life, the ideas of my mind, and the creativity He's given
me.

I want my life to serve and honor Him, both inwardly, and outwardly, and
I want to encourage others also to be part of this living act of giving
back to Him that which He first gave us. And for those who are born
again, this will resonate as it is founded in scripture, but more
importantly, it's founded in the born again nature as by His Holy Spirit.

We are brothers and sisters, and we should be there for each other in
these ways, looking up to God, and looking out to one another, in that
order, in and for everything we do. It's how it will be in Heaven.
Forever.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I haven't made a CPU yet. I am in pursuit of these things, giving the
designs, ideas, labor, etc., to Him, and to other people. Somebody may
come along and enable me to produce a product which competes with bleeding
edge technology. I don't know, but I do trust in God. So long as I am
moving in my life toward Him, in all I do, with all I possess (inwardly,
and outwardly, then I'm moving rightly.

[rickman]

Hmmm... Fred was continually asked why he was doing the research and
each time he was told what he thought was his purpose (the reason for
doing the project) was really his goal (what he hoped to accomplish by
doing this, not the same thing really). So his abstraction continued to
be elevated until it reached his ultimate reason for doing anything...
to enter heaven... which really had nothing to do with the research
project in a meaningful way.

You seem to be making a connection between this project and God in a way
that no one else understands. I suspect that is because you are seeing
an irrational connection founded in an emotional context. If there was
a logical connection you would be able to explain it. So far the only
thing I get is that there is something you don't like about Richard
Stallman. Look him up on xkcd. That site is a hoot!

--

Rick

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:


>
> Serial flash parts use extra board space and are a PITA to design in so
> you can program on the board. The serial configuration of Xilinx parts
> is also rather slow in comparison to the boot time of a internal flash
> FPGA. I believe it is something like two orders of magnitude faster.
> The Spartan 3AN is a bit of a joke in some respects, but if you are
> using Xilinx parts I guess that is what you get. If it were a good
> idea, why do they only do that on the 10 year old Spartan 3A line?
>

Well, the Spartan 3A is a very good price, if you don't need ultimate speed
or vast density. It seems to work very well in the relatively modest
projects I've been working on.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:


> On the other hand, you're given a house. Great. You have a house. :-)
> It comes from volunteers who heard about your need, and out of the love
> of their heart built you a house. It's a gift, and the house will carry
> with it that history. Every time you consider something about that house,
> there will be that original offering given to you.
>

Well, that sounds like Habitat for Humanity. A good organization.
Maybe you will be CPUs for Humanity? But, wasn't that what the Raspberry Pi
was all about, initially? And, it is a LOT more computer than a '386, and
no slave labor involved in Linux.


As for making chips in your garage, besides the part about how difficult it
will be to get the yield above 0.000%, once the EPA or the neighbors find
out you are using Arsine, Phosphine and DiBorane in there, you will be doign
very well if you can keep yourself out of a jail cell. Especially if you
happen to be in California.

Jon

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I'm not doing this to enter into Heaven. I'm doing this because God has
saved me, and I am changed, and the things in my life I desire to do go
back to Him as a source, and as a destination, because what I possess He
first gave me, and I desire, of my own free will, because of who He is,
to give back to Him.

> You seem to be making a connection between this project and God in a way
> that no one else understands. I suspect that is because you are seeing
> an irrational connection founded in an emotional context. If there was
> a logical connection you would be able to explain it.

The other possible explanation is the one given in the Bible, which says
there are things the non-born-again person cannot understand, because they
don't come from a flesh-based understanding, but from the spirit, and until
a person is born again, they don't have the spirit or spiritual discernment
to be able to understand it (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/2-14.htm).

> So far the only
> thing I get is that there is something you don't like about Richard
> Stallman. Look him up on xkcd. That site is a hoot!

There are many people who are creative, clever, funny, have amazing
abilities, etc., but they do not honor God with their life, acknowledging
Him as He is, and they have no future, no hope, only the things of this
world which is perishing to seek.

The efforts I give in these areas of labor are unto God, an ongoing
sacrifice offered unto Him of my life (http://biblehub.com/romans/12-1.htm).
It is not just in these areas where I do this, but it is in my life, in all
areas. God is God to me, and that means something, and I seek to serve Him
here on this Earth, as it is done in Heaven ... with everything we possess.

[rickman]

So by including the ARM ISA, aren't you back to the problem you are
trying to get away from? That house was built with slave labor I
thought??? Even the 386 was designed with slave labor according to your
thinking, no?

> On top of that, I have my own kernel, my own operating system, my own
> assemblers, compilers, developer tools, all of which can be designed to
> create our own apps, etc.
>
> It is the foundation of knowledge given unto me by God, that I acknowledge
> as coming from Him, and I desire to build from the ground up all of these
> things in giving back to Him from that which He first gave me.
>
> Make sense?

No, you are still using house designs that were designed with slave
labor. If you want to do something for God, you should design your own
and forget the 386, the ARM and even the FPGA for that matter. Heck how
are you going to get PCBs made that aren't related to the same slave
labor you want to eschew?

--

Rick

[Jon Elson]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early
>> > samples,
>> OK, the MOSIS standard order is for 40 parts. So, that's $40K each
>> revision. Unless you are truly brilliant, it is going to take a BUNCH of
>> respins of the part to get anything working.
>
> I can't remember who it was I searched a while back (2014 I think), but
> I found a company that was manufacturing on 250nm and 500nm process
> technologies. The mask sets were $15K each, and each run varied, but
> the total cost for 100 parts was less than $100K including masks.

That is quite amazing, and I find it VERY hard to believe that is in the US.
If going offshore, you may well end up with Chinese or Malaysian
practically-slave labor making the parts.

>
> Well, it's not a goal. It's not being done for money. I would like to
> have
> assistance from those who are willing to give.

Yes, I got this part, but I think you are massively underestimating costs
that will be hard to push down. I make electronic stuff for some VERY niche
markets, and have some idea what various things cost to have done. Also,
since working with having some custom chips made, I have some idea of the
processes required, and the insane levels of clean room procedures, etc. to
make stuff work at all. There are truck-movable clean room packages that
you can buy, they roll it off the truck and slide it into your facility.
So, there are outfits that are making various semiconductor products in
house. I think a lot of them are diode laser manufacturers, however.

Jon

Jon

[rickman]

You seem to think I don't understand your answer, but it's more of a
case of you not understanding the question.

--

Rick

[David Brown]

On 07/04/16 21:31, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> My explanation is given. It's inherent in the work, and in the various
> pages associated with my work, but more than that it comes from His Holy
> Spirit living inside of me.
>
> The explanation I give probably won't make much sense to anyone who is
> not born again, or in pursuit of truth with their life. If they place
> no value on these things I'm outlining here, then it won't mean anything.
> The value to them would come from a $5 multi-GHz part, and not from a
> foundation given over to God.
>
> But for the born again believer, that foundation given over to God is a
> real thing, and the believer desires to do everything in his/her life to
> please God, and to bring honor and glory to His name.
>

In summary, it's the emperor's new clothes. For those that "understand"
the "truth", your explanation will all make sense - to everyone else
(including other Christians - both "born again" Christians and "born
once" Christians), it's total nonsense.

I can fully understand the idea of wanting to do something meaningful
with your life, using the skills that you have (or think you have). I
can fully understand a dislike of the kind of extreme capitalism and
amoral (and sometimes even immoral) practices of many large
corporations. I can even understand the point of some of your projects,
such as CAlive, even though I disagree with it technically, practically,
and philosophically. But I just cannot comprehend how you think a weird
extension to a badly designed and long outdated cpu architecture is of
any conceivable use to man or god, and trying to make it physically
compatible to ancient hardware is even crazier.


Of course, you are free to make your own choices here - just as I am
free to show you how they appear to others. And I'll still offer
technical advice to technical challenges when I am able - as long as you
are not harming anyone with your projects, and you are committed to
continuing them, then a little advice from people like me might help you
get on slightly faster.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:48:47 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>
> > On the other hand, you're given a house. Great. You have a house. :-)
> > It comes from volunteers who heard about your need, and out of the love
> > of their heart built you a house. It's a gift, and the house will carry
> > with it that history. Every time you consider something about that house,
> > there will be that original offering given to you.
> >
> Well, that sounds like Habitat for Humanity. A good organization.
> Maybe you will be CPUs for Humanity? But, wasn't that what the Raspberry Pi
> was all about, initially? And, it is a LOT more computer than a '386, and
> no slave labor involved in Linux.

I look at things like Stallman and Torvalds and their behavior, and that
means something to me. It reflects the inner man, which is why I am in
pursuit of these endeavors. That's all.

> As for making chips in your garage, besides the part about how difficult it
> will be to get the yield above 0.000%, once the EPA or the neighbors find
> out you are using Arsine, Phosphine and DiBorane in there, you will be doign
> very well if you can keep yourself out of a jail cell. Especially if you
> happen to be in California.

The term "garage" was metaphorical. It would be me and a small consortium
of people working to produce these chips ourselves using equipment which
is, by industry standards, antiquated, but still viable, rather than having
them made through GlobalFoundries, for example.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I have people ask me this question regularly. I have no answer to give
that would make sense as people always try to push me back further into
creation, as you have done here ... "Well why don't you just start with
dirt and wood and rock and hay and build up from there. Surely if you
want to give something to God, you must start with the true fundamentals,"
or other such form of expression.

I have continued in the station I was in when I became a Christian in 2004.
I do not have conviction over my work, but I have great peace, in that I am
giving this labor over to Him, and to other people.

> > On top of that, I have my own kernel, my own operating system, my own
> > assemblers, compilers, developer tools, all of which can be designed to
> > create our own apps, etc.
> >
> > It is the foundation of knowledge given unto me by God, that I acknowledge
> > as coming from Him, and I desire to build from the ground up all of these
> > things in giving back to Him from that which He first gave me.
> >
> > Make sense?
>
> No, you are still using house designs that were designed with slave
> labor. If you want to do something for God, you should design your own
> and forget the 386, the ARM and even the FPGA for that matter. Heck how
> are you going to get PCBs made that aren't related to the same slave
> labor you want to eschew?

My goal is to create the entire industry, from design to manufacturing.
I would be perfectly content to have someone step forward with a fab
given over to that purpose. Until such a fab is created, which may only
come from me creating such a fab, I have to use what's there. But as I
have told many people, once I'm able to bootstrap these efforts, I will
do so, and never look back. The same is true with software, hardware,
and manufacturing.

But, we have to begin somewhere, and this is where I'm beginning... taking
what's here, and turning it around and giving it to God, desiring to build
the solid foundation upon an offering unto Him, and in all areas that are
involved. It's more than I can do alone, but I continue to pray that He
will send others, or that He will move me away from these endeavors and put
me at the place He would have me be, so that I am well within His will.

It's my desire: to serve Him, and in the capacity He's provided for me.
I am doing that to the best of my ability, and pray I continue to do so.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early
> >> > samples,
> >> OK, the MOSIS standard order is for 40 parts. So, that's $40K each
> >> revision. Unless you are truly brilliant, it is going to take a BUNCH of
> >> respins of the part to get anything working.
> >
> > I can't remember who it was I searched a while back (2014 I think), but
> > I found a company that was manufacturing on 250nm and 500nm process
> > technologies. The mask sets were $15K each, and each run varied, but
> > the total cost for 100 parts was less than $100K including masks.
> That is quite amazing, and I find it VERY hard to believe that is in the US.
> If going offshore, you may well end up with Chinese or Malaysian
> practically-slave labor making the parts.

I can't remember who it was. I have an email. Most of the companies I
sought were unwilling to entertain a run of a single wafer. But a couple
of them pointed me to smaller firms which specialize in one-off wafers.
I contacted them asking for pricing of an approximately 200 mm^2 chip on
250nm to 500nm process technologies. That was the information I was
given. Nothing formal. No contracts or an examination of any type of
design. But, just a ball-park figure.

> > Well, it's not a goal. It's not being done for money. I would like to
> > have
> > assistance from those who are willing to give.
> Yes, I got this part, but I think you are massively underestimating costs
> that will be hard to push down. I make electronic stuff for some VERY niche
> markets, and have some idea what various things cost to have done. Also,
> since working with having some custom chips made, I have some idea of the
> processes required, and the insane levels of clean room procedures, etc. to
> make stuff work at all. There are truck-movable clean room packages that
> you can buy, they roll it off the truck and slide it into your facility.
> So, there are outfits that are making various semiconductor products in
> house. I think a lot of them are diode laser manufacturers, however.

I have spent some time researching this industry, and the clean room
requirements of 3,000 to 10,000 nm process technologies are significantly
different than modern fabs' needs. But, I hear what you are saying, and
I appreciate the information. I have been content to produce products
which run in FPGA form on a little board which plugs in to my system,
though I ultimately would like to create a completely integrated system
with all components to have a fully functional real computer made atop
this protractive effort.

And, when I speak of these things, I always reference James 4:15, which
is about acknowledging that the Lord may have other plans for me, and if
so then I will follow Him.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:59:53 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> [snip]

Hi, David. The born again nature is real. You can see the way people
change when they are born again. The fact that you can't understand the
change is, as I've said many times, because you do not pursue the truth.

You are willing to continue on believing you have the answers, and you
are in possession of the definitive knowledge base. Until you are willing
to set aside yourself, and say honestly, "I want to know the truth, even
if it shatters everything about my world view and turns my life upside
down," you will never find it.

Jesus Christ is only found when we come to the end of ourselves, which
is why He eludes you.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

If you understood the answer, you would see value in it. The fact that
you think I don't yet understand the question, indicates you do not yet
understand my answer, and cannot because the place from which I proceed
in this effort stems from a place unknown to you: the spirit, and in a
manifestation of the invisible things at work in our lives, rather than
merely the visible things.

Love exists, but you cannot see love, only the effects of love in a
person's life, in their behavior, their speech, their drives, desires,
and so on.

It's the same for the born again believer pursuing spiritual things.
But this differs from love, because all people can experience love. But
for the spiritual person, the born again believe, those things they are
in pursuit of cannot be known to someone without the born again nature,
so there is disconnect, a lack of understanding, and a conclusion as to
the wrongness of the born again person as by the assessment of the not-
born again flesh-based reasoning mind.

It is the result of original sin, and is the consistent battle Christians
face when reaching out to the lost. It's why it requires an act of God
in a person's life before they can be saved, or even be led to Jesus Christ
to repent, ask forgiveness, and be saved.

It's why God deserves all of the credit, and we who are born again choose
to honor Him with all of the things of our lives.

[rickman]

Not trying to argue, but I don't see how they are at a good price. You
can get many FPGAs at the same price range with *much* more capacity.
The AN parts seem to have a price premium of around 20% and the flash
parts from Lattice can be had a lower prices. Further, the AN flash
parts are available in a lot fewer packages and none of them very small.

A number of the Lattice parts can hold multiple configurations and
switch in just a very few milliseconds. This sort of thing takes 100's
of milliseconds in the Xilinx parts. That is the sort of difference you
get when the parts are designed with flash in mind. The program memory
in a Xilinx part is literally an afterthought.

--

Rick

[rickman]

But those were *your* words, that you can't live in a house made with
slave labor, your metaphor. If a commercial MCU you can buy today is
not suitable because of its origins, how is any of this suitable? It's
all from the same commercial, not founded in love of god, basis. Why
reject one and not the other?

> I have continued in the station I was in when I became a Christian in 2004.
> I do not have conviction over my work, but I have great peace, in that I am
> giving this labor over to Him, and to other people.

So far I haven't seen any sign God is involved. It seems to be all
about you.

>>> On top of that, I have my own kernel, my own operating system, my own
>>> assemblers, compilers, developer tools, all of which can be designed to
>>> create our own apps, etc.
>>>
>>> It is the foundation of knowledge given unto me by God, that I acknowledge
>>> as coming from Him, and I desire to build from the ground up all of these
>>> things in giving back to Him from that which He first gave me.
>>>
>>> Make sense?
>>
>> No, you are still using house designs that were designed with slave
>> labor. If you want to do something for God, you should design your own
>> and forget the 386, the ARM and even the FPGA for that matter. Heck how
>> are you going to get PCBs made that aren't related to the same slave
>> labor you want to eschew?
>
> My goal is to create the entire industry, from design to manufacturing.
> I would be perfectly content to have someone step forward with a fab
> given over to that purpose. Until such a fab is created, which may only
> come from me creating such a fab, I have to use what's there. But as I
> have told many people, once I'm able to bootstrap these efforts, I will
> do so, and never look back. The same is true with software, hardware,
> and manufacturing.

Ok, I have money. Let's say I am happy to devote some of it to a fab
that will build a chip for the purposes of God. Why *this* chip? Why
an obsolete design with little redeeming qualities? What is the
justification of this design over all others?

> But, we have to begin somewhere, and this is where I'm beginning... taking
> what's here, and turning it around and giving it to God, desiring to build
> the solid foundation upon an offering unto Him, and in all areas that are
> involved. It's more than I can do alone, but I continue to pray that He
> will send others, or that He will move me away from these endeavors and put
> me at the place He would have me be, so that I am well within His will.

Ok, so you offer your design to Him. Will He then go out and have it
fabbed? Then what happens? Who will use a 15 year old computer design?
What value will it give to anyone other than you?

> It's my desire: to serve Him, and in the capacity He's provided for me.
> I am doing that to the best of my ability, and pray I continue to do so.
>
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
>

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 4/7/2016 4:17 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early
>>>>> samples,
>>>> OK, the MOSIS standard order is for 40 parts. So, that's $40K each
>>>> revision. Unless you are truly brilliant, it is going to take a BUNCH of
>>>> respins of the part to get anything working.
>>>
>>> I can't remember who it was I searched a while back (2014 I think), but
>>> I found a company that was manufacturing on 250nm and 500nm process
>>> technologies. The mask sets were $15K each, and each run varied, but
>>> the total cost for 100 parts was less than $100K including masks.
>> That is quite amazing, and I find it VERY hard to believe that is in the US.
>> If going offshore, you may well end up with Chinese or Malaysian
>> practically-slave labor making the parts.
>
> I can't remember who it was. I have an email. Most of the companies I
> sought were unwilling to entertain a run of a single wafer. But a couple
> of them pointed me to smaller firms which specialize in one-off wafers.
> I contacted them asking for pricing of an approximately 200 mm^2 chip on
> 250nm to 500nm process technologies. That was the information I was
> given. Nothing formal. No contracts or an examination of any type of
> design. But, just a ball-park figure.

You don't need a wafer to get a chip. There are foundries that will
batch your design onto a shared wafer. You likely can't use a 500 nm
process, but you can get a decent process that will be inexpensive. I
recall the minimum price for a small chip would be in the low 10's of
thousands.

>>> Well, it's not a goal. It's not being done for money. I would like to
>>> have
>>> assistance from those who are willing to give.
>> Yes, I got this part, but I think you are massively underestimating costs
>> that will be hard to push down. I make electronic stuff for some VERY niche
>> markets, and have some idea what various things cost to have done. Also,
>> since working with having some custom chips made, I have some idea of the
>> processes required, and the insane levels of clean room procedures, etc. to
>> make stuff work at all. There are truck-movable clean room packages that
>> you can buy, they roll it off the truck and slide it into your facility.
>> So, there are outfits that are making various semiconductor products in
>> house. I think a lot of them are diode laser manufacturers, however.
>
> I have spent some time researching this industry, and the clean room
> requirements of 3,000 to 10,000 nm process technologies are significantly
> different than modern fabs' needs. But, I hear what you are saying, and
> I appreciate the information. I have been content to produce products
> which run in FPGA form on a little board which plugs in to my system,
> though I ultimately would like to create a completely integrated system
> with all components to have a fully functional real computer made atop
> this protractive effort.
>
> And, when I speak of these things, I always reference James 4:15, which
> is about acknowledging that the Lord may have other plans for me, and if
> so then I will follow Him.

Plans are great, but does He have funding?

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I have no answer to give that would make sense to people as the people
who ask these questions are not in pursuit of the truth to begin with,
but are rather pointing fingers and making accusations to discredit me.
From within that very spirit they cannot understand my answer.

But, here it is:

To describe it: When I was saved in 2004, I held every thing in my life
up to the Lord for scrutiny. I changed most everything about my life, but
some things remained because they survived that scrutiny. I didn't feel
convicted over them. This is one of them.

> > I have continued in the station I was in when I became a Christian in 2004.
> > I do not have conviction over my work, but I have great peace, in that I am
> > giving this labor over to Him, and to other people.
>
> So far I haven't seen any sign God is involved. It seems to be all
> about you.

I don't know what to tell you, Rick.

> >>> On top of that, I have my own kernel, my own operating system, my own
> >>> assemblers, compilers, developer tools, all of which can be designed to
> >>> create our own apps, etc.
> >>>
> >>> It is the foundation of knowledge given unto me by God, that I acknowledge
> >>> as coming from Him, and I desire to build from the ground up all of these
> >>> things in giving back to Him from that which He first gave me.
> >>>
> >>> Make sense?
> >>
> >> No, you are still using house designs that were designed with slave
> >> labor. If you want to do something for God, you should design your own
> >> and forget the 386, the ARM and even the FPGA for that matter. Heck how
> >> are you going to get PCBs made that aren't related to the same slave
> >> labor you want to eschew?
> >
> > My goal is to create the entire industry, from design to manufacturing.
> > I would be perfectly content to have someone step forward with a fab
> > given over to that purpose. Until such a fab is created, which may only
> > come from me creating such a fab, I have to use what's there. But as I
> > have told many people, once I'm able to bootstrap these efforts, I will
> > do so, and never look back. The same is true with software, hardware,
> > and manufacturing.
>
> Ok, I have money. Let's say I am happy to devote some of it to a fab
> that will build a chip for the purposes of God. Why *this* chip? Why
> an obsolete design with little redeeming qualities? What is the
> justification of this design over all others?

It's the one I have experience on, and have interest in. However, I do
desire to move it to 40 bits.

I also have other interests. I believe there is an encoding in DNA which
conveys data and a processor ISA. I call it the "Butterfly CPU," and it
was something I was given which, to me at the time, was surprising. You
can read about it here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dnaprojectbutterfly

I have several ideas. And one of my prayers has been to be shown the
fundamental microprocessor. I've laid that desire before the Lord, and
left it there, continuing on in motion, knowing that as I am in motion,
He is able to use me, and then move me to where He needs me to be.

There are also several witnesses throughout my life. Things which have
happened to me that I can't just explain away, and even couldn't explain
away at that time.

In short: I am a sinner, saved by grace, and that grace has extended
throughout my life, even before I was a believer, and I have seen multiple
witnesses of His hand at work in my life, even before I received Him as
Lord and Savior.

> > But, we have to begin somewhere, and this is where I'm beginning... taking
> > what's here, and turning it around and giving it to God, desiring to build
> > the solid foundation upon an offering unto Him, and in all areas that are
> > involved. It's more than I can do alone, but I continue to pray that He
> > will send others, or that He will move me away from these endeavors and put
> > me at the place He would have me be, so that I am well within His will.
>
> Ok, so you offer your design to Him. Will He then go out and have it
> fabbed? Then what happens? Who will use a 15 year old computer design?
> What value will it give to anyone other than you?

I don't have those answers. I will lift my effort up to Him with my life
and labor and prayer. He will then move me, and it, in the direction He
sees fit, and I would not presume to guess the future.

My personal goals for the future are part of a timeline of labor:

(1) By the end of this year, having my assembler and low-level
C compiler completed for my kernel, and
(2) have my kernel booting on real hardware using my own dev tools.
(3) In 2017, to rewrite part of my kernel in my low-level C language,
and to complete my RDC framework and CAlive compiler (a higher
level C-like compiler).
(4) Also in 2017, begin coding my Logician tool, which is a
semiconductor design tool.
(5) In 2018, have my kernel solid with several core apps and a
well-debugged RDC framework and CAlive compiler tool chain,
and also Visual FreePro, Jr.
(5) In 2019, have my ISA completed and working in simulation, and on
FPGAS, and begin working on other hardware devices, and the whole
system design (mainboard, form factor, features, etc).
(6) In 2020, 2021, and 2022, continue developing these things which
I have to get to the point where I have a complete system.
(7) In 2022, have my CPU and other hardware devices ready to be
manufactured in a fab.

(And there are a few more things in there at various stages, but those
are the big bullet points)

Will any of it come to pass? These are my goals. If the Lord is willing,
yes. If not, then I'll move to the next thing.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I don't know how it would come to fruition, if it does. These are my goals.
And I am prepared to yield to His goals for my life. And if these are part
of His plans for my life, I look forward to seeing how they will come to
fruition. The DNA Butterfly CPU idea, for example, started from a dream I
had. In that dream I saw mated circles connected in a cross pattern that
is as the images I've posted about it convey. It was a strange dream to
me, and one which later took on meaning through another "revelation" given
to me when I was sitting at a co-worker's desk looking at a butterfly's
wing pattern. It looked to me like UV-unwrapped texture data for a 3D
model. I thought to myself, "How interesting it would be if God had put
some 3D story in the DNA of the various species, beginning with the Monarch
Butterfly (as it looks like it has a candle on its back, and the Bible
begins with "And God said, let there be light.")

I've told the DNA Butterfly CPU idea to many people. They all think I'm
daft. Nonetheless, I could see how God could do that knowing that only in
the end-most times, when we had this technology, would we be able to decode
the message He placed in there from the very beginning of His creation of
life on this planet.

We'll see though. So far it has yielded no fruit, though I haven't spent
a lot of time on it, just a few dozen hours. It's outside of my field of
expertise, so I just leave the idea and information out in the public so
the person who's supposed to come across it can do so, and make the actual
discovery themselves ... assuming it even exists. :-)

[rickman]

No one is trying to discredit you. I am trying to understand you. You
keep repeating that you can't explain what you are talking about.

> But, here it is:
>
> To describe it: When I was saved in 2004, I held every thing in my life
> up to the Lord for scrutiny. I changed most everything about my life, but
> some things remained because they survived that scrutiny. I didn't feel
> convicted over them. This is one of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this".

>>> I have continued in the station I was in when I became a Christian in 2004.
>>> I do not have conviction over my work, but I have great peace, in that I am
>>> giving this labor over to Him, and to other people.
>>
>> So far I haven't seen any sign God is involved. It seems to be all
>> about you.
>
> I don't know what to tell you, Rick.

That part is clear.

So this *is* about *you* then? Even so, I don't have any idea how
working on this project has any benefit for God or anyone else. It
seems like a hobby project you have tied into God for your own reasons.

> I also have other interests. I believe there is an encoding in DNA which
> conveys data and a processor ISA. I call it the "Butterfly CPU," and it
> was something I was given which, to me at the time, was surprising. You
> can read about it here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dnaprojectbutterfly

The processor that executes DNA is life. Living organisms are the
machine that executes the code in DNA/RNA. No mystery there.

> I have several ideas. And one of my prayers has been to be shown the
> fundamental microprocessor. I've laid that desire before the Lord, and
> left it there, continuing on in motion, knowing that as I am in motion,
> He is able to use me, and then move me to where He needs me to be.

I think you need to be more motivated to explore alternate architectures
to the 386. Let me motivate you to the MISC style of computing. If you
follow that path and combine it with useful peripherals and I/O, I think
you can find a design that will have value in both this world and the next.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

You attempt to discredit me below. You say, "So, it is about you," which
is a comment designed to belittle my efforts in giving this work over to
God, and to man. You try to translate it from my real attempts into
something the world could understand, rather than accepting that it might
really be an offering from within, one given in this way to God in the
same way someone who feels love for another person might do something for
that person because that love is real. For the born again person, the
desire to serve God in this way is real, and it's more powerful than love,
though it is also a form of love, it's just of and toward God, which makes
it something more fundamental.

> > But, here it is:
> >
> > To describe it: When I was saved in 2004, I held every thing in my life
> > up to the Lord for scrutiny. I changed most everything about my life, but
> > some things remained because they survived that scrutiny. I didn't feel
> > convicted over them. This is one of them.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "this".

Working with the 80836, my operating system, software in general, the
things which have led me to continue on in those endeavors.

> >>> I have continued in the station I was in when I became a Christian in 2004.
> >>> I do not have conviction over my work, but I have great peace, in that I am
> >>> giving this labor over to Him, and to other people.
> >>
> >> So far I haven't seen any sign God is involved. It seems to be all
> >> about you.
> >
> > I don't know what to tell you, Rick.
>
> That part is clear.

:-)

I desire to move it to 40-bits, but that's to bring the aging 32-bit
limited design to more modern needs. The overall offering is the part
given to God, including the migration to 40-bits, using the creativity
and resourcefulness He gifted me with.

I have mapped out several cores for my design (the oppie*.png files):

https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/li386/oppie

It wasn't until late 2014 that I found out about Verilog, and that
hardware was something that was really within my grasp. Until then I
always thought of it as this entirely nebulous thing that other people
understood.

> > I also have other interests. I believe there is an encoding in DNA which
> > conveys data and a processor ISA. I call it the "Butterfly CPU," and it
> > was something I was given which, to me at the time, was surprising. You
> > can read about it here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dnaprojectbutterfly
>
> The processor that executes DNA is life. Living organisms are the
> machine that executes the code in DNA/RNA. No mystery there.

I'm saying that there's digital data encoded in the portion that is not
used for protein generation, of the kind that when converted from the
base-4 form in DNA would reveal its own logical CPU, and data, something
that would convey that story I'm talking about, and in a full 3D form,
probably with audio and some type of narration as well, but that's all a
guess.

[David Brown]

On 07/04/16 22:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

<snip>

> I have no answer to give that would make sense to people as the people
> who ask these questions are not in pursuit of the truth to begin with,
> but are rather pointing fingers and making accusations to discredit me.
> From within that very spirit they cannot understand my answer.

So anyone who does not fully and complete agree with you and understand
you and your motives, is not seeking "the truth" or following God?
Don't you see how egoistic, even megalomaniac, that is? I know you will
deny it, but you appear to consider yourself to be the sole judge and
interpreter of "the truth" and God's will and plans. As Rick says, it
is all about /you/, and what /you/ want to achieve - God is just the
excuse you give. (I know you are not actively or intentionally doing
this - it's clear that you truly believe that this is all part of God's
plan for you. But what comes over to others is that this is /your/ plan.)

>
> But, here it is:
>
> To describe it: When I was saved in 2004, I held every thing in my life
> up to the Lord for scrutiny. I changed most everything about my life, but
> some things remained because they survived that scrutiny. I didn't feel
> convicted over them. This is one of them.

You are not asking people to believe in God, or trust in God. You are
asking them to believe in /you/ and trust in /you/.

>
>>> I have continued in the station I was in when I became a Christian in 2004.
>>> I do not have conviction over my work, but I have great peace, in that I am
>>> giving this labor over to Him, and to other people.
>>
>> So far I haven't seen any sign God is involved. It seems to be all
>> about you.
>
> I don't know what to tell you, Rick.
>

<snip>

>> Ok, I have money. Let's say I am happy to devote some of it to a fab
>> that will build a chip for the purposes of God. Why *this* chip? Why
>> an obsolete design with little redeeming qualities? What is the
>> justification of this design over all others?
>
> It's the one I have experience on, and have interest in. However, I do
> desire to move it to 40 bits.

From a technical and practical viewpoint, the 40-bit idea is far worse
than useless. It destroys the only vague benefit of using the 386 ISA,
which is compatibility with existing software (an odd requirement, given
that you want to re-write everything). I have seen what happens when a
design tries to add a bit onto a cpu, without doing it fully (such as
moving to 64-bit) - it's a mess. I know you believe that the number 40
is somehow special and holy, but you are again asking people to forget
all their technical knowledge and experience and instead trust fully in
/your/ ideas about divine plans.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> [snip]

I appreciate your input, David. Your knowledge and experience serve
many people well. They are assets to be sure.

[David Brown]

On 07/04/16 22:20, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:59:53 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Hi, David. The born again nature is real. You can see the way people
> change when they are born again. The fact that you can't understand the
> change is, as I've said many times, because you do not pursue the truth.
>

I have had plenty experience with "born again" Christians, and "born
once" Christians. Most have been friendly and pleasant people, with
realistic ideas on life and how their beliefs fit together with their
life. They are often enthusiastic about spreading their beliefs - but
do so in terms of listening to others and when appropriate, giving ideas
and encouragement about finding out more about God. They try to show
how their beliefs affect them by trying to be as good people as they can
- they do not try to tell you all about what strong faith /they/ have,
or what great plans God has for /them/, and they do not intrude their
evangelism out of context. The best evangelist waits for the agnostic
to come to /them/, asking why is it that they are so content, peaceful
and loving - they don't tell others how sinful they are, and how God is
so loving and merciful that he will condemn you to burn in hell for
eternity if you don't renounce all of reality around you and believe the
Bible as the complete and unabridged factual reference of the universe.

But I expect you don't consider such people as "real" Christians, since
they do not act and talk like you.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:35:34 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> [snip]

David, Jesus came to this Earth to meet men at the point of forgiveness
rather than judgment and condemnation. He offers to set us free from
our sin debt, freeing us from the punishment that comes from sin, re-
storing us to eternal life, which is what gives us the born again
nature.

That new nature is one which aligns with our true nature, which is as
He is (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and we are soul, body, spirit). When
we died in original sin, we are only soul and body, as our spirit was
dead because of sin. Only when Jesus takes our sin away are we then
alive again in the spirit. And because of that new part of our nature
is then alive and active, we are in tune again with God, and with the
things which are of His Kingdom, and not merely the things of this
Earth.

The born again person is not like other people. Their interests are
not like those of this world. They are in business for God, going
about His business, and doing this as an ongoing matter of course in
their lives. It's not about them, but it's about Christ living in
them.

We are the light of the world, as He is living inside us spiritually,
and He is guiding us in our lives in the things we do as we go. We
are dead to self, and alive to Him, which is why we change.

It's up to you to reject Him and all He's offering you, David. But if
you take the time to learn about who He is, and pursue that knowledge
honestly, you'll find out that He is love, and what He is sending to
Hell is sin, and all those who embrace sin and will not turn from sin.
Everyone else will be saved.

As I've advised you many times, David, be one who is saved. Do not
let the draws and pulls and lies of this world keep you from coming
to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. You'll be forever
grateful that you did.

[Jon Elson]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I figured the CPUs I'd make would cost $1,000 each in the early
>> >> > samples,
>> >> OK, the MOSIS standard order is for 40 parts. So, that's $40K each
>> >> revision. Unless you are truly brilliant, it is going to take a BUNCH
>> >> of respins of the part to get anything working.
>> >
>> > I can't remember who it was I searched a while back (2014 I think), but
>> > I found a company that was manufacturing on 250nm and 500nm process
>> > technologies. The mask sets were $15K each, and each run varied, but
>> > the total cost for 100 parts was less than $100K including masks.
>> That is quite amazing, and I find it VERY hard to believe that is in the
>> US. If going offshore, you may well end up with Chinese or Malaysian
>> practically-slave labor making the parts.
>
> I can't remember who it was. I have an email. Most of the companies I
> sought were unwilling to entertain a run of a single wafer. But a couple
> of them pointed me to smaller firms which specialize in one-off wafers.

Really, nobody will do a single wafer (even if that is what is supposed to
be delivered) as so many things can go wrong. So, they run a couple wafers
and give you the best one. And, the cost of the wafer disappears into the
noise of the entire effort. The masks are the huge expense, and then once
they are set up to run a specific process, it only costs a tiny bit of extra
time to run a couple more through all the same steps. Many of the steps are
done by pushing a boat of 25+ wafers through an oven all at the same time.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:


>
> You don't need a wafer to get a chip. There are foundries that will
> batch your design onto a shared wafer. You likely can't use a 500 nm
> process, but you can get a decent process that will be inexpensive. I
> recall the minimum price for a small chip would be in the low 10's of
> thousands.

MOSIS is still running the AMI (now ON Semi) C5N process, with 500 nm
feature size. Now, we use it for mixed signal stuff that is very heavy on
the analog side, but the process is CMOS with some high res poly. It is one
of the cheaper processes they offer.

Jon

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Makes sense. Good information. Thank you.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

For my needs, it will be a long time before I'm ready to go to a fab.
My desire would be by July 12, 2022, which would be 10 years after I
started this project, but that's just a target.

I think if I was going to create a semiconductor fab, I would call it
Sand Castles. :-)

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:


>
> Not trying to argue, but I don't see how they are at a good price. You
> can get many FPGAs at the same price range with *much* more capacity.

Yes, but in fact the smallest Spartan 3A or 3AN has been enough for a number
of projects I am doing. So, I do not NEED the higher density, and
certainly, the later rev Spartans go up to insane capacity, but I just don't
need that.

> The AN parts seem to have a price premium of around 20% and the flash
> parts from Lattice can be had a lower prices. Further, the AN flash
> parts are available in a lot fewer packages and none of them very small.
>
> A number of the Lattice parts can hold multiple configurations and
> switch in just a very few milliseconds.

And, I don't really need multiple configs in most of the things I'm doing.
I prefer to be able to mail a new config to people and have them plug in a
chip, if that is necessary.

So, Xilinx is working for me. And, yes, after going to the trouble of
getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
learn somebody else's tools' quirks.

Jon

[rickman]

On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>
> So, Xilinx is working for me. And, yes, after going to the trouble of
> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.

What tool quirks. I think that is mostly a Xilinx domain. Altera tools
just work and I've yet to find much in the way of problems with the
Lattice tools. They never tried to roll their own, so I guess that is a
plus.

I'll be finding out how good Microsemi tools are soon. I've got a
Smartfusion2 kickstart board and want to play with it. But the Avnet
site is no working this week because of a massive upgrade. They
actually made the board and I've not yet found much in the way of
getting started info. I guess I should just rely on Microsemi to get me
started on the tools and figure out the kickstart board specifics once
I'm up with the tools.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
>
> 386 Chip
> ____________
> ++++++++++++ FPGA
> ============== _____________
> |||||||||||| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> =================================================== PCB
> ||||||||||||
> Plugs into 386 Mobo
>
> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket. When emulating the
> mobo, unplug from the mobo. When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
>
> If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design. I can use
> this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been
> meaning to do.

I think I'd like to design this board, but without the plugs into the
386 motherboard.

Would you still be willing to help me with design? I'll get the pinouts
and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
format for inspection.

Do you know what part number I'd need for the level converters?

[rickman]

I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce. I prefer the TSSOP (PW)
package, but that will depend on how you wish to layout the board.
There is a smaller package, the TVSOP (DGV) and some larger. No DIPs
I'm afraid.

If you want to get a board made, you need to use a layout package. I
don't know of any PCB fab houses that will work with custom art. It has
to be a layout package format or Gerber files.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Understood. The idea of the image format would be to present to you my
initial work, so you could scrutinize it and give me notes. I would
adjust it, and then once it's in final form, translate it to a layout
tool.

I have long-term goals to write a software program called Logician, which
is a logic layout tool which will include routing abilities. So, this
would be an early implementation of that algorithm so the bitlines are
not trumped by their neighbors. :-)

I envision a 4- or 6-layer board with vias.

[rickman]

To start, I suggest you take a look at FreePCB. It has an easy
learning curve and support in a Yahoo group. Stick to a 4 layer board
for cost. I can't see any reason why this would not be easy. Pick an
FPGA in a non-BGA package if you can. I don't recall how many I/O you
need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
QFPs around. Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
wider pitch package is worth it. If you have to use a BGA, pick one
with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

FreePCB looks good. How much should a board like this cost?

> I can't see any reason why this would not be easy. Pick an
> FPGA in a non-BGA package if you can. I don't recall how many I/O you
> need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
> QFPs around. Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
> wider pitch package is worth it. If you have to use a BGA, pick one
> with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.

I had planned on using my Altera Cyclone V GX dev board with this FPGA:

http://wl.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-terasic-cyclone-v-gx-starter.html

I have an adapter coming which leverages the HSMC port to GPIO ports:

http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&CategoryNo=67&No=322&PartNo=2#section

I'm going to begin working on my Logician tool off-and-on this year.
It will allow me to program logic gates and handle translation to a
physical process, along with wire routing. It will include a full
simulator, and an export-to-Verilog module, which I will use for the
general purpose logic.

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:

> On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>
>> So, Xilinx is working for me. And, yes, after going to the trouble of
>> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
>> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.
>
> What tool quirks.

I didn't really mean quirks as in things that didn't work, or work right. I
just meant that each tool chain has a lot of features to learn, where the
optional settings are hidden, how to quickly configure the simulator, how to
set up to generate configuration PROM images, etc. There is a lot to learn
before you get fully productive.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:



>
> I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce.

Also, the 74LVC8T245 is a good bidirectional translator, 8 bits in a 24-pin
package. Or, the 74ALVC164245DL, two independent 8-bit translators in a 48-
pin package. I've used a bunch of both of these in some gear I have
produced, mostly to connect between FPGAs with 3.3 V I/O and 5V systems.
I also used the former to connect 5 V systems to the old Beagle Board
computer, which had 1.8 V I/O.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

I'll get the pinouts
> and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
> format for inspection.

Complex designs like this require GOOD schematic and PCB layout tools. I
use an old one, Protel 99SE, but that is no longer available, and was pretty
expensive when it was. I have used Kicad a little, it shows REAL promise,
but is not yet as good as Protel. It runs on Windows AND Linux! And, it is
free, open-source software. The advantage of these packages is you can do
copper pours, inner power plane layers, and it checks the correctness of the
PCB layout against the schematic. No human could EVER be sure that a
complex PCB layout was correct, no matter how long they looked at it.
Software DRC takes just a couple seconds.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

rickman wrote:

> I don't recall how many I/O you
> need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
> QFPs around. Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
> wider pitch package is worth it. If you have to use a BGA, pick one
> with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.
>

I have learned how to solder QFPs down to 0.4mm pitch, but it takes a TINY
soldering tip, a stereo zoom microscope and a STEADY hand! 0.65 mm pitch is
pretty easy, at least for me.

Jon

[rickman]

Yeah, I guess so. Is Xilinx still using their own simulator? I seem to
recall it compiled to machine code so the compile was slow, but the
simulation itself was fast. Still true?

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I was under the impression I'd use some kind of solder paste over a solder
mask the PCB maker sends, place the parts, and then simply bake in some kind
of high-heat oven.

[rickman]

You can do that. But if you are using QFPs, a soldering iron works
pretty well I am told. The solder stencil is not so easy to use but
works ok. If you have BGAs or land grid array parts you have to use the
solder stencil.

--

Rick

[Jon Elson]

Yes. For the designs I do, the compile only takes a few seconds, and the
sim runs pretty fast, although not blazingly. Sometimes I need to run 10's
of ms of simulated time to get out to the interesting part, and it takes a
minute or so. I can't imagine how some of the people simulating gigantic
systems manage.

But, the GUI aspects of Xilinx' sim is SO much better than that ghastly
Modelsim product which I never really got competent at running.

Jon

[Jon Elson]

I don't do this for one-offs or prototypes. There is a big trick to the
stencils. You need to reduce the area of the stencil apertures, or the
excessive solder paste clumps together and bridges between the leads. As
the lead pitch gets finer, this gets more and more critical.

Another trick is to place solder blobs on two diagonal pads, and tack the
chip down. You can view the alignment on all 4 sides and "walk" the chip by
melting the solder on one of the tacked-down pins at a time until alignment
is good. Then, apply liquid flux down all the rows of pins, and drag a
soldering iron down the rows. The solder plate on the board is usually
enough to solder the pins.

Jon

[rickman]

Can you be more specific? I got used to Modelsim and then paid for a
package from Lattice when I got some work using their part. Between the
time I ordered the package with Modelsim and the time it was shipped to
me, they switched to using the Aldec product. I raised hell with them
over the phone and email, but they insisted there was nothing they could
do. So I got over it and found the Aldec simulator didn't crash
periodically like the Modelsim product did. Otherwise it used a
compatible scripting interpreter and overall worked very similarly. It
has been a while since I've done much with it, but I don't recall
anything that is too awkward. What is so bad that you find Modelsim to
be "ghastly"?

--

Rick

[rickman]

I have yet to deal with hand soldering of anything this fine, but I'm
told you can put a blob of solder on the iron tip to do the swipe you
are referring to. *Very* little solder is needed to make a good
connection. Many follow up the solder swipe by a solder braid and iron
to remove the excess which may not be easy to see between or behind the
pins. Someone who was hand soldering one of my boards told me he had a
fit trying to remove a short once because it was so fine he couldn't see
it even *with* a magnifier. Eventually he just passed a sharp point
between all the leads on the connector and the short was gone. I guess
it was virtually like a tin whisker (but before RoHS).

--

Rick

[Aleksandar Kuktin]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:28:39 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> After hearing all of the difficulties I may have on the motherboard
> side, the re-grouping of just working with the Am386 CPU makes a lot
> more sense. Plus, it actually accomplishes nearly all of my goals as my
> goals were to replace the CPU's instruction set with my own, and to
> validate it 1:1 that I am correct. By having a side-by-side comparison
> I can do that. And as I've stated, it might even be interesting to try
> to get other 80386-clone CPUs to test out side-by-side in the
> configuration, and then write a paper outlining where they are
> different. But, that's the lowest possible goal, just a "wouldn't it be
> interesting" thought. :-)

Yesterday I remembered an additional thing that can go wrong, and almost
certainly will go wrong.

The system you are hacking (the motherboard) almost certainly uses DRAM
as its main memory. DRAM needs to be refreshed every so often. This is
done by the memory controller toggling a particular command to the chip
when it wants the chip to refresh the memory. The question is how does
the memory controller know when to order a refresh. Almost 100%
certainly, it has a counter that responds to the clock signal driven by
or derived from the main system clock. The system clock you underclock.

So if you slow the clock enough, you are certain to violate the refresh
timing of the DRAM and ruin its contents.

And you can't have a computer without a functional main memory. :)

[Aleksandar Kuktin]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:38:19 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
> garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes!

I'm in. :)

Although, for the time being, I'm fine with using FPGAs.

I've been thinking about building a completely open-source computer, down
to the atoms, but it's really a group project. There's literally no point
in building a computer that will not be used outside of a single family
or "close knit community". A bunch of villages and a city would be the
smallest user base I would target.

Yet, so far, I seem to be the only person I ever met off the Internet to
have such interests.

>> I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
>> BETTER architectures out there? :)
>
> I have a long history on 80386. I wrote my own kernel, debuggers, etc.
> It's been a relationship dating back to the late 80s.

Oh, ok.

> However, one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I am extending the
> ISA out to include 40-bit addresses, rather than just 32-bit,
> which accesses memory in the Terabyte range, and to include a built-in
> ARM ISA which allows the CPU to switch between ISAs based on branch
> instructions.

Ouch, ouch, ouch, too much - unless you're good at it. :)

I designed and implemented a 16-bit soft CPU from scratch, and I can tell
you it's seriously difficult to make it work. Right now, I'm hacking a 32-
bit CPU (aeMB, to be very specific) and interfacing it to a SoC I plan to
publish eventually and again, it's seriously difficult to make it work.

If you add a bit to the word or address size, you are not just doubling
the CPUs capabilities, you are also doubling the number, size and scope
of problems you have to deal with.

Now, if you already did work on this, or have a working Verilog/VHDL
model, it's probably OK - taking into account your time horizon. But if
you are at the stage of an idea, I would suggest making up your mind
between x86 and ARM and just focusing on one untill you make it work.

>> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
>> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?
>
> To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was
> gifted with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow
> man (and not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other
> such things, but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).

Oh. OK. :) Works for me.

Did you publish any of your work?

>> Does simulation count? :D
>
> Yes. Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does
> not plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation. Here's an
> Aleksander who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):
>
> https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486

Verily, I shall review this. I'm starting to get the impression that all
the stuff I'm making on my own has already been solved, but hasn't been
advertised. I'm working on my dream computer, but these solved systems
constantly keep popping up. Maybe all of it has already been solved?

At any rate, this implementation is an absolute MONSTER, clocking in at
36k gates (and providing a passe 30 MHz of x86). Just how the fuck am I
supposed to fit that in a sane chip? You know, the ones for which you can
get synthesizers for free, instead of paying several thousand dollars for
them.

But the HDD or VGA *might* be salvageable, depending on the
implementation.

[rickman]

There is a 14.31 MHz clock on the main board that is used to time
various activity including the refresh. I believe this was divided by 3
to get the original CPU clock rate (8088) and further divided to get the
clock to the 8253 timer chip which controlled the refresh as well as the
speaker logic and generated the time of day clock. The clock rate to
the CPU changed as PCs ran faster, but the clock to the timer chip
remained. The 14.31 MHz clock was used on the backplane connectors to
be used by the video cards when needed.

Refresh needs to be done on DRAM, but if you aren't using DRAM, then you
don't need refresh.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 4/9/2016 6:00 AM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:38:19 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
>> garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes!
>
> I'm in. :)
>
> Although, for the time being, I'm fine with using FPGAs.
>
> I've been thinking about building a completely open-source computer, down
> to the atoms, but it's really a group project. There's literally no point
> in building a computer that will not be used outside of a single family
> or "close knit community". A bunch of villages and a city would be the
> smallest user base I would target.
>
> Yet, so far, I seem to be the only person I ever met off the Internet to
> have such interests.

I expect trying to get anything remotely like a critical mass is
virtually impossible. There is an open source chip similar in size and
capability to the ARM processors called RISC-V that is getting wide
attention and will produce a chip soon.

>>> I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
>>> BETTER architectures out there? :)
>>
>> I have a long history on 80386. I wrote my own kernel, debuggers, etc.
>> It's been a relationship dating back to the late 80s.
>
> Oh, ok.
>
>> However, one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I am extending the
>> ISA out to include 40-bit addresses, rather than just 32-bit,
>> which accesses memory in the Terabyte range, and to include a built-in
>> ARM ISA which allows the CPU to switch between ISAs based on branch
>> instructions.
>
> Ouch, ouch, ouch, too much - unless you're good at it. :)

It will never be possible to include an ARM ISA unless a license fee is
paid. I recall some years back a student produced an HDL version of an
ARM 7TDMI. ARM spoke to him and the core was withdrawn. He also got a
job with them. Win/win

> I designed and implemented a 16-bit soft CPU from scratch, and I can tell
> you it's seriously difficult to make it work. Right now, I'm hacking a 32-
> bit CPU (aeMB, to be very specific) and interfacing it to a SoC I plan to
> publish eventually and again, it's seriously difficult to make it work.

I'm surprised that you say it is hard to make it work. Do you mean it
is hard to build all the infrastructure? I have designed my own CPUs
before and found that part easy. It is creating the software support
that is hard, or at least a lot of work. I use Forth which helps make
things easier.

> If you add a bit to the word or address size, you are not just doubling
> the CPUs capabilities, you are also doubling the number, size and scope
> of problems you have to deal with.

??? My CPU design did not specify the data size, only the instruction
size. I didn't have a problem adjusting the data size to suit my
application.

> Now, if you already did work on this, or have a working Verilog/VHDL
> model, it's probably OK - taking into account your time horizon. But if
> you are at the stage of an idea, I would suggest making up your mind
> between x86 and ARM and just focusing on one untill you make it work.
>
>>> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
>>> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?
>>
>> To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was
>> gifted with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow
>> man (and not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other
>> such things, but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).
>
> Oh. OK. :) Works for me.
>
> Did you publish any of your work?
>
>>> Does simulation count? :D
>>
>> Yes. Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does
>> not plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation. Here's an
>> Aleksander who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):
>>
>> https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486
>
> Verily, I shall review this. I'm starting to get the impression that all
> the stuff I'm making on my own has already been solved, but hasn't been
> advertised. I'm working on my dream computer, but these solved systems
> constantly keep popping up. Maybe all of it has already been solved?

Exactly what is your dream computer?

> At any rate, this implementation is an absolute MONSTER, clocking in at
> 36k gates (and providing a passe 30 MHz of x86). Just how the fuck am I
> supposed to fit that in a sane chip? You know, the ones for which you can
> get synthesizers for free, instead of paying several thousand dollars for
> them.
>
> But the HDD or VGA *might* be salvageable, depending on the
> implementation.
>

--

Rick

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 10:42:27 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/9/2016 6:00 AM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:38:19 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> >> My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
> >> garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes!
> >
> > I'm in. :)
> >
> > Although, for the time being, I'm fine with using FPGAs.
> >
> > I've been thinking about building a completely open-source computer, down
> > to the atoms, but it's really a group project. There's literally no point
> > in building a computer that will not be used outside of a single family
> > or "close knit community". A bunch of villages and a city would be the
> > smallest user base I would target.
> >
> > Yet, so far, I seem to be the only person I ever met off the Internet to
> > have such interests.
>
> I expect trying to get anything remotely like a critical mass is
> virtually impossible. There is an open source chip similar in size and
> capability to the ARM processors called RISC-V that is getting wide
> attention and will produce a chip soon.

Never underestimate the power of a project given over to God. :-) He can
guide people down paths that don't seem to make sense, but because He can
see what's coming in the future, has them right where they need to be when
that time comes.

FWIW, I've been considering photonic circuits lately. I've devised an
entire methodology for how they would operate in theory. They cannot yet
be built (to my knowledge), but the circuits I'm creating perform the
necessary logic ops, and do more than existing circuits because they
general almost no heat.

It's been a nice mental exercise actually, and it's helped me think about
those things in the low-level "building sand castles" arena, as though I
am a builder on the silicon, creating things up from there.

> >>> I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
> >>> BETTER architectures out there? :)
> >>
> >> I have a long history on 80386. I wrote my own kernel, debuggers, etc.
> >> It's been a relationship dating back to the late 80s.
> >
> > Oh, ok.
> >
> >> However, one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I am extending the
> >> ISA out to include 40-bit addresses, rather than just 32-bit,
> >> which accesses memory in the Terabyte range, and to include a built-in
> >> ARM ISA which allows the CPU to switch between ISAs based on branch
> >> instructions.
> >
> > Ouch, ouch, ouch, too much - unless you're good at it. :)
>
> It will never be possible to include an ARM ISA unless a license fee is
> paid. I recall some years back a student produced an HDL version of an
> ARM 7TDMI. ARM spoke to him and the core was withdrawn. He also got a
> job with them. Win/win

It's why all patents and copyrights should be abolished, and the fruit of
man's ideas should be given to mankind, with the people then only being
paid for their labor, as the ideas and ingenuity they possess are gifts
from God, given not just for them to use to their profit, but as part of
that fabric of man God put here upon this world.

We should not oppress people, but work with them and encourage those who
have special and unique abilities, letting them thrive.