030 but no MMU!!
Carlos J Labura
Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
become activated (ie sysinfo and AIBB report the MMU (not in use)).
How is the MMU activated....
help....
--
Karl.....
-
+ Carlos Labura - Bachelor of Computer Science -- labu...@lion.lat.oz.au +
| __ Only Amiga makes it possible! | "Mr.Plow, thats my name, that |
| /// Quote from a Windoze user: | name again, is Mr.Plow!" |
|__ /// "True MultiTasking, | Homer.J.Simpson |
|\\\/// I'd Like to See That!!" | "The Truth is out there!" |
+-\XX/-* A4000T/040/30mhz/540HD/28.8F.M/4xCD/NEC3D *---* The X-Files! *---+
Odd H. Sandvik
Carlos J Labura (labu...@lion.cs.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
: How is the MMU activated....
The MMU won't get activated until you actually run a program that uses it.
Like Enforcer, VMM or GigaMem.
--
% Odd H. Sandvik %% email: od...@sn.no -+% Team AMIGA %+-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
% Acceleration into temporal space continuum now begins...
% Alpha 7, acknowledge... Alpha 7, acknowledge...
mikem...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
In article <4nj8er$9...@lion.cs.latrobe.edu.au>, labu...@lion.cs.latrobe.edu.au (Carlos J Labura) writes:
>Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
>become activated (ie sysinfo and AIBB report the MMU (not in use)).
>How is the MMU activated....
>
>
>--
>Karl.....
>-
>+ Carlos Labura - Bachelor of Computer Science -- labu...@lion.lat.oz.au +
>| __ Only Amiga makes it possible! | "Mr.Plow, thats my name, that |
>| /// Quote from a Windoze user: | name again, is Mr.Plow!" |
>|__ /// "True MultiTasking, | Homer.J.Simpson |
>|\\\/// I'd Like to See That!!" | "The Truth is out there!" |
>+-\XX/-* A4000T/040/30mhz/540HD/28.8F.M/4xCD/NEC3D *---* The X-Files! *---+
moves the rom image to fast memory. If it fails, no MMU - if it works, you
will have a little less free memory + a slight speedup of exec functions.
Mike
Anders Erlandsson
>: How is the MMU activated....
>The MMU won't get activated until you actually run a program that uses it.
>Like Enforcer, VMM or GigaMem.
Or if you use it to move kickstart to fastram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
and...@academy.bastad.se Anders Erlandsson
HTTP://www.bastad.se/~anderse/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Joergen Nielsen
In a message dated 19 May 1996 13:54:52 and...@academy.bastad.se writes:
A> Odd H. Sandvik wrote:
A> >Carlos J Labura (labu...@lion.cs.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
A> >: Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
A> >: become activated (ie sysinfo and AIBB report the MMU (not in use)).
A> >: How is the MMU activated....
A> >The MMU won't get activated until you actually run a program that uses
A> it. >Like Enforcer, VMM or GigaMem.
A> Or if you use it to move kickstart to fastram.
How can kickstart be moved to fastram?
Joergen Nielsen
* Offline Orbit 0.73c *
Odd H. Sandvik
Joergen Nielsen (jo...@zeus.datashopper.dk) wrote:
: A> Or if you use it to move kickstart to fastram.
: How can kickstart be moved to fastram?
You copy the ROM image to RAM and use the MMU to remap that part
of the RAM to the ROM adress.
Lee Huggett
> Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
> help....
> --
> Karl.....
AFAIK the majority of chips are al made with the MMU in, but some fail the
tests on the MMU so they are designated MMUless..
If AIBB says you have no MMU.. you have no MMU...
easy way...
Run Enforcer, then run Lawbreaker.... If Enforcer goes mad then you have an
MMU if nothing happens then you don't
Lee
********************************************************
* Someday you will find me, caught beneath a landslide *
* In a champagne supernova in the sky... Oasis *
********************************************************
I'm not telling you my Amigas spec.. you'll only get jealous
Lee Huggett l...@burst.demon.co.uk
c925...@zeus.hud.ac.uk
Frank Wille
Carlos J Labura wrote on 18 May 1996 01:17:15 GMT
about "030 but no MMU!!" :
CJL> Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
CJL> become activated (ie sysinfo and AIBB report the MMU (not in use)).
CJL> How is the MMU activated....
The OS doesn't use the 030-MMU. Start a program which activates
it, e.g. VMM. Then look at SysInfo or AIBB again.
-- _
_ // Frank EMail: fr...@phoenix.owl.de
\X/ IRC: Phx @ #amiga(ger)
Bryan Williams
------
Bryan K. Williams bry...@connectnet.com
ftp://ftp.connectnet.com/pub/users/bryanw/
------
Following this same thread, I have a 68EC030, except I noticed that
SysInfo said the same thing (MMU not in use). I just now flipped over and
ran Enforcer, and now it says MMU in use. Now I know it's an EC (I just
had the thing open a week ago), so what's going on? Is it safe to use
something like VMM? I should also mention that there's no 32-bit memory
(it's on a VXL-30 board, and the memory boards where just to expensive
when they existed :^(
Bryan
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." - B. Simpson
Christian Wasner
Joergen Nielsen (jo...@zeus.datashopper.dk) wrote about Re: 030 but no MMU!!:
> How can kickstart be moved to fastram?
Open a shell and type "cpu fastrom". You can also add this to
s:startup-sequence (I would advise right after SetPatch). It only
functions if you have a working MMU, of course. You can see if it
works if you lost 512k RAM and your computer didn't crash.
However, if your ROM is 32 bit anyway (A1200, A3000, A4000), it maybe
isn't worth the memory loss.
Greetings
--
Christian Wasner (CRISI/PHANTASM)
Christia...@hamburg.netsurf.de
Sorry, but you haven't won a cookie in today's lottery
Carlos J Labura
Bryan Williams (bry...@news.connectnet.com) wrote:
: ------
: Bryan
Hi bryan,
I had the same board in my old A2000 and it too was an EC030 but
i was able to run giga mem fine...
Andy Fergus
My 4000/030 is fitted with an EC030. Sysinfo says 'not in use'for the
MMU. I can change this using the CPU command so that it appears to be in
use.
I also ran AIBB which did detect that no MMU was present. This seems to
indicate that there is a bug in sysinfo! Therefore I wouldn't expect a
VMM program to work.
Andy Fergus.
Lee Huggett
On 21-May-96 01:57:55, Bryan Williams said about Re: 030 but no MMU!!:
> Following this same thread, I have a 68EC030, except I noticed that
> SysInfo said the same thing (MMU not in use). I just now flipped over and
> ran Enforcer, and now it says MMU in use. Now I know it's an EC (I just
> had the thing open a week ago), so what's going on? Is it safe to use
> something like VMM? I should also mention that there's no 32-bit memory
> (it's on a VXL-30 board, and the memory boards where just to expensive
> when they existed :^(
No you cannot run VMM unless you have a valid MMU...
The reason that sysinfo sayes you have an MMU after you have run enforcer is
because Enforcer sets up some tables in memory that it uses in conjuction with
the MMU to help debugging.
Sysinfo sees these tables and assumes you have an MMU running..
If you do want to check, after running enforcer, run lawbreaker, if you get
some hits then you have an MMU, if nothing happens then you don't
Chris Appleton
Hiya;
>> Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
>> become activated (ie sysinfo and AIBB report the MMU (not in use)).
>> How is the MMU activated....
>> help....
>> --
>> Karl.....
LH> AFAIK the majority of chips are al made with the MMU in, but some fail
LH> the tests on the MMU so they are designated MMUless..
LH> If AIBB says you have no MMU.. you have no MMU...
But if it says "Mmu present, inactive" you do have one. I remember being
puzzled by this. Easier way, run VMM (remembering to set the memory prioiry
lower than the rest of it) and it won't work at all if you don't have an MMU,
on my system AIBB reports MMU off unless VMM is running.
Chris
--
Chris Appleton : ch...@fuchal.demon.co.uk : Pillock on IRC
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9511237/people/chris.html
Running on Amiga - A1200T/030. It's cool.
I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape
somewhere.
Philip Chung
Carlos J Labura wrote:
>
> Can someone explain to me how an 030 (full) has an MMU but it doesn't
> become activated (ie sysinfo and AIBB report the MMU (not in use)).
> How is the MMU activated....
The OS doesn't use the MMU. You can use the CPU command to transfer the
ROM into 32-bit FastRAM. This will use the MMU to redirect address
calles to the FastRAM. Or you could use a virtual memory program which
will also need the MMU. If you run AIBB after this, it should tell you
that the MMU is being used.
--
__
__/\_\__ Philip Chung
/\_\/_/\_\ E-Mail: ee9...@brunel.ac.uk
\/_/\_\/_/ Brunel, the University of West London
\/_/ Uxbridge, UK
Christian Wasner
Andy Fergus (fer...@st-austell.dowell.slb.com) wrote about Re: 030 but no MMU!!:
There is no safe way to detect an MMU. EC processors either have no
MMU (which means that the computer crashes when trying to
execute MMU instructions) or they have an untested one (which means
that MMU instructions may work or may not). You can only try.
Download e.g. a virtual memory program and run an application that
needs more memory than available. If it works, fine, if not, not fine.
If you wnat to go for sure, get a non-EC processor with an MMU.
Philip Chung
Joergen Nielsen wrote:
> A> Or if you use it to move kickstart to fastram.
>
> How can kickstart be moved to fastram?
By using the command CPU FASTROM.
Michael
Hi Philip,
On Fri, 24 May 1996, Philip Chung wrote:
> Joergen Nielsen wrote:
>
> > A> Or if you use it to move kickstart to fastram.
> >
> > How can kickstart be moved to fastram?
>
> By using the command CPU FASTROM.
>
Some back ground on my question:
I always thought I had a MMU ever since I saw that SYSINFO said it's "not
in use". However was never 100% sure this to be the case.
For one I use a A530 GVP Turbo accelerator with the 68EC030/40 mhz
processor (at least that is what is printed on the top of the chip). The
instruction for the 530 states that the MMU was not included because of
the price of a true 68030. That a work around circuit was included to act
like a MMU. This is of course in most cases.
"The 68EC030 chip used with most A530 Turbo accelerators does not have a
MMU. Instead, GVP provides alternate memory mapping technology. If a
68030 with MMU is substituted for the 68EC030, jumper J1 provides a means
of disabling that chip's MMU."
The state of J1 on my 530 is open, meaning that the MMU is enabled. This
is the default and was the original state of the jumper when I bought the
530 new in late 1992.
Since I also had some problems with the original GVP ROM chip, I replaced
the ROM with the GuruROM 6.10. This gave me some new control programs
for the 530 that the original software didn't have.
One of these little programs is the GVPCPUCtrl with I use to turn on the
FASTROM feature. This is of course is placed in my User-Startup and is
started every time I boot my computer.
Even though this command is present and working, SYSINFO _never_ shows
the MMU in use. However when I tried the above (what you wrote), it _did_
should the MMU in use.
So my conclusion is that I do have a MMU. Whether it is addition
circuitry or on the chip itself I don't know.
Now for the questions:
Would it be better to run CPU instead of GVPCPUCtrl to use FASTROM?
Do you think there might be a differents in speed between the two (using
MMU vs not using MMU) for FASTROM?
Would it be better to not use the MMU for FASTROM allowing other programs
the MMU for themselves?
Is it possible that if the MMU that is used is "alternate memory mapping
technology", some programs that need a true MMU will not work?
Thanks for any info,
Michael (sho...@lanminds.com)
Press CTRL + L-AMIGA + R-AMIGA to continue...
Arnulf Nielsen
>Hi, Michael (sho...@lanminds.com)
>Would it be better to run CPU instead of GVPCPUCtrl to use FASTROM?
I recommend the "GVPCPUCTRL FastRom MoveSSP" command.
I don't have any serious tests to back up my claim, but the Amiga feels
faster when using GCC instead of CPU.
Sysinfo ( ... ) also says that I've got a 42.70 MHz CPU vs. 40.00 MHz
when using the GCC vs. CPU
Arnulf - A500+/'030/'882 - Amiga - ul...@online.no
Fredrik Jonsson
Hello
The thread about 68030s with or without MMUs has led me to the
following questions about the CPU command.
I believe that there is an MMU in my A4000/030 but I am not sure.
If I do CPU FastROM half a meg of fastram disappears as expected,
which would indicate the existence of an MMU. However, when using
the NoMMUTest option of CPU, I always get the same result as if
I had just issued the command with no options. Therefore I am
wondering what result the command CPU NoMMUtest should give if
there is an MMU present (or if there is none).
Also, if I use the CPU command with the CHECK option I always get
the same result no matter what I check for. If I check for an MMU
I get the same message as if I would test for an 68020, 68030
68040, namely the same as if I had issued the CPU command with no
options ("68030 FastROM etc.") To me it seems pointless to try to
check for anythíng with this command.
Fredrik
dat9...@ludat.lth.se
Allan Girvan
On Tue, 28 May 96, Fredrik Jonsson wrote:
> Also, if I use the CPU command with the CHECK option I always get
> the same result no matter what I check for. If I check for an MMU
> I get the same message as if I would test for an 68020, 68030
> 68040, namely the same as if I had issued the CPU command with no
> options ("68030 FastROM etc.") To me it seems pointless to try to
> check for anythng with this command.
The "check" option returns a Warn condition (RC=5) if the check fails and
so it is really only of any use in a script.
Try
cpu check 68882
if warn
echo "No co-processor present"
endif
Having said that - according to cpu I've got an MMU present (I don't - I've
got the EC version of the 68030 and the MMU is definitely not active in
this particular chip.)
Cheers,
Allan.
--
| EMail - al...@girvan.demon.co.uk | Running on // You Know it |
| Greetings from Glasgow, Scotland | AMIGA 1200 \X/ makes sense |
Philip Stokes
Fredrik Jonsson (dat9...@ludat.lth.se) wrote:
>
> I believe that there is an MMU in my A4000/030 but I am not sure.
> If I do CPU FastROM half a meg of fastram disappears as expected,
> which would indicate the existence of an MMU. However, when using
> the NoMMUTest option of CPU, I always get the same result as if
> I had just issued the command with no options. Therefore I am
> wondering what result the command CPU NoMMUtest should give if
> there is an MMU present (or if there is none).
According to my AmigaDOS manual, the description of NoMMUTest says
"The effect of this switch is undocumented"
> Also, if I use the CPU command with the CHECK option I always get
> the same result no matter what I check for. If I check for an MMU
> I get the same message as if I would test for an 68020, 68030
> 68040, namely the same as if I had issued the CPU command with no
> options ("68030 FastROM etc.") To me it seems pointless to try to
> check for anythng with this command.
It's for use in scripts. Try this:
----------------------------------
cpu check 68040 >NIL:
if warn
echo "There is no 040 cpu"
else
echo "040 cpu present"
endif
----------------------------------
Phil
--
Philip Stokes ph...@stokes.demon.co.uk
Hertfordshire
England
Richard Lavey
Fredrik Jonsson (dat9...@ludat.lth.se) led us to believe
in <31AB07...@ludat.lth.se> that...
> Hello
> The thread about 68030s with or without MMUs has led me to the
> following questions about the CPU command.
> I believe that there is an MMU in my A4000/030 but I am not sure.
> If I do CPU FastROM half a meg of fastram disappears as expected,
> which would indicate the existence of an MMU. However, when using
> the NoMMUTest option of CPU, I always get the same result as if
> I had just issued the command with no options. Therefore I am
> wondering what result the command CPU NoMMUtest should give if
> there is an MMU present (or if there is none).
> Also, if I use the CPU command with the CHECK option I always get
> the same result no matter what I check for. If I check for an MMU
> I get the same message as if I would test for an 68020, 68030
> 68040, namely the same as if I had issued the CPU command with no
> options ("68030 FastROM etc.") To me it seems pointless to try to
> check for anythng with this command.
The NoMMUTest switch tells the CPU command not to check if the MMU is
already in use before using it.
The Check option works by setting a return code to indicate success or
failure (for use in scripts). On my MMU equipped 030 I get the following :
14.WB_3.x:> cpu check mmu
System: 68030 68882 FastROM (INST: Cache Burst) (DATA: Cache Burst)
14.WB_3.x:> echo $rc
0
14.WB_3.x:> cpu check 68040
System: 68030 68882 FastROM (INST: Cache Burst) (DATA: Cache Burst)
14.WB_3.x:> echo $rc
5
Thus 0 means "item exists" and 5 means "item not found"
--
ric...@startide.demon.co.uk : Richard Lavey on a Dial-Up Account
* I know that this is vitriol, no solution spleen-venting *
* But I feel better having screamed, Don't You ? *
* R.E.M. "Ignoreland" *
Dave Haynie
In <9605290...@stokes.demon.co.uk>, Philip Stokes <ph...@stokes.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Fredrik Jonsson (dat9...@ludat.lth.se) wrote:
>> I believe that there is an MMU in my A4000/030 but I am not sure.
>> If I do CPU FastROM half a meg of fastram disappears as expected,
>> which would indicate the existence of an MMU.
Well, it's actually an indication that the MMU ROM translation was
installed, but it doesn't prove the translation is actually
happening. I don't know whether CPU was ever improved, but it was
based on my SetCPU code, which came out before there was ever any
question of MMUs being in '030s. The only quasi-reliable test for an
MMU on an '030 is to actually set up a translation and see if it
works. Motorola never specified the EC030 to be something that should
ever live in MMU-based systems, and they never really consider
MMU-optional systems. There may be a working MMU. Since the MMU test
isn't run, and dropouts from the '030 production may also be used,
there may be a semi-functional MMU. Motorola could, at any time, make
an 'EC030 with no MMU whatsoever (TTRs are kept). So you have to do a
number of tests to differentiate 'EC030 from regular '030.
>> However, when using the NoMMUTest option of CPU, I always get the
>> same result as if I had just issued the command with no options.
>According to my AmigaDOS manual, the description of NoMMUTest says
>"The effect of this switch is undocumented"
I suspect that when Valentin co-opted my SetCPU code for CPU, he
didn't quite understand the purpose of the equivalent NOMMUTEST option
in SetCPU. The reason for this is a fairly historical one. Back in the
68020 days, most cards came with the FPU option, but MMUs were
unknown. Both are different coprocessor units on the '020 bus. A few
cards didn't fully decode the coprocessor address, so they would
enable the FPU when MMU instructions were run, causing a coprocessor
protocol violation that would crash your system. Setting this flag
prevents the "is there an MMU" test from being run. I have no idea if
CPU implements this properly or not.
Dave Haynie | ex-Commodore Engineering | for DiskSalv 3 &
Sr. Systems Engineer | Hardwired Media Company | "The Deathbed Vigil"
Scala Inc., US R&D | Ki No Kawa Aikido | in...@iam.com
"Feeling ... Pretty ... Psyched" -R.E.M.
Andreas E. Bombe
Christian Wasner (Christia...@hamburg.netsurf.de) wrote:
>Andy Fergus (fer...@st-austell.dowell.slb.com) wrote about Re: 030 but no MMU!!:
>>My 4000/030 is fitted with an EC030. Sysinfo says 'not in use'for the
>>MMU. I can change this using the CPU command so that it appears to be in
>>use.
>There is no safe way to detect an MMU. EC processors either have no
>MMU (which means that the computer crashes when trying to
>execute MMU instructions) or they have an untested one (which means
>that MMU instructions may work or may not). You can only try.
>Download e.g. a virtual memory program and run an application that
>needs more memory than available. If it works, fine, if not, not fine.
>If you wnat to go for sure, get a non-EC processor with an MMU.
AFAIK all Motorola CPUs are built complete. For 68030 this would be:
the 030 with MMU is produced and is tested. If everything's OK, it
will be sold as 68030. However, if the MMU part fails the test (some
part of it doesn't work) and the rest works, the MMU will be disabled
and the chip will be sold as 68EC030 (same for 040/060 EC and LC and
also MHz speed variations, I think). But you may have a chance that
those parts of the MMU you need for using e.g. VMM are working. But it
is not reliable at all.
--
Andreas E. Bombe | PGP Key Fingerprint: available on
andrea...@munich.netsurf.de | 13 6B BC 15 36 B8 B7 7A request and
| 20 05 58 E8 6F AA F8 ED on homepage
http://home.pages.de/~andreas.bombe/
Zahme Vögel singen von Freiheit... ...wilde Vögel fliegen
MaTTe
>Hello
>The thread about 68030s with or without MMUs has led me to the
>following questions about the CPU command.
>I believe that there is an MMU in my A4000/030 but I am not sure.
>If I do CPU FastROM half a meg of fastram disappears as expected,
>which would indicate the existence of an MMU. However, when using
>the NoMMUTest option of CPU, I always get the same result as if
>I had just issued the command with no options. Therefore I am
>wondering what result the command CPU NoMMUtest should give if
>there is an MMU present (or if there is none).
>Also, if I use the CPU command with the CHECK option I always get
>the same result no matter what I check for. If I check for an MMU
>I get the same message as if I would test for an 68020, 68030
>68040, namely the same as if I had issued the CPU command with no
>options ("68030 FastROM etc.") To me it seems pointless to try to
>check for anythíng with this command.
>Fredrik
>dat9...@ludat.lth.se
Jag är 99% säker på att du inte har mmu.. Testa om du kan köra igång
'vmem' utan att muspekaren börjar hacka.. Du kan även kolla på CPU-kortet
om det står 'EC' på CPU:n, gör det det så har du ingen MMU..
Det är lite svårt att kolla om CPU:n har MMU eller därför blir en del
program lurade och tror att du har mmu (bl.a. SysInfo)...
Det där med FastRom fungerar också för mig, men det enda som händer verka
va att 512Kb försvinner..
Har en A4000/EC030 själv, jag trodde också att jag hade MMU.... :(
<> MaTTe <>
Michael van Elst
andrea...@munich.netsurf.de (Andreas E. Bombe) writes:
>AFAIK all Motorola CPUs are built complete. For 68030 this would be:
>the 030 with MMU is produced and is tested. If everything's OK, it
>will be sold as 68030. However, if the MMU part fails the test (some
>part of it doesn't work) and the rest works, the MMU will be disabled
>and the chip will be sold as 68EC030 (same for 040/060 EC and LC and
>also MHz speed variations, I think).
No. If a chip fails it is thrown away, even if the failing part would
be disabled before packaging. EC030 chips either have no MMU, an
untested and disabled MMU or a test+functional but disabled MMU.
Regards,
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mle...@serpens.rhein.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
Peter Bornhall
In a message dated 30 May 96, Mathias...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote to All:
>> Also, if I use the CPU command with the CHECK option I always get the same
>> result no matter what I check for. If I check for an MMU I get the same
>> message as if I would test for an 68020, 68030 68040, namely the same as
>> if I had issued the CPU command with no options ("68030 FastROM etc.") To
>> me it seems pointless to try to check for anythíng with this command.
MJm> Jag är 99% säker på att du inte har mmu.. Testa om du kan köra igång
MJm> 'vmem' utan att muspekaren börjar hacka.. Du kan även kolla på
MJm> CPU-kortet om det står 'EC' på CPU:n, gör det det så har du ingen MMU..
MJm> Det är lite svårt att kolla om CPU:n har MMU eller därför blir en del
MJm> program lurade och tror att du har mmu (bl.a. SysInfo)... Det där med
MJm> FastRom fungerar också för mig, men det enda som händer verka va att
MJm> 512Kb försvinner..
This is an international newsgroup, write in English!
Actually, so far, even an EC processor has the MMU in there. It's just not
fully working. When Motorola tests their CPU's, they label the ones with
a non-working MMU as not having a MMU.
FastRom means that the Kick ROM is copied into 32-bit memory, so those 512kb
of memory doesn't just "disappear". They are used to hold the copy of the
kickstart ROM.
MJm> Har en A4000/EC030 själv, jag trodde också att jag hade MMU.... :(
I've got a 1200 with an EC030. My MMU is partly working.
Be well!
/\ _
/\ \// Peter Bornhall born...@karkis.canit.se
/_ \// -======================================================-
/_\\//_\ Amiga, boldly going where no computer has gone before!
MaTTe
> This is an international newsgroup, write in English!
I post it as E-mail NOT to this conference.. Hmm strange, THOR must have
fucked up!.. :( Sorry about this (are you sure you didn't recieve it as E-
mail?)..
<> MaTTe <>
MaTTe
> I've got a 1200 with an EC030. My MMU is partly working.
What's a partly working MMU good for? :) It's can't be safe to use it anyway..
<> MaTTe <>
> Be well!
Andrew Quipp
MaTTe (Mathias...@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
:
: > I've got a 1200 with an EC030. My MMU is partly working.
I have an EC030-50MHz and using VMM 3.3 with 30MB "extra" RAM
beats me !!!
MaTTe
Lucky you.. :)
<> MaTTe <>
Matt Costanza
In article <1622.6724...@munich.netsurf.de> andrea...@munich.netsurf.de (Andreas E. Bombe) writes:
>
>AFAIK all Motorola CPUs are built complete. For 68030 this would be:
>the 030 with MMU is produced and is tested. If everything's OK, it
>will be sold as 68030. However, if the MMU part fails the test (some
>part of it doesn't work) and the rest works, the MMU will be disabled
>and the chip will be sold as 68EC030 (same for 040/060 EC and LC and
>those parts of the MMU you need for using e.g. VMM are working. But it
>is not reliable at all.
>
Almost true. I spoke with a design engineer who supports the 030 line today
and he stated that several years ago, 030's were made complete but were
only put through the standard testing. For buyers who wanted extra testing,
the MMU was tested.
Lately, the market for 030's are more suited for consumer and router and
communications applications. The EC030 is still going strong. EC030's
are now made that way (ie the mask is made with the MMU disabled).
So.. If your EC030 was made starting around a year ago, then the MMU was
disabled on purpose. Anything earlier than that, the MMU was not tested and
sold as a EC030. For anyone who is intrested, the whole 68K family was
designed here in Austin, TX.
Regards,
--
Matt Costanza
Motorola Inc - Information Systems
Network Analyst - Site Networks and Computing
Ma...@Moaner.Sps.Mot.Com 512.891.6110