Which Altera to buy?

On 12/2/2014 6:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:20:17 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>> I purchased a TI PHY chip today (DP83848C 10/100 model) in a pin package
>>> that I believe will allow direct connection to the Altera dev board.  I
>>> downloaded the protocol specs and it was very straight-forward.  I found
>>> a better solution earlier from Silicon Labs, but I couldn't find an
>>> inexpensive connection board that didn't require something like solder
>>> masks ... so I went with TI's already-together product.
>>
>> Why not just use an integrated PHY/MAC and save the trouble of rolling
>> your own?  How big is the device you will need?
>
> The product I bought:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KM6VNBC/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

Yes, this seems to have a PHY by TI, DP83848.  The interface lists MII, 
RMII and SNI.


>>> For point-to-point inter-LibSF-device communication I think I'll simply
>>> invent Libernet, a simple protocol using five pins (tx-clk, tx, rx-clk,
>>> rx, and gnd) and make the communication protocol as simple as possible.
>>>
>>> I like the idea of Manchester coding, however, and may consider using
>>> that as well to keep pin count down at the expense of some logic on
>>> the sending and receiving end.
>>
>> Please don't roll your own serial interface.  You will forever regret it
>> I think.  Why add to the huge number of existing interfaces when nearly
>> every need has already been met by one or the other?
>
> Because it would work in wholly replicable logic within the FPGA,
> requiring nothing other than connecting up pins.

You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...


> FWIW, I'm talking about slow device on-motherboard communications here,
> and potentially some remote debugging communication across multi-CPUs
> through a single interface.

You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...

One *big* advantage to using something standard is that other devices 
can talk to it, not just your designs.  If you get into a tough spot you 
can even get low cost debuggers for any of these other protocols.


>>>> For RS232, the FPGA pins go to level converters to convert to the
>>>> appropriate voltages, but all the logic (UART) is in the FPGA.
>>> I am absolutely loving this project so far.  I think it's my all-time
>>> favorite.
>>
>> I assume it is all just for fun?
>
> No.  It is to become the foundation of a hardware and software stack
> I am creating that has roots in the 80386 design, but has been modified
> to be simpler, and has been extended out to 40-bits.

To what end?

-- 

Rick

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:51:39 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 6:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Because it would work in wholly replicable logic within the FPGA,
> > requiring nothing other than connecting up pins.
> You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...

I don't know of any of those other than by their names used in
various technical specs I've read over time.  If they work like
the one I'm proposing, then what's the big deal?  The protocol
I would define would include a 16-bit word for the target sub-
unit, a 16-bit word for the payload length, and then the payload.

> > FWIW, I'm talking about slow device on-motherboard communications here,
> > and potentially some remote debugging communication across multi-CPUs
> > through a single interface.
> 
> You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...
> 
> One *big* advantage to using something standard is that other devices 
> can talk to it, not just your designs.  If you get into a tough spot you 
> can even get low cost debuggers for any of these other protocols.

I am writing my own debugger.

> >>>> For RS232, the FPGA pins go to level converters to convert to the
> >>>> appropriate voltages, but all the logic (UART) is in the FPGA.
> >>> I am absolutely loving this project so far.  I think it's my all-time
> >>> favorite.
> >>
> >> I assume it is all just for fun?
> >
> > No.  It is to become the foundation of a hardware and software stack
> > I am creating that has roots in the 80386 design, but has been modified
> > to be simpler, and has been extended out to 40-bits.
> 
> To what end?

I am a Christian.  I desire to create a hardware and software stack
from the ground up, one focused upon an offering of sharing and love,
rather than of profits, sales goals, and proprietary hardware locks.

I would also like to create the tools to produce the semiconductor
products as well, which I plan to do after I get my CPU designed.
I will design the layout and routing tools, and move toward
manufacturing.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

On 12/2/2014 9:14 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:51:39 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/2/2014 6:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Because it would work in wholly replicable logic within the FPGA,
>>> requiring nothing other than connecting up pins.
>> You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...
>
> I don't know of any of those other than by their names used in
> various technical specs I've read over time.  If they work like
> the one I'm proposing, then what's the big deal?  The protocol
> I would define would include a 16-bit word for the target sub-
> unit, a 16-bit word for the payload length, and then the payload.

I'm not sure what you are proposing.  Sounds more like you are 
describing a software protocol.  If you want to do your own thing fine, 
but there are times when compatibility can be useful and reinventing the 
wheel is seldom an advantage.


>>> FWIW, I'm talking about slow device on-motherboard communications here,
>>> and potentially some remote debugging communication across multi-CPUs
>>> through a single interface.
>>
>> You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...
>>
>> One *big* advantage to using something standard is that other devices
>> can talk to it, not just your designs.  If you get into a tough spot you
>> can even get low cost debuggers for any of these other protocols.
>
> I am writing my own debugger.

I'm not talking about a software debugger.  I'm talking about a debugger 
for your interface.  Call it a scope then.


>>>>>> For RS232, the FPGA pins go to level converters to convert to the
>>>>>> appropriate voltages, but all the logic (UART) is in the FPGA.
>>>>> I am absolutely loving this project so far.  I think it's my all-time
>>>>> favorite.
>>>>
>>>> I assume it is all just for fun?
>>>
>>> No.  It is to become the foundation of a hardware and software stack
>>> I am creating that has roots in the 80386 design, but has been modified
>>> to be simpler, and has been extended out to 40-bits.
>>
>> To what end?
>
> I am a Christian.  I desire to create a hardware and software stack
> from the ground up, one focused upon an offering of sharing and love,
> rather than of profits, sales goals, and proprietary hardware locks.
>
> I would also like to create the tools to produce the semiconductor
> products as well, which I plan to do after I get my CPU designed.
> I will design the layout and routing tools, and move toward
> manufacturing.

The fact that it is going to be open source doesn't remove it from the 
world of markets.  What need is this satisfying?  Clearly you expect 
others to use it.  Have you made any efforts to see what others want 
from such devices?

What if you build it and nobody comes because you built something no one 
wants?

-- 

Rick

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:10:04 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 9:14 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:51:39 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2014 6:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> Because it would work in wholly replicable logic within the FPGA,
> >>> requiring nothing other than connecting up pins.
> >> You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...
> >
> > I don't know of any of those other than by their names used in
> > various technical specs I've read over time.  If they work like
> > the one I'm proposing, then what's the big deal?  The protocol
> > I would define would include a 16-bit word for the target sub-
> > unit, a 16-bit word for the payload length, and then the payload.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are proposing.  Sounds more like you are 
> describing a software protocol.  If you want to do your own thing
> fine, but there are times when compatibility can be useful and
> reinventing the wheel is seldom an advantage.

I don't understand how what I'm doing is reinventing the wheel if I
am merely hooking up a few pins and using 0s and 1s in data interchange
on a fixed clock.  It sounds like I'm applying the most fundamental
concepts of data interchange available in FPGA programming.

From my point of view, employing some proprietary communications
hardware and/or its software protocols of peculiar format, ones which
may even require the data I would pass from one unit to another be re-
formatted in some protocol-required way for transmission, and then de-
coded upon receipt, seems be the more undesirable path.

> >>> FWIW, I'm talking about slow device on-motherboard communications here,
> >>> and potentially some remote debugging communication across multi-CPUs
> >>> through a single interface.
> >> You mean like SPI, I2C, async serial, etc, etc, etc...
> >>
> >> One *big* advantage to using something standard is that other devices
> >> can talk to it, not just your designs.  If you get into a tough spot you
> >> can even get low cost debuggers for any of these other protocols.
> >
> > I am writing my own debugger.
> 
> I'm not talking about a software debugger.  I'm talking about a debugger 
> for your interface.  Call it a scope then.

I am writing a debugger which will cover these things.  Whatever is
going on inside the FPGA will be able to be ported out through the
Ethernet into the debugger based on various register settings.  I
will write the debugger to understand the hardware it relates to,
providing even graphical images of the data communication.

From what I have seen, efforts to get the Ethernet protocol up and
running should be simple and straight-forward enough.  We'll see
though.  I'm prepared to spend as much time as it takes, posting my
code so people can help me if I'm doing something incorrectly.  I
can also always fall back on the default connections which exist on
the Altera dev board until I get it debugged.  Once it's written,
however, it will be available for all from that point forward. Any
port of the verilog code to other devices should be doable through
that TI chip.

> >>>>>> For RS232, the FPGA pins go to level converters to convert to the
> >>>>>> appropriate voltages, but all the logic (UART) is in the FPGA.
> >>>>> I am absolutely loving this project so far.  I think it's my all-time
> >>>>> favorite.
> >>>>
> >>>> I assume it is all just for fun?
> >>>
> >>> No.  It is to become the foundation of a hardware and software stack
> >>> I am creating that has roots in the 80386 design, but has been modified
> >>> to be simpler, and has been extended out to 40-bits.
> >>
> >> To what end?
> >
> > I am a Christian.  I desire to create a hardware and software stack
> > from the ground up, one focused upon an offering of sharing and love,
> > rather than of profits, sales goals, and proprietary hardware locks.
> >
> > I would also like to create the tools to produce the semiconductor
> > products as well, which I plan to do after I get my CPU designed.
> > I will design the layout and routing tools, and move toward
> > manufacturing.
> 
> The fact that it is going to be open source doesn't remove it from the 
> world of markets.  What need is this satisfying?  Clearly you expect 
> others to use it.  Have you made any efforts to see what others want 
> from such devices?

It is not open source.  It's in the Public Domain.  I have created a
license model which indicates that our responsibilities tie back to God,
and not to our legal system, that my wishes are that the software
remains open, and that, just as God gave us this world and instructed
us on how to use it, allowing us to choose for ourselves, and warning
us of the consequences if we use it in a manner contrary to His
instruction, and how we are all accountable unto Him for how we use it,
and how we treat one another, and for everything involved with our
lives, so are we also accountable unto Him for how we honor other
people's wishes with regards to offerings which stem from Him in the
first place.

Jesus Christ gave me the knowledge and skills I possess.  I did not
garner them on my own.  I was endowed at birth with whatever abilities
I possess.  And the opportunities I've had in my life, may of which I've
flatly squandered due to my own ignorance and stupidity, still all of
these were a gift from Him unto me.  And I now acknowledge that, and I
cite that explicitly in my license.

When people take my offering and use it for other ends, they are doing
it to Him, and not just me, and, per His instruction (Revelation 22:10-12),
I will let Him take full account of all such movements.

> What if you build it and nobody comes because you built something no
> one wants?

It is a common mis-perception that Christians operate alone in this
world.  We are not alone.  God is with us, living inside of our heart,
our minds, continually.  This is true of all born again Christians.
And all such efforts given over unto God from that inner place of the
changed heart, these are all known unto God, and it is He who then
moves in this world, moving us to and fro, moving others to and fro,
drawing us from within toward His ends as per His plans and purposes
(John 3:3,6-8).

Yet, if nobody comes because I built something no one wants, then I
will, at the end of my time upon this Earth, stand before God and say,
"I spent the last N years of my life doing everything I could for You,
by name, asking for help, finding nobody to assist me, nobody to use
the offerings I created using the skills and talents You gave me, yet
I persisted because from within my heart I was doing it for You."

It is enough to live this way for the Lord.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> It is enough to live this way for the Lord.

So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this processor? 
  For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features of 
the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?

-- 

Rick

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:07:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > It is enough to live this way for the Lord.
> 
> So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this
> processor? 
> For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features
> of the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?

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

40-bits takes you to 1 Terabyte.  If more is needed later, the
LibSF 386-x48 can be created.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

On 12/2/2014 11:10 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:07:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> It is enough to live this way for the Lord.
>>
>> So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this
>> processor?
>> For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features
>> of the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?
>
> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/eflags.png
>
> 40-bits takes you to 1 Terabyte.  If more is needed later, the
> LibSF 386-x48 can be created.

So you have a requirement for 1 TB of address space.  What are your 
other requirements, but more importantly, what is driving those 
requirements?

-- 

Rick

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:16:29 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 11:10 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:07:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> It is enough to live this way for the Lord.
> >>
> >> So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this
> >> processor?
> >> For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features
> >> of the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?
> >
> > https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/eflags.png
> >
> > 40-bits takes you to 1 Terabyte.  If more is needed later, the
> > LibSF 386-x48 can be created.
> 
> So you have a requirement for 1 TB of address space.  What are your 
> other requirements, but more importantly, what is driving those 
> requirements?

I have no particular hardware requirements except that from the ground
up it be a love offering unto the Lord.  I have a background in x86
space from before I was a Christian, and I'm taking that knowledge
forward, coupled with the things I've wanted or wished for in x86
space throughout my career.

Ultimately I desire to have a CPU, all motherboard resources, any
BIOS or firmware, the kernel, operating system, and all end-user
software, be created from the LibSF offerings, with all of it being
given unto the world without restriction, as a foundation or base
upon which to build.

I would like to be able to work with 14nm process technologies, and
create CPUs that would outperform anything that exists ... but it's
not the place the Lord has me.  I am Rick C. Hodgin from Indiana.
No riches.  No skills in such things.  I am waiting for others to
come forward and offer up those things which they have in a similar
way so that we can walk together, arm in arm, for the Lord.  I
believe very strongly that we could give unto the world as good or
better as anything else that's out there because we'd be serving
the Lord, listening to Him, doing what we do for Him, not taking
shortcuts, not being pressed for quarterly fiscal deadlines, but
rather being able to do it right because it's our best we desire
to give.

It's up to Him though.  I've been working on this project for over
28 months.  I haven't found anyone to help me yet, though several
people have been interested at various times, none of them had the
necessary C/C++ coding skills to contribute.  I've contacted
Christian universities, posted on forums, etc.  But, I am hopeful.
:-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

On 12/2/2014 11:27 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:16:29 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/2/2014 11:10 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:07:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>> It is enough to live this way for the Lord.
>>>>
>>>> So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this
>>>> processor?
>>>> For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features
>>>> of the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?
>>>
>>> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/eflags.png
>>>
>>> 40-bits takes you to 1 Terabyte.  If more is needed later, the
>>> LibSF 386-x48 can be created.
>>
>> So you have a requirement for 1 TB of address space.  What are your
>> other requirements, but more importantly, what is driving those
>> requirements?
>
> I have no particular hardware requirements except that from the ground
> up it be a love offering unto the Lord.  I have a background in x86
> space from before I was a Christian, and I'm taking that knowledge
> forward, coupled with the things I've wanted or wished for in x86
> space throughout my career.
>
> Ultimately I desire to have a CPU, all motherboard resources, any
> BIOS or firmware, the kernel, operating system, and all end-user
> software, be created from the LibSF offerings, with all of it being
> given unto the world without restriction, as a foundation or base
> upon which to build.

I'm not familiar with LibSF.  I assume you don't mean, "Libsf is a stack 
fingerprinting library" which I found on the web.


> I would like to be able to work with 14nm process technologies, and
> create CPUs that would outperform anything that exists ... but it's
> not the place the Lord has me.  I am Rick C. Hodgin from Indiana.
> No riches.  No skills in such things.  I am waiting for others to
> come forward and offer up those things which they have in a similar
> way so that we can walk together, arm in arm, for the Lord.  I
> believe very strongly that we could give unto the world as good or
> better as anything else that's out there because we'd be serving
> the Lord, listening to Him, doing what we do for Him, not taking
> shortcuts, not being pressed for quarterly fiscal deadlines, but
> rather being able to do it right because it's our best we desire
> to give.

That's the part I don't understand.  Here you say you are, "listening to 
Him", but how does that turn into defining a CPU? Why/how is the CPU you 
are designing any better for "Him" or anyone else than any other CPU you 
might design?


> It's up to Him though.  I've been working on this project for over
> 28 months.  I haven't found anyone to help me yet, though several
> people have been interested at various times, none of them had the
> necessary C/C++ coding skills to contribute.  I've contacted
> Christian universities, posted on forums, etc.  But, I am hopeful.
> :-)

Maybe if you find a way to express the motivation and the guiding 
principles so that others can understand.

-- 

Rick

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 12:16:26 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 11:27 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:16:29 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2014 11:10 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:07:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> >>>> On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>>>> It is enough to live this way for the Lord.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this
> >>>> processor?
> >>>> For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features
> >>>> of the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/eflags.png
> >>>
> >>> 40-bits takes you to 1 Terabyte.  If more is needed later, the
> >>> LibSF 386-x48 can be created.
> >>
> >> So you have a requirement for 1 TB of address space.  What are your
> >> other requirements, but more importantly, what is driving those
> >> requirements?
> >
> > I have no particular hardware requirements except that from the ground
> > up it be a love offering unto the Lord.  I have a background in x86
> > space from before I was a Christian, and I'm taking that knowledge
> > forward, coupled with the things I've wanted or wished for in x86
> > space throughout my career.
> >
> > Ultimately I desire to have a CPU, all motherboard resources, any
> > BIOS or firmware, the kernel, operating system, and all end-user
> > software, be created from the LibSF offerings, with all of it being
> > given unto the world without restriction, as a foundation or base
> > upon which to build.
> 
> I'm not familiar with LibSF.  I assume you don't mean, "Libsf is a stack 
> fingerprinting library" which I found on the web.

It's not important.

> > I would like to be able to work with 14nm process technologies, and
> > create CPUs that would outperform anything that exists ... but it's
> > not the place the Lord has me.  I am Rick C. Hodgin from Indiana.
> > No riches.  No skills in such things.  I am waiting for others to
> > come forward and offer up those things which they have in a similar
> > way so that we can walk together, arm in arm, for the Lord.  I
> > believe very strongly that we could give unto the world as good or
> > better as anything else that's out there because we'd be serving
> > the Lord, listening to Him, doing what we do for Him, not taking
> > shortcuts, not being pressed for quarterly fiscal deadlines, but
> > rather being able to do it right because it's our best we desire
> > to give.
> 
> That's the part I don't understand.  Here you say you are, "listening to 
> Him", but how does that turn into defining a CPU? Why/how is the CPU you 
> are designing any better for "Him" or anyone else than any other CPU you 
> might design?

It relates back to the nature of the offer, as it comes from the
inner drive of love and the offering of the things we posses given
back unto Him by our heart's desire.

> > It's up to Him though.  I've been working on this project for over
> > 28 months.  I haven't found anyone to help me yet, though several
> > people have been interested at various times, none of them had the
> > necessary C/C++ coding skills to contribute.  I've contacted
> > Christian universities, posted on forums, etc.  But, I am hopeful.
> > :-)
> 
> Maybe if you find a way to express the motivation and the guiding 
> principles so that others can understand.

They're there.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin