Shop Learn
Thoughts on propeller from arduino side - Page 5 — Parallax Forums

Thoughts on propeller from arduino side

1235»

Comments

  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2014-04-30 12:45
    Mike Green wrote: »
    When I was an undergraduate at Case Institute of Technology, the university computer center had a Univac 1107. They also had an operational Univac I which one of the railroads leased for keeping track of their freight cars. They had their own Univac I which was running all the time and not up to handling their freight volume, so they went to multiprocessing (two Univac Is) for the throughput and redundancy. Talk about legacy maintenance. The Univac I was actually up more than the 1107.

    I'm not sure how we got from Arduino and Propellers to UNIVAC 1100's but I'll always talk about those.

    The multiprocessing Univac I must have worked so well that they decided multiprocessing was the future. The 1108 followed the 1107 and soon, it had a multiprocessor version. From there on out, you could always get a multiprocessor 1100 in some configuration or another. They were true symmetrical multiprocessors and really fun beasties to work on. The most fun I've ever had and still got paid for it!!

    Which brings me back to the Propeller - the multiprocessor capabilities are one of the things that keeps me playing with the Prop and anticipating the new chip. I used to have a customer with a $1M mainframe to have this kind of fun!!
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2014-05-01 09:04
    JonnyMac wrote: »
    ..immediately remembering that word means something else down under (double-entendre not intended)...

    UK, too.

    Jon, you were supposed to say "your smile," even if you were thinking something else!
  • JonnyMacJonnyMac Posts: 7,554
    edited 2014-05-01 14:01
    Jon, you were supposed to say "your smile," even if you were thinking something else!


    I was young and stupid. I'm no longer young.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,170
    edited 2014-05-04 18:53
    I took way too long for this. Sorry David.

    Some samples of cool SPIN + PASM DAT section specification methods:
    foobard                 'memory fill
                            byte 2[300]
    
                            'some bytes aligned on word boundaries
                            byte word     5[64],4[64],3[64],2[64]
    
                            'some words aligned on long boundaries
                            word long  "ea", 3, $face, %10101[50]
    
                            'handy delimiters
                            long    $10_33_10_33, %%0123_01230123
    
                            'binary bitfield
                            long   %10_101101_10_1010_10100_0
    
                            'two bits per pixel
    one_number              byte   %%0123
    
                            'misc
                            byte  "hello", $3, %10101, %%0123
    
                            'some mask
                            long  %10110<<7 'shift pattern left 7 bits
                            long  %%230100000000>>4 'shift pattern right
    
                            'mix it up some
                            long  $43<<2, %%332211+480, (one_number<<5) & $ff00ff00
    

    Often, I find I can just think in whatever base I want, and express values in simple terms, doing basic booleans and math, etc... which is just handy. Many of the same expressions work to express literals in a program or DAT section. Once a person has learned a few simple things about expressions and how to specify various values, that info works all over the place. It's just nice.

    Sorry for the lame example, but it should serve to address the point I made earlier. Not a show stopper, but just a very nice to have.
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2014-05-04 20:21
    JonnyMac wrote: »
    I was young and stupid. I'm no longer young.
    LOL. Sounds like a country song. (I've written a few).
  • I looked at the link in the first post, and while there were some responses from the propeller experts, the last post is from June 30 with the OP complaining about the "failure" to release the P2 FPGA image by the "unofficial milestone" of Spring 2015 along with complaints about the lack of info from Parallax.

    I would like to recommend that some of the folks working with the FPGA images post a reply to that post giving explaining what's going on with the testing and development and some of the features that are being developed as well as a link to the relevant threads.

    Tom
  • TubularTubular Posts: 4,332
    edited 2016-03-02 23:54
    Tom, are you suggesting someone post an update over at the Adafruit forum?

    Best source of current information is the google doc(s) at the top of the FPGA image thread.

    I'm not sure people on other forums understand the nature of the open (but drawn out) development process we're engaged with here. I suspect best thing to do is finish the P2 chip and documentation and everything will be easier.
  • Definitely not a full update or anything that would give the impression that a series of updates should be expected.

    I was thinking just a post stating that the initial FPGA image was released in ?September? 2015, that open testing & ?development/optimization? are proceeding, and possibly mentioning some of the early user software development (e.g. Dave's, Peter's, etc), together to the link to the FPGA image thread. The reason is that the "final" post in the adafruit thread was so negative, and leaving it that way seems to reinforce the negativity.

    I'd try, but since my understanding of the process and how and what is being done is so low, I'd screw it up for sure.

    Just a suggestion.

    On the other hand, if that adafruit thread has essentially died, maybe just let it be.

    Tom
  • I would let it be.

    Given how things have gone, negative is super easy. Outside the group working on it, that is what will happen. People want stuff they can use today, right now. When they get excited, find out that's not the case, out comes the negative.

    Right now, people can use an FPGA and do a lot of interesting stuff, but it's testing, etc...

    When the real chip gets sent off for the shuttle run, we will have a firm set of specs to consider and the FPGA to learn about.

    When we get working chips, then it's time to talk it up, IMHO.

    Prior to that time, what's the point?

  • TubularTubular Posts: 4,332
    edited 2016-03-03 00:55
    Yeah I understand where you're coming from Tom. However I think that thread is sufficiently buried. There's quite a few out there (and here) that give out-of-date guidance

    The OP feels let down because the (somewhat contrived) unofficial deadline passed without Parallax giving regular-enough updates. That's understandable. I vaguely remember that long silence and at the end of it the "plan" turned out to be exactly what parallax said they were intending to do. But rumors and doubt grow during the silence
Sign In or Register to comment.