Composite NTSC TV output has some benefits: simple& cheap connector, dirt cheap cable that can transmit a long distance, universal input, cheap monitors
There's a lot of good stuff in Prop2 that has taken years to develop, and it would be a shame to abort now, in order to make something simpler. I think the fun factor will be very high. We need to finish and document, of course. Smartpins don't need to be that complicated and they are the only thing left to design, necessarily.
Something that strikes me on a recurring basis is that to make anything really new, original efforts have to be made. I'm sure that there are many simple, timeless concepts that could be introduced in any decade, to good effect.
Mainstream evolution in processors has followed one general direction. The ARM concept can sufficiently meet all anticipated expectations, in perpetuity, while never providing a new way to do anything. That's where things seem headed.
I used to have an XBox and Halo was amazing. It was so much fun that I waited for Halo II and then for Halo III, but when we got to Halo III, I suddenly realized I was just sick of it. While graphics and sound kept improving, the underlying gameplay didn't go anywhere, and I realized it was the same old stuff and may forever be. I found other games that were kind of neat, but the feeling on my brain was the same. It was like lots of calories, but no nutrition. I eventually just gave it all away to a realtor friend. Good riddance. The XBox One looks really cool, but I doubt the underlying experience has changed one iota. It just spies on you now. That seems to be the general trend in tech.
None of these "new" things, to me, have any respect for the kind of open-ended creativity that people yearn to adventure in. Everything feels like another gilded cage to get locked into. I'm not having any of it.
I hope that Prop2 will tickle people's brains in pleasantly unexpected ways. They should get the excited feeling that maybe what they are doing is illegal, because they're having too much freedom and being too powerful. I think, generally, people are so demoralized these days from being forced to acquiesce to so many constraints, while being railroaded, that they need a cooperative vehicle which doesn't dictate, but gives them a venue for their creativity and encourages them, so that they can bust out of the trap. That's what I want the Prop2 to do. If it does that, it should find sufficient applications and maybe even just adequate development system sales. We don't have to be anywhere near a major player to make it work.
I used to have an XBox and Halo was amazing. It was so much fun that I waited for Halo II and then for Halo III, but when we got to Halo III, I suddenly realized I was just sick of it.
This is my primary argument against the redefinition of addiction. (Addiction did not originally include activities.) When someone suggests that gambling, for example, be talked about like drugs.
I'm confident it's never an addiction when it's only an activity. Otherwise, every kid in the world is addicted to pretty much everything they do.
Chip,
Excellent set of thoughts - very moralistic approach too!
I share your vision. But sometimes you need to step back just a little to smell the roses.
Every once in a while someone comes up with a completely new and radical way to do something. Dyson cyclonic cleaner comes to mid and I know there are many others. Most often, they are from someone not intrinsically in that field, usually because they have precisely that old way of ding things.
This is why I, and others I am sure, love the Propeller Chip. It's different, it's easy to learn, and it's fun to play with - because you can do something simpler than with ALL OTHER micros and instantly see the results.
I am sure we will get the same buz from P2. But the P2 delay is taking its toll. Its justified I know.
Meanwhile, some of us just need a propeller fix now. I know you could do a P1+ in your sleep, its that simple. We could play with real chips. I don't want to design FPGA boards - I want to design and build propeller boards and then program them! In fact, I just stepped back to design some new P1 boards.
However, what is more concerning than my satisfaction, is that those commercial users who have been waiting in the winds for the next generation P1, mostly only require a P1+. They told you and Ken so. They won't wait forever, presuming they are still around today.
You have given me so much pleasure with the P1, I would hate to see your market shrivel up because you didn't do something you could do in your sleep, just for a matter of a week or two (or even a month) away from the P2. You would satisfy so many, and at the same time prove the OnSemi process which still actually hasn't been done. Most of this validation would be achieved in parallel while you are back working on the P2. If it works, fantastic, and Parallax has a new product(s) to sell and another revenue stream. If it fails, then it was going to fail in the P2 anyway. But if not done for a P1+, then then it would happen at the end of the P2 design, resulting in a big impact the P2 deliverables.
So, if I may be so bold then, if Parallax can do the P1+ now it would...
- Act as a proof of concept for the P2
- Significantly reduce the time to market of the P2 (if the process fails)
- Kudos for Parallax for a new chip in the P1 family
- And finally, but most importantly for Parallax, a new product stream for sale plus ROI.
On the composite video subject, I'm repeatedly surprised at how good modern TVs are with it. And they're retaining it, probably because it's so cheap a connector. I've seen a quick drop off in HD15 VGA on new monitors and TVs. DVI-I covers VGA signalling for monitors and TVs are just losing it altogether.
On a side note; DVI also goes to higher resolution than HDMI, 2560x1600@60 vs 1920x1200@60, so I wouldn't be surprised to see DVI outlive HDMI on monitors. I'm already using DisplayPort on my seven year old desktop PC.
On a side note; DVI also goes to higher resolution than HDMI, 2560x1600@60 vs 1920x1200@60, so I wouldn't be surprised to see DVI outlive HDMI on monitors.
I doubt that will happen. It's all about connector size and cable bulk. I'd be willing to bet there'll be an HDMI2 before DVI ever has a chance to regain ascendency. It seems everything is about HDMI these days -- even my little ChromeCast dongle that cost only $39. IMO, VGA and DVI are yesterday's news.
The new video hardware is fantastic! So are the examples of its use that have already appeared. Video capability was what first attracted me to the P1 and I'm almost certain it will be what fires me up about the P2. I never wanted 512 K of hub. But as a framebuffer...
On a side note; DVI also goes to higher resolution than HDMI, 2560x1600@60 vs 1920x1200@60, so I wouldn't be surprised to see DVI outlive HDMI on monitors.
I doubt that will happen. It's all about connector size and cable bulk. I'd be willing to bet there'll be an HDMI2 before DVI ever has a chance to regain ascendency....
Yup, connector size and cable bulk dominate.
I think the USB-C has video options in the pinout trees, and that is a compact connector.
DVI and HDMI are interchangeable signal wise except that DVI has a second channel. So, in theory, any speed updates to HDMI should bring DVI to double whatever HDMI is spec'd for.
For example, a passive cable with HDMI to a DVI monitor would be no issue. That gets the small plug for whatever that's worth.
3) I just can't do anything with it because I don't have a good FPGA and I have no idea when the real chips will be available.
4) I will have to wait for cheap dev boards become available...which might not happen. I don't expect to see a through-hole version. :-D
You can do P2 testing & development with a more modest FPGA board, and there will be 0.1 " breakout modules available when the chip is real.
Once the final P2 image settles down*, there may even be possible a smaller 'standard module' that can have a P2 version and a FPGA version, to enable pre-silicon field deployment.
it is still undefined what size is needed for each of P2-COG+Cordic+SmartPins.
You can also use Dave Hein's spinsim without having to buy anything.
DVI and HDMI are no longer identical if you look at the latest HDMI. HDMI 1.4 does 4k at 24Hz, and HDMI 2.0 does 4K at 60Hz and also supports 5k.
Displayport does too (and more). And newer machines (and GPU cards) are coming with this instead of DVI more and more.
DVI is on it's way out as a port. Also, as far as I know DVI hasn't been updated with the higher speeds or newer modes that HDMI and Displayport support.
DVI and HDMI are no longer identical if you look at the latest HDMI.
There's no reason to exclude DVI there ... but where there's a will there's always way I guess. On that note, I guess VGA is intentionally being dumped then.
That leaves composite as the only universal solution from now on.
Hopefully the Parallax team doesn't read the forums! For your team of who've supported the project for so long this thread would be a really tough read. While the Parallax team has committed their careers, customers have similar livelihoods and dreams around their product designs. My main reasoning for maintaining an ever-positive spirit is being thankful for what already we've created, not the additional opportunity that has not been realized with a next-edition Propeller which has become the focus (I'm worn out with the P2 terminology and think it shouldn't be used anymore, as the very definition of what a P2 must include may be the reason it ceases to exist). The only reason some people are in a state of lament is because we've made promises we're not keeping. If they didn't know what we're doing because we didn't talk about it then there would be few ill feelings. But of course we get their support and loyalty in exchange for being open. At this point, it's all out there anyway.
First, simplify.
I am 100% supportive of getting this project done, ASAP. I'd refine the specification downward and publish it. Work with your team to put it on a schedule, identifying the steps and costs (this is where I help). Customers who use the largest volume of chips have asked for:
- code protect
- more RAM
- more speed
- more I/O pins
There's a long list of additional requests, such as high-quality video, A/D, counter features, etc. I think the issue now is that you've got Verilog code for SmartPin, so any simplification to the SmartPin means going back to Treehouse for another round of layout with reduced Verilog. . .or let that extra Verilog live and we don't talk about it.
Write a specification, stick to it, and make small incremental improvements after each successful fabrication.
All of our Propeller customers should be very thankful for our Education team in Parallax. Without their work this R&D effort would not be possible. Of course, though, many of our successes involve the Propeller 1.
As for the rest, remember novel things are novel. They aren't always 1, 2, 3, and that's due to how it all can play out. Best thing we can do right now is exercise what I'm seeing as a pretty darn complete design. We wouldn't want to miss something crucial.
I'm not sure how this all works out, but if you simplified the "P2" design to exclude some of the SmartPin you're probably also wanting to deal with reducing the Verilog that's currently in layout by Treehouse, right? Am I close?
If the SmartPin-specific Verilog isn't a die hog, what about just leaving it in the design and making the SmartPin the SimplePin? Strip it down to bare essentials and leave some of the SmartPin-specific Verilog in place for the third generation Propeller. Or, are things so integrated that you can't do this?
I'm not sure how this all works out, but if you simplified the "P2" design to exclude some of the SmartPin you're probably also wanting to deal with reducing the Verilog that's currently in layout by Treehouse, right? Am I close?
If the SmartPin-specific Verilog isn't a die hog, what about just leaving it in the design and making the SmartPin the SimplePin? Strip it down to bare essentials and leave some of the SmartPin-specific Verilog in place for the third generation Propeller. Or, are things so integrated that you can't do this?
Ken Gracey
Treehouse is laying out the pad, which is digital in its interface. The Verilog logic mates up to that. The pin doesn't contain any smarts, just mode and state signals. The smartpins will animate those signals, freeing the cogs from needing to micromanage the pins. What's needed for a minimal smartpin is maybe one third of what a fancy smartpin will require.
Everything inside the pad frame will be synthesized by Treehouse.
I think the issue now is that you've got Verilog code for SmartPin, so any simplification to the SmartPin means going back to Treehouse for another round of layout with reduced Verilog. . .or let that extra Verilog live and we don't talk about it.
You seem to be thinking about the custom PAD designs with DAC and Comparators etc.
Whilst that is smart, it is not the P2 context smart pin, which is a small Verilog cell that sits between the custom pad and the COGs
It is that Verilog that is still to be written, and tested, but the broad spec list is done.
Speaking of Treehouse and their custom layouts, has that been die proven yet ?
ie Have you done a shuttle run to probe test their Pin cells, DACS, ADC, PLLs, crystal oscillator etc
- ie all the important stuff that is not verilog, but which could derail a P2 fab run.....
I'm worn out with the P2 terminology and think it shouldn't be used anymore, as the very definition of what a P2 must include may be the reason it ceases to exist.
I totally agree. "P2" has accumulated too much baggage and unwarranted expectations. It's time to shed the burden demanded by heritage and let the apple fall a little farther from the tree.
Don't take this the wrong way but I chuckled when I reread the header for this topic. I was reminded of a helicopter pilot I worked with up in Alaska years ago. From time to time I would use the 'we' word usually in connection with some project that needed to get done. His response was always the same. "We! What do you mean we? You got a mouse in your pocket?"
Ken,
I want to be on record, that while I have put forward reasons for the P1+, and have pointed out that I see the P2 as not being close yet, I am in awe of what Chip and his helpers have achieved. This also means the whole Parallax team, for without them there would be never be any P2 FPGA designs, let alone a P2 sometime in the future. And the forumistas have contributed too, even if we sometimes ask for the kitchen sink!
The P2 is already way ahead of the 80486. And how many people and how many man-years did that take to design!
Again we have had feature creep. Unfortunately they have (mostly?) been fantastic features to have. None of us just want the P2 to really be a P1+. If you were one of the Chip manufacturers then you would have done the P1+ a long ago. Then again, that company would never have come up with a P1 in the first place because it is basically too radical for them.
Maybe the Smart Pins features can be simple. Get the P2 prototype chips on their way. While that's happening maybe continue on the Smart Pins in case there are bugs in the prototype, in which case the extras could be added too. This what you call a recipe to ensure there are no bugs found
Speaking of Treehouse and their custom layouts, has that been die proven yet ?
ie Have you done a shuttle run to probe test their Pin cells, DACS, ADC, PLLs, crystal oscillator etc
- ie all the important stuff that is not verilog, but which could derail a P2 fab run.....
I think a pad-ring version was run prior the full version that failed. I guess that doesn't count as that was pre-Treehouse, and may have been pre-On Semi even.
Comments
Thanks for expressing your thoughts.
There's a lot of good stuff in Prop2 that has taken years to develop, and it would be a shame to abort now, in order to make something simpler. I think the fun factor will be very high. We need to finish and document, of course. Smartpins don't need to be that complicated and they are the only thing left to design, necessarily.
Something that strikes me on a recurring basis is that to make anything really new, original efforts have to be made. I'm sure that there are many simple, timeless concepts that could be introduced in any decade, to good effect.
Mainstream evolution in processors has followed one general direction. The ARM concept can sufficiently meet all anticipated expectations, in perpetuity, while never providing a new way to do anything. That's where things seem headed.
I used to have an XBox and Halo was amazing. It was so much fun that I waited for Halo II and then for Halo III, but when we got to Halo III, I suddenly realized I was just sick of it. While graphics and sound kept improving, the underlying gameplay didn't go anywhere, and I realized it was the same old stuff and may forever be. I found other games that were kind of neat, but the feeling on my brain was the same. It was like lots of calories, but no nutrition. I eventually just gave it all away to a realtor friend. Good riddance. The XBox One looks really cool, but I doubt the underlying experience has changed one iota. It just spies on you now. That seems to be the general trend in tech.
None of these "new" things, to me, have any respect for the kind of open-ended creativity that people yearn to adventure in. Everything feels like another gilded cage to get locked into. I'm not having any of it.
I hope that Prop2 will tickle people's brains in pleasantly unexpected ways. They should get the excited feeling that maybe what they are doing is illegal, because they're having too much freedom and being too powerful. I think, generally, people are so demoralized these days from being forced to acquiesce to so many constraints, while being railroaded, that they need a cooperative vehicle which doesn't dictate, but gives them a venue for their creativity and encourages them, so that they can bust out of the trap. That's what I want the Prop2 to do. If it does that, it should find sufficient applications and maybe even just adequate development system sales. We don't have to be anywhere near a major player to make it work.
This is my primary argument against the redefinition of addiction. (Addiction did not originally include activities.) When someone suggests that gambling, for example, be talked about like drugs.
I'm confident it's never an addiction when it's only an activity. Otherwise, every kid in the world is addicted to pretty much everything they do.
Excellent set of thoughts - very moralistic approach too!
I share your vision. But sometimes you need to step back just a little to smell the roses.
Every once in a while someone comes up with a completely new and radical way to do something. Dyson cyclonic cleaner comes to mid and I know there are many others. Most often, they are from someone not intrinsically in that field, usually because they have precisely that old way of ding things.
This is why I, and others I am sure, love the Propeller Chip. It's different, it's easy to learn, and it's fun to play with - because you can do something simpler than with ALL OTHER micros and instantly see the results.
I am sure we will get the same buz from P2. But the P2 delay is taking its toll. Its justified I know.
Meanwhile, some of us just need a propeller fix now. I know you could do a P1+ in your sleep, its that simple. We could play with real chips. I don't want to design FPGA boards - I want to design and build propeller boards and then program them! In fact, I just stepped back to design some new P1 boards.
However, what is more concerning than my satisfaction, is that those commercial users who have been waiting in the winds for the next generation P1, mostly only require a P1+. They told you and Ken so. They won't wait forever, presuming they are still around today.
You have given me so much pleasure with the P1, I would hate to see your market shrivel up because you didn't do something you could do in your sleep, just for a matter of a week or two (or even a month) away from the P2. You would satisfy so many, and at the same time prove the OnSemi process which still actually hasn't been done. Most of this validation would be achieved in parallel while you are back working on the P2. If it works, fantastic, and Parallax has a new product(s) to sell and another revenue stream. If it fails, then it was going to fail in the P2 anyway. But if not done for a P1+, then then it would happen at the end of the P2 design, resulting in a big impact the P2 deliverables.
So, if I may be so bold then, if Parallax can do the P1+ now it would...
- Act as a proof of concept for the P2
- Significantly reduce the time to market of the P2 (if the process fails)
- Kudos for Parallax for a new chip in the P1 family
- And finally, but most importantly for Parallax, a new product stream for sale plus ROI.
On a side note; DVI also goes to higher resolution than HDMI, 2560x1600@60 vs 1920x1200@60, so I wouldn't be surprised to see DVI outlive HDMI on monitors. I'm already using DisplayPort on my seven year old desktop PC.
Doesn't HDMI do QHD (3840x2400) ?
-Phil
?! Really ?!
Maybe someone should tell OnSemi this ?
Yup, connector size and cable bulk dominate.
I think the USB-C has video options in the pinout trees, and that is a compact connector.
For example, a passive cable with HDMI to a DVI monitor would be no issue. That gets the small plug for whatever that's worth.
Displayport does too (and more). And newer machines (and GPU cards) are coming with this instead of DVI more and more.
DVI is on it's way out as a port. Also, as far as I know DVI hasn't been updated with the higher speeds or newer modes that HDMI and Displayport support.
Displayport does support 5K and even 8K now with 1.3.
That leaves composite as the only universal solution from now on.
First, simplify.
I am 100% supportive of getting this project done, ASAP. I'd refine the specification downward and publish it. Work with your team to put it on a schedule, identifying the steps and costs (this is where I help). Customers who use the largest volume of chips have asked for:
- code protect
- more RAM
- more speed
- more I/O pins
There's a long list of additional requests, such as high-quality video, A/D, counter features, etc. I think the issue now is that you've got Verilog code for SmartPin, so any simplification to the SmartPin means going back to Treehouse for another round of layout with reduced Verilog. . .or let that extra Verilog live and we don't talk about it.
Write a specification, stick to it, and make small incremental improvements after each successful fabrication.
All of our Propeller customers should be very thankful for our Education team in Parallax. Without their work this R&D effort would not be possible. Of course, though, many of our successes involve the Propeller 1.
Ken Gracey
As for the rest, remember novel things are novel. They aren't always 1, 2, 3, and that's due to how it all can play out. Best thing we can do right now is exercise what I'm seeing as a pretty darn complete design. We wouldn't want to miss something crucial.
No. I want to get the streamer docs done tomorrow, then the colorspace converter, then check into what the pixel mixer would need. Then, smartpins.
If the SmartPin-specific Verilog isn't a die hog, what about just leaving it in the design and making the SmartPin the SimplePin? Strip it down to bare essentials and leave some of the SmartPin-specific Verilog in place for the third generation Propeller. Or, are things so integrated that you can't do this?
Ken Gracey
Treehouse is laying out the pad, which is digital in its interface. The Verilog logic mates up to that. The pin doesn't contain any smarts, just mode and state signals. The smartpins will animate those signals, freeing the cogs from needing to micromanage the pins. What's needed for a minimal smartpin is maybe one third of what a fancy smartpin will require.
Everything inside the pad frame will be synthesized by Treehouse.
Lots to do and test...
Whilst that is smart, it is not the P2 context smart pin, which is a small Verilog cell that sits between the custom pad and the COGs
It is that Verilog that is still to be written, and tested, but the broad spec list is done.
Speaking of Treehouse and their custom layouts, has that been die proven yet ?
ie Have you done a shuttle run to probe test their Pin cells, DACS, ADC, PLLs, crystal oscillator etc
- ie all the important stuff that is not verilog, but which could derail a P2 fab run.....
-Phil
Don't take this the wrong way but I chuckled when I reread the header for this topic. I was reminded of a helicopter pilot I worked with up in Alaska years ago. From time to time I would use the 'we' word usually in connection with some project that needed to get done. His response was always the same. "We! What do you mean we? You got a mouse in your pocket?"
I want to be on record, that while I have put forward reasons for the P1+, and have pointed out that I see the P2 as not being close yet, I am in awe of what Chip and his helpers have achieved. This also means the whole Parallax team, for without them there would be never be any P2 FPGA designs, let alone a P2 sometime in the future. And the forumistas have contributed too, even if we sometimes ask for the kitchen sink!
The P2 is already way ahead of the 80486. And how many people and how many man-years did that take to design!
Again we have had feature creep. Unfortunately they have (mostly?) been fantastic features to have. None of us just want the P2 to really be a P1+. If you were one of the Chip manufacturers then you would have done the P1+ a long ago. Then again, that company would never have come up with a P1 in the first place because it is basically too radical for them.
Maybe the Smart Pins features can be simple. Get the P2 prototype chips on their way. While that's happening maybe continue on the Smart Pins in case there are bugs in the prototype, in which case the extras could be added too.
This what you call a recipe to ensure there are no bugs found
I think a pad-ring version was run prior the full version that failed. I guess that doesn't count as that was pre-Treehouse, and may have been pre-On Semi even.