I thought you would do an emulation of the Ym2413a!
One of my favourites. : ]
I'm aiming more WaveTable Synthesis with audio sample compression and built in channel effects for the Prop2.
The fact that cogs now have a multiply operation will help a lot with realtime audio processing. : ]
Man, I hope you're joking... I can speak of myself, but be sure "the nerve of asking for two" was done in the perspective of getting 1500 chips packaged and put on boards.
Yep, I knew about the 1500 and was totally joking, which I tried to make clear by my over-the-top fake disgust and "ha-ha." I just tacked that comment on to the end in an effort to bring a smile to someone's day with a reference to a Seinfeld TV episode. Apologies for not being more clear that I was kidding. Out of an abundance of caution (as opposed to any feeling of guilt for trying to inject some humor) I have edited my post and struck through the potentially offensive text (or text that could be taken the wrong way). And even if we only were to get one tenth of that 1500 boards, there are people here that could put two or more of them to good use in terms of development and testing. A chip could easily be lost in testing to extreme, for example.
I don't need to be on for 2.. Just to make sure everyone gets a chance. I have some ideas, but in view of the limited time I have to work on this, perhaps I should be at the bottom of the list as well
I have some ideas, but in view of the limited time I have to work on this, perhaps I should be at the bottom of the list as well
I guess I should say the same thing unless Parallax wants to prioritize PropGCC work. My own ideas probably aren't that important for verifying the chip. Actually, there is really no reason I can't just use my Prop123-A9 board.
I cannot justify having two boards as there are much more productive testers that just only asked for one, and resources are limited. So please, just count on me for one board. And put me on the bottom of the list.
Anyone on the P2 early interest list live in the Los Angeles area?
Might be good to collaborate / share early boards when people are geographically close.
... unless Parallax wants to prioritize PropGCC work.
From what I've seen throughout the last couple years, Parallax will prioritize PropGCC from the get go of P2 tooling development. And from what Ken said a few weeks ago, that should be coming any day. Last we heard from him on the matter was that he'd be scheduling a meeting for PropGCC devs at the beginning of November. We're getting close!
I guess I should say the same thing unless Parallax wants to prioritize PropGCC work. My own ideas probably aren't that important for verifying the chip. Actually, there is really no reason I can't just use my Prop123-A9 board.
Yes and no.
If I were Parallax, I'd ensure anyone writing P2 Tool-flow software did get a real P2, because as is often seen on here, the end to end deployment of software has many issues around download/reset and just general handshake delays.
It also gets many more experienced eyes, all watching P2's startup and loading areas, catching those 'That's strange..' moments.
That type of cold-start-and-go testing is not so easy to manage on a FPGA system.
... unless Parallax wants to prioritize PropGCC work.
From what I've seen throughout the last couple years, Parallax will prioritize PropGCC from the get go of P2 tooling development. And from what Ken said a few weeks ago, that should be coming any day. Last we heard from him on the matter was that he'd be scheduling a meeting for PropGCC devs at the beginning of November. We're getting close!
I think there is some question about the best way to move forward. There is PropGCC but others have suggested LLVM and there are a number of projects including Dave Hein's that involved building a compiler from scratch. I think Parallax first needs to decide which approach to take before we line up volunteers to work on this. That is likely going to be the topic of the meeting.
Put me at the very bottom of the list please. There are others that can start doing useful things much earlier than I can.
Same here. As much as I want a parallax-p2-eval-board and a P2 chip for a project I am starting I don't really need them as it is very unlikely it would make a contribution to testing the chip.
Put me at the very bottom of the list please. There are others that can start doing useful things much earlier than I can.
Same here. As much as I want a parallax-p2-eval-board and a P2 chip for a project I am starting I don't really need them as it is very unlikely it would make a contribution to testing the chip.
I thought you would do an emulation of the Ym2413a!
One of my favourites. : ]
I'm aiming more WaveTable Synthesis with audio sample compression and built in channel effects for the Prop2.
The fact that cogs now have a multiply operation will help a lot with realtime audio processing. : ]
FM synthesizer maybe? Good universal FM Synth not limited to "algorithms" and sine wave... I started one for PC now (alpha stage code here: https://github.com/pik33/20180824-retro-fm - needs some sample files not in the repository, if someone wants to try this, please PM for details ) , as it is now the thing is very CPU power hungry, but P2 seems to be a good chip for this type of things when properly coded in asm.
Because it's late at night and I got nothing better to do now that the kids are asleep, I totalled up all the people up who asked to receive a P2 or P2 board.
79 People have asked.
Some asked for multiplies so the total requested P2s comes out to: 97
I changed my request to a single board, since the limited supply.
I'm doing DSP/Audio stuff much like I did on the P1. So I only need one board really to test that out.
People who've asked:
...
MJB
...
I will not be able to sufficiently contribute right now -
so I'll be waiting for second revision next year.
gives a second board for a high speed serial test for someone ..
I want to do device driver development, so I think I'm an appropriate recipient for _one_ board.
But I would like to suggest that Parallax needs to decide what the official development platform and language are for the P2. I invested a lot of time and energy into Spin, and then one day ... ? This needs to not happen again. If it's going to be gcc, it needs to be gcc all the way down. Yes, P2 will support alternate boot environments, but Parallax needs to decide what the OBEX is in so that we can target it. I don't care if it's Spin or C++ or Fortran, but I want the other developers to be able to load and work with what I produce. If I'm working in Spin and they're working in C, that doesn't work, and it's one reason new work on P1 drivers has all but halted.
The big reason Arduino succeeded isn't that it's such a good platform; I work with a guy who is a big Ardweenie and he constantly complains about the limitations of the 8-bit single-core processor, and he winces when I remind him what I can do on the Propeller. But the Arduino succeeded because every single one, even those based on far more different hardware than a Propeller will ever represent, can be developed and downloaded by a common IDE that is the same for everybody. If I develop something cool and put it in the OBEX or whatever takes its place, I want everybody who owns a propeller based product to be able to load, edit, play with, and download it to their board. P1 succeeded in part because for years the PropTool was that IDE. Please make sure we know what that tool will be before the P2 rolls out.
Comments
I'm aiming more WaveTable Synthesis with audio sample compression and built in channel effects for the Prop2.
The fact that cogs now have a multiply operation will help a lot with realtime audio processing. : ]
Just one needed for me.
Might be good to collaborate / share early boards when people are geographically close.
I think I might "need" one at some point for helping with tools dev, but I could probably get by with the Prop123-A9 board.
From what I've seen throughout the last couple years, Parallax will prioritize PropGCC from the get go of P2 tooling development. And from what Ken said a few weeks ago, that should be coming any day. Last we heard from him on the matter was that he'd be scheduling a meeting for PropGCC devs at the beginning of November. We're getting close!
Me too, please.
If I were Parallax, I'd ensure anyone writing P2 Tool-flow software did get a real P2, because as is often seen on here, the end to end deployment of software has many issues around download/reset and just general handshake delays.
It also gets many more experienced eyes, all watching P2's startup and loading areas, catching those 'That's strange..' moments.
That type of cold-start-and-go testing is not so easy to manage on a FPGA system.
Same here. As much as I want a parallax-p2-eval-board and a P2 chip for a project I am starting I don't really need them as it is very unlikely it would make a contribution to testing the chip.
Same here. As much as I want a parallax-p2-eval-board and a P2 chip for a project I am starting I don't really need them as it is very unlikely it would make a contribution to testing the chip.
forums.parallax.com/discussion/comment/1450985#Comment_1450985
FM synthesizer maybe? Good universal FM Synth not limited to "algorithms" and sine wave... I started one for PC now (alpha stage code here: https://github.com/pik33/20180824-retro-fm - needs some sample files not in the repository, if someone wants to try this, please PM for details ) , as it is now the thing is very CPU power hungry, but P2 seems to be a good chip for this type of things when properly coded in asm.
I agree... if they are going out for free. I only need one(1), but I'm going to ruin it. I always ruin at least one of everything:)
If there is a reasonable cost... I'd take everything left over:)
Fabulous progress.
I will not be able to sufficiently contribute right now -
so I'll be waiting for second revision next year.
gives a second board for a high speed serial test for someone ..
But I would like to suggest that Parallax needs to decide what the official development platform and language are for the P2. I invested a lot of time and energy into Spin, and then one day ... ? This needs to not happen again. If it's going to be gcc, it needs to be gcc all the way down. Yes, P2 will support alternate boot environments, but Parallax needs to decide what the OBEX is in so that we can target it. I don't care if it's Spin or C++ or Fortran, but I want the other developers to be able to load and work with what I produce. If I'm working in Spin and they're working in C, that doesn't work, and it's one reason new work on P1 drivers has all but halted.
The big reason Arduino succeeded isn't that it's such a good platform; I work with a guy who is a big Ardweenie and he constantly complains about the limitations of the 8-bit single-core processor, and he winces when I remind him what I can do on the Propeller. But the Arduino succeeded because every single one, even those based on far more different hardware than a Propeller will ever represent, can be developed and downloaded by a common IDE that is the same for everybody. If I develop something cool and put it in the OBEX or whatever takes its place, I want everybody who owns a propeller based product to be able to load, edit, play with, and download it to their board. P1 succeeded in part because for years the PropTool was that IDE. Please make sure we know what that tool will be before the P2 rolls out.
85 People have asked.
Some asked for multiplies so the total requested P2s comes out to: 98
People who've asked: (First Round Contribution - Drivers, DevTools, Hardware Testing)
dMajo
lostcauz
whicker
zappman
garryj
Heater.
78rpm
Ahle2
Ale
Amaral
Bean x2
Bob Lawrence (VE1RLL)
Cluso99
Coley
Dave Hein
DaveJenson x2
David Betz
DavidZemon
Ding-Batty x2
DiverBob
Electrodude
Jim Fouch x2
John Abshier x2
Jon_Thomasson
K2
LeoD x2
MByron x2
Mickster
Mike Green
PropGuy2
Publison
Rayman x2
Roy Eltham
Seairth
T Chap
Teva McMillan x2
TonyB_
TrapperBob
Tubular
Whit
Ym2413a
__red__
avsa242
banjo
cheezus x2
ctwardell
dgately
evanh
fixmax x2
fpalmans
frank freedman
hkiela
ikemschn
iseries
jac_goudsmit
jmg
ke4pjw
marrokev x2
marsman2020
msrobots
octetta
pedward x2
pik33
pmrobert x2
potatohead
rjo__ x2
rosco_pc
samuell
thej
ti85
tritonium
tw1
twm47099
veluxllc
People who've asked: (Will Contribute Later, Applications, Products, Etc)
JRetSapDoog
AntoineDoinel
R Baggett
Ramon
Tor
wmosscrop
Genetix
kwinn
MJB
localroger
tomcrawford
But let's not confuse IDEs, which are basically editors, with languages, libraries, compilers.
I only looked into the P1 when I found I did not need Windows and the Propeller Tool to use it.
I'd like to think that Spin is Spin and that Spin code from the P1 will build and run just fine on the P2.
I have no idea if that is on the table or not.
That's awesome.
I'm a linux user, so I like platform independence
I had dismissed the P1 as being a) Too weird, and b) dependent on a Windows IDE.
Then I discovered the P1 assembler by Cliff Biffle : https://github.com/cbiffle/propasm
Jees, that was 12 years ago...
Then, luckily came Homespun and BST.
I know, time flies.