CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question - CP/M

This is a discussion on CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question - CP/M ; Hi, Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K System ?? Here part of the source code (hope don't violate with it any copyrights): /*--------------------------------------------------------------*\ | ccp.c CONSOLE COMMAND PROCESSOR v1.1 | | ========================= | | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

  1. CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    Hi,

    Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    System ??


    Here part of the source code (hope don't violate with it any copyrights):

    /*--------------------------------------------------------------*\
    | ccp.c CONSOLE COMMAND PROCESSOR v1.1 |
    | ========================= |
    | |
    | CP/M 68k: A CP/M derived operating system |
    | |
    | *================================================= =* |
    | *================================================= =* |
    | *THIS IS THE DUAL PROCESSOR,ROMABLE CP/M-68K SYSTEM* |
    | *================================================= =* |
    | *================================================= =* |
    | |
    | Description: |
    | ----------- |
    | The Console Command Processor is a |
    | distinct program which references |
    | the BDOS to provide a human-oriented |
    | interface for the console user to the |
    | information maintained by the BDOS on |
    | disk storage. |
    | |
    | (c) COPYRIGHT Digital Research 1983 |
    | all rights reserved |
    | |
    \*--------------------------------------------------------------*/


    regards
    roman

  2. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    > Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    > System ??


    Some older systems featured an Z80, 8080 or 8085 processor in addition
    to whatever
    processor the system was based on. Apple's, PC's, and C= 64s leap to
    mind as
    exaples of systems that had add-on h/w CP/M modules.

    Alternatively, the 8080 was often the 'base' system processor, with
    add-on cards
    providing the second processor. A Zenith system and various S-100
    systems fit this
    bill, IIRC.

    ROMable (I include this for completeness), refers to the ability of the
    code to be
    loaded into a ROM chip. That is, I believe the complete CP/M system
    could be
    kept in a boot ROM, and either copied itself into RAM or was a
    permanent,
    unwritable part of the memory map.

    TTFN,
    Tarkin


  3. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    On 2006-07-27, Tarkin wrote:
    > ROMable (I include this for completeness), refers to the ability of the
    > code to be
    > loaded into a ROM chip.


    Usually, ROMable refers to the ability of the code to be *executed*
    from ROM. Writable stuff is separated from code and constants so they
    can be placed in RAM.
    --
    roger ivie
    rivie@ridgenet.net

  4. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    > Usually, ROMable refers to the ability of the code to be *executed*
    > from ROM. Writable stuff is separated from code and constants so they
    > can be placed in RAM.


    Yeah,what he said! Erm, that's what I meant, anyway...

    Thanks for the clarification.

    TTFN,
    Tarkin


  5. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    so it not a reference to some sort of multiprocessing?
    because there were some multi cpu CP/M machines around ..
    such as some SANCO systems and I think DEC had something as well ..

    regards
    roman


    Tarkin wrote On 07/27/06 04:52,:
    >>Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    >>System ??

    >
    >
    > Some older systems featured an Z80, 8080 or 8085 processor in addition
    > to whatever
    > processor the system was based on. Apple's, PC's, and C= 64s leap to
    > mind as
    > exaples of systems that had add-on h/w CP/M modules.
    >
    > Alternatively, the 8080 was often the 'base' system processor, with
    > add-on cards
    > providing the second processor. A Zenith system and various S-100
    > systems fit this
    > bill, IIRC.
    >
    > ROMable (I include this for completeness), refers to the ability of the
    > code to be
    > loaded into a ROM chip. That is, I believe the complete CP/M system
    > could be
    > kept in a boot ROM, and either copied itself into RAM or was a
    > permanent,
    > unwritable part of the memory map.
    >
    > TTFN,
    > Tarkin
    >


  6. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:29:53 +0200, roman pollak
    wrote:

    >so it not a reference to some sort of multiprocessing?
    >because there were some multi cpu CP/M machines around ..
    >such as some SANCO systems and I think DEC had something as well ..
    >
    >regards
    >roman
    >
    >
    >Tarkin wrote On 07/27/06 04:52,:
    >>>Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    >>>System ??


    Compupro did 8085/8088, and their 68000 board could coexist with that
    or any of their other cards (Z80, through 80386). I happen to have
    the 68000, 8085/8088 and Z80 cards in a Compupro S100 crate.
    They don't run concurrently though cooperative interleaved operation
    is possible.

    There are several other z80/68000 single board systems as well.
    Back issues of Byte from the early to mid 80s would be informative.


    Allison

    >>
    >>
    >> Some older systems featured an Z80, 8080 or 8085 processor in addition
    >> to whatever
    >> processor the system was based on. Apple's, PC's, and C= 64s leap to
    >> mind as
    >> exaples of systems that had add-on h/w CP/M modules.
    >>
    >> Alternatively, the 8080 was often the 'base' system processor, with
    >> add-on cards
    >> providing the second processor. A Zenith system and various S-100
    >> systems fit this
    >> bill, IIRC.
    >>
    >> ROMable (I include this for completeness), refers to the ability of the
    >> code to be
    >> loaded into a ROM chip. That is, I believe the complete CP/M system
    >> could be
    >> kept in a boot ROM, and either copied itself into RAM or was a
    >> permanent,
    >> unwritable part of the memory map.
    >>
    >> TTFN,
    >> Tarkin
    >>



  7. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    Hmm..
    Back in the early 90s, we used to repair the Sanco systems, so we had
    schematics and others. Bud from what I remember, it was a real MP
    system (not shared memory, such as todays servers, but distributed
    system). It had a Z80 on each board. One board could handle one user.
    Over a bus, each of those Z80 could, pass data ( small shared memory) to
    the disk controller cpu (of course z80). This one handled the hard disk
    and floppy stuff.
    And it run CP/M On each of those z80 user boards run one instance of
    CP/M. The only thing I don't know, if the disk board handled i/o on high
    level ( such as open file, read/write) or on the device level...


    regard
    roman



    nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote On 07/28/06 04:12,:
    > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:29:53 +0200, roman pollak
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>so it not a reference to some sort of multiprocessing?
    >>because there were some multi cpu CP/M machines around ..
    >>such as some SANCO systems and I think DEC had something as well ..
    >>
    >>regards
    >>roman
    >>
    >>
    >>Tarkin wrote On 07/27/06 04:52,:
    >>
    >>>>Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    >>>>System ??

    >
    >
    > Compupro did 8085/8088, and their 68000 board could coexist with that
    > or any of their other cards (Z80, through 80386). I happen to have
    > the 68000, 8085/8088 and Z80 cards in a Compupro S100 crate.
    > They don't run concurrently though cooperative interleaved operation
    > is possible.
    >
    > There are several other z80/68000 single board systems as well.
    > Back issues of Byte from the early to mid 80s would be informative.
    >
    >
    > Allison
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>Some older systems featured an Z80, 8080 or 8085 processor in addition
    >>>to whatever
    >>>processor the system was based on. Apple's, PC's, and C= 64s leap to
    >>>mind as
    >>>exaples of systems that had add-on h/w CP/M modules.
    >>>
    >>>Alternatively, the 8080 was often the 'base' system processor, with
    >>>add-on cards
    >>>providing the second processor. A Zenith system and various S-100
    >>>systems fit this
    >>>bill, IIRC.
    >>>
    >>>ROMable (I include this for completeness), refers to the ability of the
    >>>code to be
    >>>loaded into a ROM chip. That is, I believe the complete CP/M system
    >>>could be
    >>>kept in a boot ROM, and either copied itself into RAM or was a
    >>>permanent,
    >>>unwritable part of the memory map.
    >>>
    >>>TTFN,
    >>> Tarkin
    >>>

    >
    >


  8. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question


    roman pollak wrote:
    > Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    > System ??
    > | *THIS IS THE DUAL PROCESSOR,ROMABLE CP/M-68K SYSTEM* |
    > | *================================================= =* |


    Interesting. All the years I spent maintaining CP/M-68K and I never
    noticed that particular piece of boilerplate.

    The ROMABLE part is fairly clear. The loader would separate out the
    instruction (and constant) vs. data portion. We made several versions
    that booted and ran out of ROM. There were really only a couple of
    spots that caused trouble anyway: The BIOS had the disk tables, and
    the CCP had command buffer. Strip those out and you are pretty much on
    your way.

    Dual processor? Well, all of our variants *were* dual processor except
    for the MacIntosh CP/M-68K implementation. The TRS-80's were Z80 and
    MC68000. The others were all "fit into a PC slot" types - x86 and
    MC68000. But I doubt that is what they were referring to.

    DRI did the original CP/M-68K development on a LISA. Anyone remember
    what was in there? They then ported it to some kind of Motorola
    development machine, which was VERY expensive and no one ever used. It
    *might* have had dual 68K's, but I do not recall.


  9. Re: CP/M 68k Dual Processor ?question

    I am pretty sure the Lisa was a single 68000 machine.

    The Motorola development system was called an Exormacs and in addition
    to being expensive, was a real monster. I picked up a surplus one that
    mostly filled a 5' tall 19" rack and weighed several hundred pounds. All
    for a 6mhz 68K with 256 K of RAM, a pair of 8" floppy drives, and a
    couple of hundred meg of CDC removable disk drives (Falcons, I think).
    It got given away before the next move. It might have been possible to
    run multiple CPU's in the Exormacs, The bus was the predecessor to to VME.

    Bob




    jmk wrote:
    > roman pollak wrote:
    >
    >>Doesn't anybody know why is it called Dual Processor, Romable CP/M -68K
    >>System ??
    >> | *THIS IS THE DUAL PROCESSOR,ROMABLE CP/M-68K SYSTEM* |
    >> | *================================================= =* |

    >
    >
    > Interesting. All the years I spent maintaining CP/M-68K and I never
    > noticed that particular piece of boilerplate.
    >
    > The ROMABLE part is fairly clear. The loader would separate out the
    > instruction (and constant) vs. data portion. We made several versions
    > that booted and ran out of ROM. There were really only a couple of
    > spots that caused trouble anyway: The BIOS had the disk tables, and
    > the CCP had command buffer. Strip those out and you are pretty much on
    > your way.
    >
    > Dual processor? Well, all of our variants *were* dual processor except
    > for the MacIntosh CP/M-68K implementation. The TRS-80's were Z80 and
    > MC68000. The others were all "fit into a PC slot" types - x86 and
    > MC68000. But I doubt that is what they were referring to.
    >
    > DRI did the original CP/M-68K development on a LISA. Anyone remember
    > what was in there? They then ported it to some kind of Motorola
    > development machine, which was VERY expensive and no one ever used. It
    > *might* have had dual 68K's, but I do not recall.
    >


+ Reply to Thread