ftp.barnyard.co.uk/2015.02.ftp.barnyard.co.uk.tar/ftp.barnyard.co.uk/cpm/walnut-creek-CDROM/CPM/Z280/ZEDUX.IZF/ZEDUX.INF

Text File | 2000-06-30 | 13KB | 239 lines

ZEDUX.INF
General Update: June, 1987

Chip availability (Z280):

Zilog's official date for "volume" shipment of the Z280 chip has been
set for September, 1987.  Until that time, products from the various
support manufacturers will be in short supply.  Zilog is presently only
shipping sample quantities, and word from the people who call me is that
they no longer will ship the samples free of charge.

The impact on Zedux is the same as has been for quite some time: we
generally can only ship to persons already in possession of a Z280.

Chip availability (1 MEG DRAM):

This one is making the news: a recent article in the Wall Street Journal
(dated June 22, 1987) states the worry of a general shortage in DRAMs
due to the manufacturing cutback in Japan.  What does this mean for 1
MEG DRAMs?  Of the people we have talked to, the only company presently
shipping any 1 meg drams is Fujisu.  At last contact, they claim that
the USA has hung them up for an import permit.  It may also be that the
1 megs are part of a Japanese "retaliation" in our little trade war.  TI
semiconductor says they are only shipping samples to the military.

OK, why should Zedux care?  Well, the idea of our adapter board was to
get the size down to the absolute minimum (it's 4.28" by 2.24").  This
is the key to fitting as many different systems as possible.  To
accomplish this, we made use of the industry standard SIP 8 bit dram
package.  The boards accept either a 256kb or 1mb dram version of this
package.

Using 256kb, 128kb of this will be taken up by the RP operating system
(for RP users), leaving two 64kb user partitions.  This is typically
adequate for a single user with multiple task capability.

For multiple task, multiple user capability, 1mb version will provide
more breathing room.

It certainly appears that the 1mb dram and the Z280 processor are
basically in the same state (sampling), therefore, it is not
unreasonable to expect that when we have good quantity of one, we will
have the other.

The Z280 to Z80 adapters:

We now have two versions of the adapter board: The "straight" adapter,
and the coprocessor version.  Both these boards are the same size and
basic layout.  Onboard is a Z280, a 256kb/1mb dram, and the Z80 adapter
socket.  On the straight adapter, the board REPLACES the Z80 in the host
system completely.  The address, data and control lines come directly
from the Z280, with a small amount of translation by onboard logic to
correct minor incompatibilities.  This board is about 95% compatible
with the Z80 processor.  100% compatibility is NOT POSSIBLE using the
Z280 Z80 compatible mode (and Zilog has so published this fact in
company newsletters).  See the after - note.  Because this version
allows full access on the host of the new Z280 instruction set and
onboard peripherals, this is the board to use for people who are
evaluating an upgrade to the Z280 processor from an existing Z80 design,
or if you wish the full performance and use of the Z280 processor in
your system.  This board is recommended for people with SENIOR HARDWARE
DESIGN LEVEL capability and full knowledge of the host system.  Our own
use of the board here at Zedux is in a Cromemco ZPU S-100 Z80 processor
card.  The modifications required for that board were the disabling of
the "automatic jump" feature of the board (which made non-standard use
of the "float" state of the Z80) and a change in the wait circuit (which
ALWAYS started each cycle off with a wait, regardless of whether a wait
was really required).

In the coprocessor version, you unplug your present Z80, plug it into
the adapter card, then plug the adapter into the vacated Z80 socket.
The Z280 is isolated from the host Z80, and behaves as it's own
processing subsystem with it's onboard 256kb/1mb dram.  The host Z80 and
the Z280 both run at the same time, with the Z80/host performing all I/O
work, and the Z280 running application programs.  Communication between
processors is accomplished via an 8 bit "inter - CPU" communications
chip (in fact, a registered bi - directional transceiver).  The address
of the coprocessor port is selected via an 8 position dip switch on the
board, which sets one of 256 I/O ports for the board to use.  You simply
find an unused port in your system, and set the switches to that.  When
booting up the software disk, you either set the port you selected by
option, or by default leave the setting at the default $fe (chosen to be
the most common unused I/O port).

The only computers that cannot accept this board as a "plug and go"
solution would be ones doing something VERY strange like using EVERY
port in the Z80, or where there is no physical room for the adapter
board.  Utilizing the Z80/host to process I/O separately should give
speed gains.  The disadvantages of this arrangement are the speed penalty
(estimate 20% on I/O operations) of passing data via the coprocessor
port, the inability to use the onboard DMA to help I/O in the host
processor, and finally, the inability to make use of the Z280
instruction set while writing I/O drivers.

AFTER-NOTE: WHY CAN'T THE Z280 BE 100% Z80 COMPATIBLE?

The main incompatibility between the Z280 (in the Z80 bus mode) and the
Z80 is the action of the M1 signal.  On the Z80, this line signals the
fetch of the first byte of an instruction.  On the Z280, the pipelining
mechanism is continually fetching ahead of the current PC for the next
bytes, even before the processor needs them (so called "prefetch").
This is supposed to speed the processor.  The Z280, then, does not know,
at the time a byte is actually fetched from main memory, exactly what it
is to be used for.  There is no way, either by circuitry internal to the
Z280, or external adapter hardware, to generate a true M1 signal.

This created a problem for Zilog; their own peripheral chips used the
M1 line to detect execution of the "reti" instruction, to reset
interrupts.  So how is this problem solved when M1 cannot be generated on
the "reti" instruction fetch?  The actual fetch of the "reti" does not,
in fact, generate a M1 signal.  Instead, the CPU executes the "reti" by
running a "dummy fetch" of the "reti" instruction again, but this time
with M1 set.  The M1 line, therefore, only is active for the "reti"
instruction (which takes at least twice as long to execute as a
consequence).

CLOCK SPEEDS:

Considerable confusion has surrounded the clock speed rating of the
Z280.  Zilog rates the current top Z280 speed as 10 mhz.  You won't,
however, find a 10 mhz clock on any of the Z280 pins!  The XTAL speed
for this part is 20 mhz, which is immediately divided on - chip to 10
mhz, the basic internal clock speed.

It has become traditional to rate CPU's by clock speed.  A 24 meg 286
should be 3 times as fast as a 8 mhz 8086 right?  The fact is, the input
clock speed, which is usually quoted by the manufacturer simply because
it is the highest and therefore most impressive statistic of the part,
may have little or nothing to do with the actual performance of the
part.  Most of the seemingly incredible "speed gains" in moving from the
typical 2 - 6 mhz clocks of the older 8 bit CPUs to the 20 mhz + speeds
of today's 16 bit processors is accountable to the change from random
logic CPUs to microcoded CPUs.  A microcoded CPU usually takes 1, 2, 3
or more internal "microcodes" to execute an external "macrocode" or
normal instruction.

If the situation now seems muddy, however, it is worth reflecting that
the clock speed NEVER was an accurate indication of CPU power.  Is a 12
mhz 8031 twice as fast as a 6 mhz z80?  Obviously a lot of factors enter
in to CPU net performance.  The only reliable tests a formal benchmarks,
and even these are famous for being slanted by a particular
manufacturer.

Clock speed HAS been a traditional comparison between identical versions
of the same CPU.  An 8 mhz Z80 (Zilog ships Z80's all the way up to 12
mhz) is reliably twice as fast as a 4 mhz Z80.  This has a lot to do
with how stable the Z80 family has been in the past.  But relating the
clock speed of the Z280 to the clock speed of a Z80 is a clear mistake.
Since the Z280 uses a 20 mhz XTAL, is it 10 times as fast as a Z80 that
uses a 2 mhz clock? Fortunately, there is a way to compare the Z280 to
the Z80 in speed, using the Z280's Z80 compatible bus mode (which does
not apply to the ZBUS!). The Z280 divides the "basic" clock speed of 10
mhz down by 2 again (the external XTAL speed divided by 4) and outputs
this as the Z80 bus clock.  This clock, and the corresponding bus cycles,
are almost one - for - one with a Z80.  The following comparisons can be
made then:

     Z80         Z280             -->> XTAL SPEED (MHZ)
     --------------------------------------------
     1           4
     2           8
     4          16
     5          20  (maximum speed of current part)

According to Zilog, the use of the divide by 1 bus clock option should
deliver the following:

     Z80         Z280             -->> XTAL SPEED (MHZ)
     --------------------------------------------
     1           2
     2           4
     4           8
     6          12
     8          16
    10          20  (maximum speed of current part)

This mode requires external hardware to set.  Ok, so the Z280 is
equivalent to a 10 mhz Z80, or with external hardware, a 10 mhz one?
Nope.  From here we must discard the clock speed as a comparator, and
use a benchmark.  I have run the BYTE benchmark, which calculates prime
numbers, on the Z280.

With cache disabled, the Z280 runs almost exactly as fast as a Z80 OF
THE SAME BUS CLOCK (not XTAL clock!).  With cache on, the benchmark runs
almost exactly twice as fast (the exact times are rather irrelevant, as
that would mainly be a test of compiler efficiency).  Assuming the
elimination of the bus clock division gains another speed doubling, and
the use of the 16 bit ZBUS mode versus the 8 bit Z80 mode doubles the
speed yet again, with all the trimmings the Z280 is equivalent (in
theory!) to a 40 mhz Z80! This is not even taking into account the fact
that the code could be rewritten to take advantage of the new, much more
powerful Z280 instruction set, or the burst bus fetch mode.

RP - THE FIRST (AND RIGHT NOW ONLY) Z280 OPERATING SYSTEM:

With the bringing on - line of this BBS, the new multi - user, multi -
task version of RP/M is now getting it's first full usage.  It is
described elsewhere on the bbs, and you are invited to play with it on -
line to try out it's many features.  So where did RP come from?  RP, or
Remote Partition, started out doing just what it's name says.  I was
caught between an applications program that was getting bigger, and a
"TPA" that was getting smaller.  The artificial 64kb limitation was
increasingly painful.  Having examined the "Z800" advance specification
(in late 1985), and having obtained a 256kb memory board, I set up a
quick fix that would carry forward readily to the Z280.  The basic idea
with a remote partition is to run the applications program in it's own
64kb partition, with little or no memory taken up by the system.  After
a while, it became convent to include the CP/M monitor functions in the
program, then to extend them past the rather limited CP/M modes.
Finally, multiple tasking was added as a means to use the other 64kb
partitions availability.  When I got hold of a Z280 sample in early
1987, the system underwent a major upgrade, to add multiple users, use
of the Z280 memory management and onboard peripherals, and RP's own
"native" operating system interface.

RP incorporates many features that they still say the IBM - PC will get
"any time now", and in general introduces many mainframe - type software
concepts to the microcomputer world.

HI-TECH; THE UPGRADE PATH FOR THE KAYPRO:

Some time ago, I talked to a company planning to market a board much
like our adapter, but specifically designed for the Kaypro.  This makes
a lot of sense; since Kaypros, like the IBM-PC, are basically alike,
the board can be designed in to the physical space availability, and
therefore incorporate more features than the generic version.  I
understand that the board also corrects some basic problems with the
Kaypro screen driving arrangement.  There is no way that one company can
possibly cover all the bases, and address every CP/M type computer ever
made individually.

The CP/M world wasn't built by one manufacturer.  I think the HI-TECH
example is a good one for entrepreneur types in the CP/M / Z80 world.
For each individual machine there is need for hardware and software
drivers to help the Z280.  HI-TECH has discussed with us interest in the
RP O/S for that board.  Any news on HI-TECH or similar projects is
welcome here.