[comp.sys.amiga.tech] Lucas Board Gets Even Cheaper

douglee@becker.UUCP (Doug Lee) (07/01/89)

Here's a little something I discovered recently, while debugging a Lucas
68020/881 board. You can now run it WITHOUT the 68881 installed. Just connect 
a jumper between DSACK1 and CS lines on the 68881. DSACK1 is pin K4 and CS is 
pin J3 on the 881. You can also jumper pins 7 and 15 of PAL U7 as an 
alternative. THis works 100% O.K. with the system and setcpu finding the 68020
and not the 68881. Of course you can'd run code with inline 'F' instructions,
but you CAN have the 68020 without buying the 881. I will be building a Francis board soon, so will find out if this works O.K. with it too. I don't see why noth though.               <<<Doug>>>

douglee@becker

chymes@ics.uci.edu (Charles Hymes) (07/03/89)

In article <616@becker.UUCP> douglee@becker.UUCP (Doug Lee) writes:
>Here's a little something I discovered recently, while debugging a Lucas
>68020/881 board. You can now run it WITHOUT the 68881 installed. Just connect 
>a jumper between DSACK1 and CS lines on the 68881. DSACK1 is pin K4 and CS is 
>pin J3 on the 881. You can also jumper pins 7 and 15 of PAL U7 as an 
>alternative. THis works 100% O.K. with the system and setcpu finding the 68020
>and not the 68881. Of course you can'd run code with inline 'F' instructions,
>but you CAN have the 68020 without buying the 881. I will be building a Francis board soon, so will find out if this works O.K. with it too. I don't see why noth though.               <<<Doug>>>
>
>douglee@becker

Have all the problems with geting LUCAS to work with Microbotics Starboard
been fixed? I would like to build/buy one, but I have a Starboard with
2 Meg and a SCSI module installed. If they have been, who should be contacted
for the latest plans & parts ?
Also, is this a resonable progect for a novice? I have never built anything
with lsi chips on it, though I am fairly good with a soldering iron. Assuming
I have nothing else but a soldering iron, and only a rudimentry knowledge of
electronics, what would I have to read+learn+buy to put a LUCAS board together
and get it to run with my Amiga+Starboard ?

Thanks in advance,

Charles Hymes

daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (07/06/89)

in article <616@becker.UUCP>, douglee@becker.UUCP (Doug Lee) says:
> Keywords: lucas

> Here's a little something I discovered recently, while debugging a Lucas
> 68020/881 board. You can now run it WITHOUT the 68881 installed. Just connect 
> a jumper between DSACK1 and CS lines on the 68881. DSACK1 is pin K4 and CS is 
> pin J3 on the 881. You can also jumper pins 7 and 15 of PAL U7 as an 
> alternative. THis works 100% O.K. with the system and setcpu finding the 68020
> and not the 68881. Of course you can'd run code with inline 'F' instructions,
> but you CAN have the 68020 without buying the 881. I will be building a Francis board soon, so will find out if this works O.K. with it too. I don't see why noth though.               <<<Doug>>>

You really want the 68881 CS line jumpered to BERR*, not either DSACK.  Though 
that will only work if LUCAS makes sure that it's BERR* line is buffered from
the motherboard BERR*, something like this:


	LUCAS				MOM
			/|		
	L_BERR* _______/ |_____________ M_BERR*
		       \ |
		        \| 7407

The reason for this is that the 68020 doesn't normally generate an F-Line 
exception for a non-existant FPU, but it will generate such an exception if
BERR* is asserted in response to the FPU space address.  If you just assert
DSACK* as above, it'll look to the system as if an FPU is installed but
messing up bad.  So in the BERR* case, the FPU instruction will generate a
proper F-line exception, while in the DSACK* case you'll probably get some 
kind of coprocessor protocol violation exception.  SetCPU returns the right
answer in both cases anyway, since it uses the OS's opinion of whether
there's an FPU or not.  The OS tests for the FPU simply by trapping any
exceptions and trying a simple FPU operation.  If the test succeeds, the
OS sets the 68881 bit, if it fails for any reason, it clears the bit.  So
while most things will work OK in both cases (since F-line emulators aren't
popular right now on the Amiga), the BERR* method is the technically 
correct method.

> douglee@becker


-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
           Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it