TF536 on the STacy

Other boosters or variants.
User avatar
stephen_usher
Posts: 5580
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Oxford, UK.
Contact:

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by stephen_usher »

For bash it wouldn't be at all noticeable as it spends most of the time waiting for input.
Intro retro computers since before they were retro...
ZX81->Spectrum->Memotech MTX->Sinclair QL->520STM->BBC Micro->TT030->PCs & Sun Workstations.
Added code to the MiNT kernel (still there the last time I checked) + put together MiNTOS.
Collection now with added Macs, Amigas, Suns and Acorns.
czietz
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:02 pm

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by czietz »

Maybe FreeMiNT should at least mention it somewhere (outside of the Github issue tracker) that the 68020-60 builds require an FPU.
mikro
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:22 pm
Location: Kosice, Slovakia
Contact:

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by mikro »

Well, it does print that text message that it requires an FPU, doesn't it. ;)

To complicate things even more, 020+ kernel builds do not require FPU at all.

If more TF536 FreeMiNT users start popping up, we may reconsider adding another target but it's not as easy as adding one more line into our build scripts.
User avatar
derkom
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:45 pm

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by derkom »

mikro wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:03 am If more TF536 FreeMiNT users start popping up, we may reconsider adding another target but it's not as easy as adding one more line into our build scripts.
How many more do you need? I'm one. :)

I haven't actually installed FreeMiNT yet on any TF536 machine, but having it bootable on my Stacy is the eventual goal. Using the 68000 builds isn't the worst thing, but being able to use a proper 68020+ build would be nice. Really it depends on how "not as easy as adding one more line" it is. I won't be heartbroken if it's not worth the effort.
User avatar
agranlund
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:43 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by agranlund »

I can confirm that the 68000 build + 68030 kernel works fine here without FPU and you'll get memory protection.

Use fastram.prg rather than maprom.prg if you're using the 68030 kernel though - MINT needs the MMU for its memory protection feature.
User avatar
derkom
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:45 pm

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by derkom »

agranlund wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:01 am I can confirm that the 68000 build + 68030 kernel works fine here without FPU and you'll get memory protection.
And that much is probably fine with me. The 68030 kernel is certainly the most important part, and the rest being 68000 isn't really a problem, so I'd say if building the whole thing for 68030 without FPU is a non-trivial task, it's probably not worth it for just a few users.
Atarian Computing
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:27 am

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by Atarian Computing »

agranlund wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:01 am I can confirm that the 68000 build + 68030 kernel works fine here without FPU and you'll get memory protection.

Use fastram.prg rather than maprom.prg if you're using the 68030 kernel though - MINT needs the MMU for its memory protection feature.
I have the 192K boot-roms and then I seem to have to load the 256K EmuTOS after for MiNT to boot. I shouldn't need fastram.prg? I have MMU and the speed in MiNT indicates that fastram is ok. I also have almost 20MB of fastram used as well.
Steve
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by Steve »

@mikro
Hey Mikro are you aware of any lighter weight bash alternatives compiled for mint? I find bash to be very sluggish on my 030's. Of course I have tried mksh from the sparemint repo but it doesn't support bash alias commands. It's kind of funny that Linux distros are not using bash any more because they say it's bloated lol, I think they mainly use 'dash' now. But yeah if you get a spare moment I'd appreciate it if you looked in to it. Thank you
User avatar
agranlund
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:43 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by agranlund »

Atarian Computing wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:44 am
agranlund wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:01 am I can confirm that the 68000 build + 68030 kernel works fine here without FPU and you'll get memory protection.

Use fastram.prg rather than maprom.prg if you're using the 68030 kernel though - MINT needs the MMU for its memory protection feature.
I have the 192K boot-roms and then I seem to have to load the 256K EmuTOS after for MiNT to boot. I shouldn't need fastram.prg? I have MMU and the speed in MiNT indicates that fastram is ok. I also have almost 20MB of fastram used as well.
Yeah it's only if you're booting from TOS2.06 it's needed. EmuTOS is able to find and register the fastram by itself :)
mikro
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:22 pm
Location: Kosice, Slovakia
Contact:

Re: TF536 on the STacy

Post by mikro »

Steve wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:35 pm Hey Mikro are you aware of any lighter weight bash alternatives compiled for mint? I find bash to be very sluggish on my 030's. Of course I have tried mksh from the sparemint repo but it doesn't support bash alias commands. It's kind of funny that Linux distros are not using bash any more because they say it's bloated lol, I think they mainly use 'dash' now. But yeah if you get a spare moment I'd appreciate it if you looked in to it. Thank you
IIRC, ST MiNT (https://subsole.org/st_mint) also uses mksh, maybe its newer version supports aliases?

Yeah, dash is an option but it's not 100% bash compatible. But it's a good idea, maybe we should really consider a more lightweight shell.
Locked

Return to “EVERYTHING ELSE”