TOS RAM test routine ?

[Badwolf]

TF536 /50Mhz 64MB = 4m40s

Wow. That is extreme. My 128MB test only takes a couple of minutes IIRC & my RAM is slower than Stephen's.

BW

[exxos]

ZONESIZE corresponds to one character (- or X) printed, I think.

Not sure I follow that...

$20000 = 128 So kinda assume thats the block size the RAM test is using.

I guess if @frank.lukas As a EPROM I could just change at number and see if it makes any difference...

I cannot seem to get Hatari to play nice testing these TOS versions out :(

[Badwolf]

ZONESIZE corresponds to one character (- or X) printed, I think.

Not sure I follow that...
$20000 = 128 So kinda assume thats the block size the RAM test is using.
I guess if @frank.lukas As a EPROM I could just change at number and see if it makes any difference...

Ah, OK I must have missed that that was hard coded -- the amount of memory tested per character on the screen is calculated, obviously.

I cannot seem to get Hatari to play nice testing these TOS versions out :(

Hatari will try to apply patches to TOS versions it know about even with --patch-tos false set. You may need to change the version number to something it doesn't recognise.

I actively commented out the patching routines when doing my TOS4 hack.

BW

[exxos]

Hatari will try to apply patches to TOS versions it know about even with --patch-tos false set. You may need to change the version number to something it doesn't recognise.

I actively commented out the patching routines when doing my TOS4 hack.

Yeah turn that off but did not help. I either get four bombs with 206, or with a TT and patched to 306, it gets to desktop but does not ever do any memory test :roll: Why cannot something just be simple for once :roll:

Someone will just have to try that version patched to see if it speeds up RAM test.

[exxos]

This version has that number sent to $80000.

The hard drive wait was set to 12 seconds so I changed that to 3 seconds.

There was also another fix which I turned on..

/*
* TP_49: Fix memory size display
*
* The memory test at boot time could
* not correctly print values > 64MB
*/

tos206uk.zip

[Badwolf]

Hatari will try to apply patches to TOS versions it know about even with --patch-tos false set. You may need to change the version number to something it doesn't recognise.

Yeah turn that off but did not help. I either get four bombs with 206, or with a TT and patched to 306, it gets to desktop but does not ever do any memory test :roll: Why cannot something just be simple for once :roll:

Perhaps you misread me: you can't turn off all patching. Also IIRC memvalid/ramvalid are automatically set so you never get a RAM test.

BW

[Badwolf]

TF536 /50Mhz 64MB = 4m40s

Wow. That is extreme. My 128MB test only takes a couple of minutes IIRC & my RAM is slower than Stephen's.

BW

Just tested the TOS4 TT-RAM test routine (normally never happens, obviously) in DFB1 -- 50s for 128MB@50MHz.

BW

[exxos]

Just tested the TOS4 TT-RAM test routine (normally never happens, obviously) in DFB1 -- 50s for 128MB@50MHz.

It must be running a different branch of the memory tests somewhere then :shrug:

[stephen_usher]

Here are my results (64MB TT-RAM):

• ST536 TOS2.06 - 4 minutes 40 seconds.
• PAK/3 TOS3.06 - 23 seconds.

Just to note that the ST RAM test is similarly slow. with the PAK/3 TOS3.06 ROM taking only ~8 seconds to test 4MB.

I wonder if the 2.06 test is using 16 bit words during the test and the 3.06 test is doing 32 bit for a start. Maybe it's also turning the cache on before the test so that the whole loop of the program stays in cache.

[exxos]

Here are my results:

• ST536 TOS2.06 - 4 minutes 40 seconds.
• PAK/3 TOS3.06 - 23 seconds.

Just to note that the ST RAM test is similarly slow. with the PAK/3 TOS3.06 ROM taking only ~8 seconds to test 4MB.

I wonder if the 2.06 test is using 16 bit words during the test and the 3.06 test is doing 32 bit for a start. Maybe it's also turning the cache on before the test so that the whole loop of the program stays in cache.

Thanks.. its possible cache could be a issue... There is some experimental stuff in the TOS code relating to that, but I didn't turn it on.

Code: Select all

/*
 * TP_32: CACHE_0X0: Activate caches for all cpus >= 68020
 *
 * This patch is still experimental. Note also that with this patch active,
 * you won't be able to activate/deactivate the blitter from the desktop
 * when you have a cpu >= 68020.
 */
#ifndef TP_32
#define TP_32 0
#endif