Page 11 of 16
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 11 Dec 2022 21:12
by exxos
@stephen_usher and / or
@Badwolf
From what I can tell the normal memory routine of "own address test" and some other tests are normally done, but all but own address are skipped in this version. So I assume this is what TOS306 is doing.
tos206uk.zip
I am also not really sure it is showing the proper amount of TTram as well.
EDIT:
This one may fix the RAM amount issue.. I think there was a "typo" in the RAM detect code :shrug:
tos206uk2.zip
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 11:22
by Badwolf
exxos wrote: 11 Dec 2022 21:12
This one may fix the RAM amount issue.. I think there was a "typo" in the RAM detect code :shrug:
tos206uk2.zip
No speed up with either this one or the 4.img.
Latter shows the correct memory count, though.
I think you're chasing your tail here. Go back to the original source, enable the cache and call it a day!
At the end of the day, hatari will not emulate the massive speed up of accessing TT-RAM in the 536 so I can only do a comparative. None is faster than the original so far.
BW
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 11:31
by exxos
Badwolf wrote: 12 Dec 2022 11:22
No speed up with either this one or the 4.img.
That is odd as in Hatari 1.9.0 TTram test of 10MB is the same or a fraction faster than TOS306 now.
Badwolf wrote: 12 Dec 2022 11:22
Latter shows the correct memory count, though.
Cool beans.
Badwolf wrote: 12 Dec 2022 11:22
I think you're chasing your tail here. Go back to the original source, enable the cache and call it a day!
It is enabled, has been for a while now.
Badwolf wrote: 12 Dec 2022 11:22
At the end of the day, hatari will not emulate the massive speed up of accessing TT-RAM in the 536 so I can only do a comparative. None is faster than the original so far.
It won't be faster than 306, but it's definitely not slower than 306 now. So don't know why you get those results as they differ to what I am getting here.
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 12:05
by Badwolf
exxos wrote: 12 Dec 2022 11:31
Badwolf wrote: 12 Dec 2022 11:22
I think you're chasing your tail here. Go back to the original source, enable the cache and call it a day!
It is enabled, has been for a while now.
Yes, but I mean I don't think there's been any improvement with all the fiddling since, so IIYW I'd just go back to known good (albeit slow) starting position and only turn on the cache.
But that's just my tuppenceworth. I get nervous when a tweak doesn't do exactly what I'm expecting and I leave it in anyway :P
BW
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 14:49
by exxos
Does anyone have a single image file of PAK030 TOS ?
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 15:18
by stephen_usher
Here you are...
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 15:35
by Badwolf
After tweaking the version at 0x02, if I boot this in Hatari with the same configuration I used for Exxos' ROM image, it runs considerably quicker. Including the ST-RAM test, BTW.
Implies it's just performing fewer tests, to be honest.
BW
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 16:03
by exxos
Thanks.
PAK takes 2:25mins
ST536 TOS 2:24mins.
So I don't know where Frank got
24 seconds from . He must have a patched TOS which uses a larger block size.
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 16:26
by Badwolf
exxos wrote: 12 Dec 2022 16:03
PAK takes 2:25mins
ST536 TOS 2:24mins.
Wow, that's interesting -- and shows why Hatari testing for hardware issues can only take you so far!
BW
EDIT: One thought, does your firmware allow caching of the TOS range?
Re: TOS RAM test routine ?
Posted: 12 Dec 2022 16:33
by exxos
Badwolf wrote: 12 Dec 2022 16:26
EDIT: One thought, does your firmware allow caching of the TOS range?
ummmm. not sure. I know Anders patched stuff to cahe ST-RAM, but not sure if that included ROM.. Will have a look.
This is the routine it runs anyway.
Basically if TP_12 is enabled, it just jumps to testzon8 and just outputs the TTram amount without doing anything else.
Code: Select all
testzone:
moveq.l #0,d0
#if !TP_12 /* SKIP_RAM */
move.l memtaddr,d1
cmp.l memtbot,d1
bcs.s testzon8
cmp.l memtend,d1
bcc.s testzon8
move.l #ZONESIZE/4-1,d0
move.l d0,d1
movea.l memtaddr,a0
moveq.l #-1,d2
testzon1:
move.l d2,(a0)+
dbf d0,testzon1
movea.l memtaddr,a0
move.l d1,d0
testzon2:
cmp.l (a0)+,d2
dbne d0,testzon2
bne.s testzon7
movea.l memtaddr,a0
move.l d1,d0
moveq.l #1,d2
testzon3:
rol.l #1,d2
move.l d2,(a0)+
dbf d0,testzon3
movea.l memtaddr,a0
move.l d1,d0
moveq.l #1,d2
testzon4:
rol.l #1,d2
cmp.l (a0)+,d2
dbne d0,testzon4
bne.s testzon7
movea.l memtaddr,a0
move.l d1,d0
moveq.l #0,d2
testzon5:
move.l d2,(a0)+
dbf d0,testzon5
movea.l memtaddr,a0
move.l d1,d0
testzon6:
cmp.l (a0)+,d2
dbne d0,testzon6
bne.s testzon7
moveq.l #0,d0
bra.s testzon8
testzon7:
moveq.l #-1,d0
testzon8:
#endif /* TP_12 */
movea.l memtaddr,a0
adda.l #ZONESIZE,a0
move.l a0,memtaddr
rts