The test programs are really just a dump of the old test programs I wrote during development. If I ever get back to work on IP65 I'll do a proper test suite.



Well, I think that confirms that your hardware works just fine. UDPSlave uses a completely different codebase, so I suggest adding some debug output to it, dumping packet headers etc.

@eightbits: Check your private Messages

Bad news.

It works.

Yeah, I was just kidding about the bad news bit. So, I've tested warpcopy and it worked like a champ! What a great program! I used it to transfer a .d64 image of guruterm and it worked like a champ too. Looks like the C64NIC is set functionally.

Now, I am going to finish soldering up the other prototypes I have here and get one of them sent off to my uber secret second tester who's name shall remain anonymous until/unless he decides it's cool to reveal it. I'll use the second one to test C64-to-C64 things like Artillery Duel and maybe have one setup as a TFE card and the other setup as RR-Net.

I need to figure out some board layout issues now. I got my cards from Protovision and they use a different center hole than I anticipated and the side posts are gone in favor of the CBM-style clips. Boo! The problem with the side clips is that the RJ45 jack now requires cutting one of the clips out of the case. So I pulled out my trusty vernier caliper and measured it to death. I think I have the board layout setup so that the RJ45 jack will fit between the middle post of the old Solakian cases and the clip of the current Individual Computers cases. I have also setup my layout so that I have two drill holes that slightly overlap so that the board should fit perfectly in either case. I am going to have to test this by having one built. No soldering on this sucker. It'll just be a layout template and I should have it by the end of next week. But I have to talk to the PCB fab house because they used the wrong drill size last time. (I spec'd .221" and they drilled .250" and its center was not where my layout's center was.) I need to confirm they have the right drills for this and can get the holes drilled right. I'm sure they can as all other through-hole hols were drilled correctly.

Since I'm re-doing the layout, I'm thinking about moving the reset switch. I think where it is located just kinda puts it in an awkward place to press it. But then again, I have big hands. I think it would be far better off poking out the back of the board so that it if the cart is mounted vertically in a part expander, the reset button would be pointing up. This will give a LOT more room (which is significantly reduced after adjusting the RJ45 location) to your fingers to press the button and it would eliminate the potential clearance issues with cases and port expanders.

Opinons? If you have any last minute feature adds or layout ideas, now's the time to let me know. I plan to finalize the design Sunday night and talk to the PCB fab on Monday about the drills. If I am convinced all is well, I will submit my order Monday night.

And, finally, Warpcopy detected the chip as revision F while setmac and guruterm detect as revision E. Does this make a difference to anyone? I haven't looked at the datasheet closely enough to know if this makes a difference. What I do find interesting is that the datasheet (CS8900A_F4.pdf) shows on page 44 that there is no revision E, only revisions B,C,D, and F. Food for thought in case it really does make a difference. It is probably just a typo in the datasheet, but F3 had that same info too so maybe it's significant.

LOL.. It's because I am a lazy bastard.. and blind too apparently
F and E are exactly the same. The datasheets say F, which I have somehow overlooked
If you look at the revision codes you'll notice that there is only one numerical increase from rev. D to F. So my lazy ass most likely focused on the first revision and just counted up for each numerical increase, thus resulting in rev E when it should have said F.
Blaaah.. I say it's a typo in ALL the datasheets

Heheh.. I did the exact same thing in GT. Shame on me! Hence E==F

That's bad news indeed.


EEPROM to save the config. Don't forget the hardware firewall.


I'd say it's a screwup in WarpCopy, which is known to be bug-ridden software - great program but very faulty.

http://www.fooman.fi/misc/WarpCopy-bugs.html

I composed that list two years ago, but to my knowledge Mr. Selck hasn't fixed any of them!

_________________
Commodore 128 Programmer
City of Kouvola, Finland

http://mydarkgothvampiricplace.endofthe ... Commodore/

Heh. Yeah, I'd love to do that, but since config EEPROM isn't supported in 8-bit mode by the chip, it'd become significantly more complex and expensive to implement. We discussed this option earlier in the forum and opted to leave it out.



I'll get right on that. Perhaps an ARM micro running Linux with iptables? Heheh.

The revision is one thing that Mr. Selck got right ..but hey, what do you expect!? You can't be a great demo coder and a great app coder at the same time.. conflicting objectives!!

"Sometimes the program window will not appear when selected from the taskbar." ..quick fix: Right click instead of left click!!! (no kidding)

Also I wouldnt define a requested feature as a bug

I know these things easier said than done but maybe you could just put the through holes on the board for a ROM that works like a regular game ROM that will run a program to configure the NIC and then drop back into basic.

Just a basic ROM socket won't add much more complexity to the design assuming there is plenty of free board space.

Of course having it be in system flashable would require additional logic and design recourses.

So I guess the easy way is to just leave it alone and run config.prg every time you boot the c64.

I don't think just having a ROM socket on the board for people who want to use it isn't too bad an idea though.

You need to be able to disable the socket somehow, which means at least one more chip. You also need to route 20+ signals which takes some board space too.

Great news on the tests!

How well did it fit in the cases from Protovision apart from the clip? Did you need to cut out around the RJ45?

For the reset switch, I'd be happy with it on the back as well, it does make it extremely convenient when in a port expander. The only risk is bumping it into something if it's just plugged directly into the 64, but you have that problem with other carts anyway.

I'll take a look at adding a ROM footprint to the board. It will not be a socket. I can freely add the footprint, but I don't want to add a socket that wont be used. I don't know if there is enough room left on the board without a significant redesign. If there is, I'll tack it in there with no guarantee that it will work because I probably wont test it. I'll find out tonight.

I don't understand what you mean by cut out around the RJ45. It will have to be cut to expose the jack, but I didn't do any cutting yet. I went by the standard 2.25" board width and am unhappy with it. I measured a number of boards and most are 2.75" - 2.80" so I'm going with 2.75". 2.80" was too snug for my liking in some of the cases. But, 2.25" is definitely too narrow and provides too much wiggle room in the new cases as well. So, I'll getthe new boards back and see what happens.

Just got off the phone with the PCB fab and they said that their quickturn service which is what I've used for prototypes is limited in drill hole sizes so my 0.221" hole got drilled to 0.250". So, I'll order two boards with their quickturn service with holes small enough that they wont be too big but I can drill out when I get them to verify they are centered and that they will meet specs. Their production service will drill holes to within 0.001" of my specifications so this should be good enough.

Well. To tell you the truth, I think Graham is a great all-round programmer - one of the best on C64. He has my respect - contrary to many others, because I cannot bring myself to respect nasty people like hollowman...



Tnx. I think I discovered that too, but it's been a long time since I last used WC - coz I got all my disks transfered in 2006.


I don't think that's necessary. Don't waste too much time on it. Anyone who wants ROM can use a separate memory board or an internal one.

_________________
Commodore 128 Programmer
City of Kouvola, Finland

http://mydarkgothvampiricplace.endofthe ... Commodore/