Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #823Re: DTACK* or not to DTACK*, that is my question...
From: Steve -Raz- Berry
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1989 00:10
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1989 00:10
20 lines
1456 bytes
1456 bytes
In article <7617@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>Clock high to FC/Address is just a different spec than FC/Address to AS*.
>OK, it's been awhile since I looked at the 68000 spec, but certainly on
>68030s, FC and Address are the same thing, timing wise. Since function
>codes are really an extension of the Address, you wouldn't expect them to
>act any differently than the Addresses do, eh?
No, that's the kicker. Any more like that just hanging around waiting
to bite me?
>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy
Back to the timing diagrams...
---
Steve -Raz- Berry Disclaimer: It wasn't me! I was volatilizing my esters.
UUCP: sun!kilowatt!raz ARPA: raz%kilowatt.EBay@sun.com
KILOWATT: sun!kilowatt!archive-server archive-server%kilowatt.EBay@sun.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<120845@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!newstop!sun!kilowatt!razReferences:
<120525@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <7617@cbmvax.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!newstop!sun!kilowatt!raz From: raz%kilowatt@Sun.COM (Steve -Raz- Berry) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: DTACK* or not to DTACK*, that is my question... Message-ID: <120845@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 11 Aug 89 00:10:19 GMT References: <120525@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <7617@cbmvax.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Reply-To: raz@sun.UUCP (Steve -Raz- Berry) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 20