Replies: 7 comments
-
|
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the Raspberry
* W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is closed source...so
I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same for all boards.
Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP and get
it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
working?
If not: Are there plans to make it work?
Cheers!
As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico W and
Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP with
the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I would
anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED, which on the
Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
Travis
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 12:49 Travis Bemann ***@***.***> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the
> Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is closed
> source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same for all
> boards.
> Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP and get
> it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
> working?
> If not: Are there plans to make it work?
>
> Cheers!
>
As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico W and
Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP with
the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I would
anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED, which on the
Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
Travis
Okay I looked it up and Pico 2 W MicroPython UF2 files apparently work
properly on the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W (aside from not having access to the
Pico Plus 2 W's extra flash or its PSRAM), so I don't think you should have
trouble with zeptoIP and the CYW43439 driver as is on the Pico Plus 2 W.
You would have to modify zeptoforth to gain access to the higher flash
(e.g. expand the blocks/FAT32 space to 14 MiB), but there is code already
in place for enabling PSRAM and using that PSRAM as a RAM disk for FAT32
filesystems.
Travis
… |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
On 02/16 12:24, tabemann wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 12:49 Travis Bemann ***@***.***> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the
>> Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is closed
>> source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same for all
>> boards.
>> Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP and get
>> it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
>> working?
>> If not: Are there plans to make it work?
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>
>
> As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico W and
> Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP with
> the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I would
> anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED, which on the
> Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
>
> Travis
>
Okay I looked it up and Pico 2 W MicroPython UF2 files apparently work
properly on the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W (aside from not having access to the
Pico Plus 2 W's extra flash or its PSRAM), so I don't think you should have
trouble with zeptoIP and the CYW43439 driver as is on the Pico Plus 2 W.
You would have to modify zeptoforth to gain access to the higher flash
(e.g. expand the blocks/FAT32 space to 14 MiB), but there is code already
in place for enabling PSRAM and using that PSRAM as a RAM disk for FAT32
filesystems.
Travis
Hi Travis,
That sounds very promising - will check that! Thanks a lot for your help! :)
I have already accessed the psram successfully...plenty of space!
When I compare these little boards with what "power" were in
the 8bit home computers ... OMG!
Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
Cheers!
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
On 02/16 12:24, tabemann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 12:49 Travis Bemann ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the
> >> Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is
closed
> >> source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same
for all
> >> boards.
> >> Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP and
get
> >> it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
> >> working?
> >> If not: Are there plans to make it work?
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >
> >
> > As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico W and
> > Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP
with
> > the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I would
> > anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED, which
on the
> > Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
> >
> > Travis
> >
>
>
> Okay I looked it up and Pico 2 W MicroPython UF2 files apparently work
> properly on the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W (aside from not having access to
the
> Pico Plus 2 W's extra flash or its PSRAM), so I don't think you should
have
> trouble with zeptoIP and the CYW43439 driver as is on the Pico Plus 2 W.
> You would have to modify zeptoforth to gain access to the higher flash
> (e.g. expand the blocks/FAT32 space to 14 MiB), but there is code already
> in place for enabling PSRAM and using that PSRAM as a RAM disk for FAT32
> filesystems.
>
> Travis
>
Hi Travis,
That sounds very promising - will check that! Thanks a lot for your help!
:)
I have already accessed the psram successfully...plenty of space!
When I compare these little boards with what "power" were in
the 8bit home computers ... OMG!
This is a big reason why I am opposed to the use of microcontrollers like
the Atmega328p -- they have no real advantage over modern microcontrollers
like the RP2040, RP2350, and the variety of STM32 microcontrollers, yet at
the same time do not have redeeming characteristics of being worthwhile as
retrocomputing platforms either (as they certainly were not used back in
the day nor do they seek to be modern recreations of old hardware). To me,
8-bit and 16-bit microcontrollers are only worthwhile on the very low end
of the price range (mind you a RP2040 itself costs less than $1 USD) or in
low power applications (which is why the MSP430, which specializes in low
power, is still a worthwhile platform in semi-niche uses). But an Arduino
board does not have a Pico beat on price, so there is little reason to use
an Atmega microcontroller when you could be using something better for no
more money.
Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
Cheers!
That is like putting a vintage Mini Cooper label on a Ferrari - lol. :)
That said, I am perfectly open to cyberdecks based on zeptoforth. I know
one person at least was working on one at one point, even though I am not
sure how far they got.
Travis
… Message ID: <tabemann/zeptoforth/repo-discussions/186/comments/12227371@
github.com>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
On 02/17 10:44, tabemann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> On 02/16 12:24, tabemann wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 12:49 Travis Bemann ***@***.***> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the
> > >> Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is
> closed
> > >> source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same
> for all
> > >> boards.
> > >> Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP and
> get
> > >> it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
> > >> working?
> > >> If not: Are there plans to make it work?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico W and
> > > Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP
> with
> > > the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I would
> > > anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED, which
> on the
> > > Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
> > >
> > > Travis
> > >
> >
> >
> > Okay I looked it up and Pico 2 W MicroPython UF2 files apparently work
> > properly on the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W (aside from not having access to
> the
> > Pico Plus 2 W's extra flash or its PSRAM), so I don't think you should
> have
> > trouble with zeptoIP and the CYW43439 driver as is on the Pico Plus 2 W.
> > You would have to modify zeptoforth to gain access to the higher flash
> > (e.g. expand the blocks/FAT32 space to 14 MiB), but there is code already
> > in place for enabling PSRAM and using that PSRAM as a RAM disk for FAT32
> > filesystems.
> >
> > Travis
> >
> Hi Travis,
>
> That sounds very promising - will check that! Thanks a lot for your help!
> :)
> I have already accessed the psram successfully...plenty of space!
> When I compare these little boards with what "power" were in
> the 8bit home computers ... OMG!
>
This is a big reason why I am opposed to the use of microcontrollers like
the Atmega328p -- they have no real advantage over modern microcontrollers
like the RP2040, RP2350, and the variety of STM32 microcontrollers, yet at
the same time do not have redeeming characteristics of being worthwhile as
retrocomputing platforms either (as they certainly were not used back in
the day nor do they seek to be modern recreations of old hardware). To me,
8-bit and 16-bit microcontrollers are only worthwhile on the very low end
of the price range (mind you a RP2040 itself costs less than $1 USD) or in
low power applications (which is why the MSP430, which specializes in low
power, is still a worthwhile platform in semi-niche uses). But an Arduino
board does not have a Pico beat on price, so there is little reason to use
an Atmega microcontroller when you could be using something better for no
more money.
> Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
That is like putting a vintage Mini Cooper label on a Ferrari - lol. :)
That said, I am perfectly open to cyberdecks based on zeptoforth. I know
one person at least was working on one at one point, even though I am not
sure how far they got.
Travis
The big advantage of the "Arduino" controller world is the shear amount
of (young?) users. Technically there are far better choices... :)
(meant not THAT seriously...):
By no means it was my intention to put any lable on Zeptoforth and your
work, Travis...
With "Zepto ACE" I hadn't an emulation of a Mini Cooper type of thing
in mind...but the idea of a """home computer""" with the raw power and
the charming character of a Ferrari as a "Next Generation" version...why
not.
Authors Note:
From my questions I usually post you will clearly see, that I am a bloody
beginner when it comes to Forth and Zeptoforth. So a "Zepto ACE"
is not something which will come to life in the next few months.
As an excercise I am currently trying to get a "Busy Beaver" running
over a PSRAM-tape of 8MBytes...
Next will be (hopefully) my Nixie clock...
We will see - I will promise nothing.
May I ask another newbie question, Travis?
On the internet I read about "the pearl of FORTH" <DOES and CREATE>.
ZeptoForth uses <BUILDS DOES> instead...
Is there any difference and/or advantage using <BUILD DOES> ?
Cheers!
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:42 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
On 02/17 10:44, tabemann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> This is a big reason why I am opposed to the use of microcontrollers like
> the Atmega328p -- they have no real advantage over modern
microcontrollers
> like the RP2040, RP2350, and the variety of STM32 microcontrollers, yet
at
> the same time do not have redeeming characteristics of being worthwhile
as
> retrocomputing platforms either (as they certainly were not used back in
> the day nor do they seek to be modern recreations of old hardware). To
me,
> 8-bit and 16-bit microcontrollers are only worthwhile on the very low end
> of the price range (mind you a RP2040 itself costs less than $1 USD) or
in
> low power applications (which is why the MSP430, which specializes in low
> power, is still a worthwhile platform in semi-niche uses). But an Arduino
> board does not have a Pico beat on price, so there is little reason to
use
> an Atmega microcontroller when you could be using something better for no
> more money.
>
>
>
> > Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
>
>
> That is like putting a vintage Mini Cooper label on a Ferrari - lol. :)
>
> That said, I am perfectly open to cyberdecks based on zeptoforth. I know
> one person at least was working on one at one point, even though I am not
> sure how far they got.
>
> Travis
>
The big advantage of the "Arduino" controller world is the shear amount
of (young?) users. Technically there are far better choices... :)
(meant not THAT seriously...):
Even if one really wants to live in the Arduino ecosystem, there are better
choices than a classic Arduino running on an Atmega MCU, such as the Earle
Philhower implementations of the Arduino API's for the RP2040 and the
RP2350.
By no means it was my intention to put any lable on Zeptoforth and your
work, Travis...
With "Zepto ACE" I hadn't an emulation of a Mini Cooper type of thing
in mind...but the idea of a """home computer""" with the raw power and
the charming character of a Ferrari as a "Next Generation" version...why
not.
I get what you mean -- I just meant that if we called it something like the
"Zepto ACE" others might expect it to be a retrocomputing platform running
a Z80 (whether an original Z80 or an FPGA reimplementation of one) with not
a whole lot of RAM and like, or at least with backwards compatibility with
the original Jupiter ACE (cf. the ZX Spectrum Next), whereas a cyberdeck
based on zeptoforth on an RP2040 or RP2350 would be a modern dual core ARM
machine running at 125 MHz or 150 MHz and having 264 KiB or 512 KiB of
SRAM, respectively, and would have no such backwards compatibility unless
we decided to write an emulator for the original Jupiter ACE and loaded it
onto the Zepto ACE (which would probably be feasible if we so desired).
I personally think a good name for such a project would be the 'zeptodeck'
myself. It gets the point across that it is a cyberdeck running zeptoforth,
without implying any backwards compatibility with any particular vintage
platform.
Authors Note:
From my questions I usually post you will clearly see, that I am a bloody
beginner when it comes to Forth and Zeptoforth. So a "Zepto ACE"
is not something which will come to life in the next few months.
Oh, no pressure on you to come up with a "Zepto ACE" or a 'zeptodeck', even
though I do have to say that the idea would make for a cool project myself.
As an excercise I am currently trying to get a "Busy Beaver" running
over a PSRAM-tape of 8MBytes...
Next will be (hopefully) my Nixie clock...
To me implementing a Nixie clock is really more of a hardware challenge
than anything -- it is trivial from the software side of things, but I
personally would be lost implementing all the hardware needed for driving
the Nixie tubes.
We will see - I will promise nothing.
May I ask another newbie question, Travis?
On the internet I read about "the pearl of FORTH" <DOES and CREATE>.
ZeptoForth uses <BUILDS DOES> instead...
Is there any difference and/or advantage using <BUILD DOES> ?
Cheers!
The reason why zeptoforth users <BUILDS DOES> rather than CREATE DOES> is
that the traditional CREATE DOES> while maintaining the functionality of
CREATE by itself is hard to implement for compiling to flash (because you
can write to flash once and only once, excluding block erases which cannot
erase individual bytes), necessitating separate <BUILDS DOES> and CREATE
(which is still provided for things like defining constant arrays).
zeptoforth is like Mecrisp-Stellaris in this way, for the record.
Travis
…On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:42 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
On 02/17 10:44, tabemann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> > On 02/16 12:24, tabemann wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 12:49 Travis Bemann ***@***.***> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the
> > > >> Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is
> > closed
> > > >> source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same
> > for all
> > > >> boards.
> > > >> Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP
and
> > get
> > > >> it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
> > > >> working?
> > > >> If not: Are there plans to make it work?
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico
W and
> > > > Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP
> > with
> > > > the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I
would
> > > > anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED,
which
> > on the
> > > > Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
> > > >
> > > > Travis
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay I looked it up and Pico 2 W MicroPython UF2 files apparently
work
> > > properly on the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W (aside from not having access
to
> > the
> > > Pico Plus 2 W's extra flash or its PSRAM), so I don't think you
should
> > have
> > > trouble with zeptoIP and the CYW43439 driver as is on the Pico Plus
2 W.
> > > You would have to modify zeptoforth to gain access to the higher
flash
> > > (e.g. expand the blocks/FAT32 space to 14 MiB), but there is code
already
> > > in place for enabling PSRAM and using that PSRAM as a RAM disk for
FAT32
> > > filesystems.
> > >
> > > Travis
> > >
> > Hi Travis,
> >
> > That sounds very promising - will check that! Thanks a lot for your
help!
> > :)
> > I have already accessed the psram successfully...plenty of space!
> > When I compare these little boards with what "power" were in
> > the 8bit home computers ... OMG!
> >
>
>
> This is a big reason why I am opposed to the use of microcontrollers like
> the Atmega328p -- they have no real advantage over modern
microcontrollers
> like the RP2040, RP2350, and the variety of STM32 microcontrollers, yet
at
> the same time do not have redeeming characteristics of being worthwhile
as
> retrocomputing platforms either (as they certainly were not used back in
> the day nor do they seek to be modern recreations of old hardware). To
me,
> 8-bit and 16-bit microcontrollers are only worthwhile on the very low end
> of the price range (mind you a RP2040 itself costs less than $1 USD) or
in
> low power applications (which is why the MSP430, which specializes in low
> power, is still a worthwhile platform in semi-niche uses). But an Arduino
> board does not have a Pico beat on price, so there is little reason to
use
> an Atmega microcontroller when you could be using something better for no
> more money.
>
>
>
> > Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
>
>
> That is like putting a vintage Mini Cooper label on a Ferrari - lol. :)
>
> That said, I am perfectly open to cyberdecks based on zeptoforth. I know
> one person at least was working on one at one point, even though I am not
> sure how far they got.
>
> Travis
>
The big advantage of the "Arduino" controller world is the shear amount
of (young?) users. Technically there are far better choices... :)
(meant not THAT seriously...):
By no means it was my intention to put any lable on Zeptoforth and your
work, Travis...
With "Zepto ACE" I hadn't an emulation of a Mini Cooper type of thing
in mind...but the idea of a """home computer""" with the raw power and
the charming character of a Ferrari as a "Next Generation" version...why
not.
Authors Note:
From my questions I usually post you will clearly see, that I am a bloody
beginner when it comes to Forth and Zeptoforth. So a "Zepto ACE"
is not something which will come to life in the next few months.
As an excercise I am currently trying to get a "Busy Beaver" running
over a PSRAM-tape of 8MBytes...
Next will be (hopefully) my Nixie clock...
We will see - I will promise nothing.
May I ask another newbie question, Travis?
On the internet I read about "the pearl of FORTH" <DOES and CREATE>.
ZeptoForth uses <BUILDS DOES> instead...
Is there any difference and/or advantage using <BUILD DOES> ?
Cheers!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#186 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDMC2GE7MDSIQKEU3H7YHD2QNPIHAVCNFSM6AAAAABXHYKI5KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTEMRTHE2DENA>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
On 02/18 09:18, tabemann wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:42 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> On 02/17 10:44, tabemann wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> >
> > This is a big reason why I am opposed to the use of microcontrollers like
> > the Atmega328p -- they have no real advantage over modern
> microcontrollers
> > like the RP2040, RP2350, and the variety of STM32 microcontrollers, yet
> at
> > the same time do not have redeeming characteristics of being worthwhile
> as
> > retrocomputing platforms either (as they certainly were not used back in
> > the day nor do they seek to be modern recreations of old hardware). To
> me,
> > 8-bit and 16-bit microcontrollers are only worthwhile on the very low end
> > of the price range (mind you a RP2040 itself costs less than $1 USD) or
> in
> > low power applications (which is why the MSP430, which specializes in low
> > power, is still a worthwhile platform in semi-niche uses). But an Arduino
> > board does not have a Pico beat on price, so there is little reason to
> use
> > an Atmega microcontroller when you could be using something better for no
> > more money.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> >
> >
> > That is like putting a vintage Mini Cooper label on a Ferrari - lol. :)
> >
> > That said, I am perfectly open to cyberdecks based on zeptoforth. I know
> > one person at least was working on one at one point, even though I am not
> > sure how far they got.
> >
> > Travis
> >
>
> The big advantage of the "Arduino" controller world is the shear amount
> of (young?) users. Technically there are far better choices... :)
>
> (meant not THAT seriously...):
>
Even if one really wants to live in the Arduino ecosystem, there are better
choices than a classic Arduino running on an Atmega MCU, such as the Earle
Philhower implementations of the Arduino API's for the RP2040 and the
RP2350.
> By no means it was my intention to put any lable on Zeptoforth and your
> work, Travis...
> With "Zepto ACE" I hadn't an emulation of a Mini Cooper type of thing
> in mind...but the idea of a """home computer""" with the raw power and
> the charming character of a Ferrari as a "Next Generation" version...why
> not.
>
I get what you mean -- I just meant that if we called it something like the
"Zepto ACE" others might expect it to be a retrocomputing platform running
a Z80 (whether an original Z80 or an FPGA reimplementation of one) with not
a whole lot of RAM and like, or at least with backwards compatibility with
the original Jupiter ACE (cf. the ZX Spectrum Next), whereas a cyberdeck
based on zeptoforth on an RP2040 or RP2350 would be a modern dual core ARM
machine running at 125 MHz or 150 MHz and having 264 KiB or 512 KiB of
SRAM, respectively, and would have no such backwards compatibility unless
we decided to write an emulator for the original Jupiter ACE and loaded it
onto the Zepto ACE (which would probably be feasible if we so desired).
I personally think a good name for such a project would be the 'zeptodeck'
myself. It gets the point across that it is a cyberdeck running zeptoforth,
without implying any backwards compatibility with any particular vintage
platform.
OH YEAH! "Zeptodeck" THAT'S IT! :) ...but I am curious, whether "Zeptodeck"
reminds me of "Star Trek"?....may be because of the "holo deck"? Never
mind... "Zeptodeck" is great!
> Authors Note:
> From my questions I usually post you will clearly see, that I am a bloody
> beginner when it comes to Forth and Zeptoforth. So a "Zepto ACE"
> is not something which will come to life in the next few months.
>
Oh, no pressure on you to come up with a "Zepto ACE" or a 'zeptodeck', even
though I do have to say that the idea would make for a cool project myself.
...we will see what future will bring, Travis! :)
> As an excercise I am currently trying to get a "Busy Beaver" running
> over a PSRAM-tape of 8MBytes...
>
> Next will be (hopefully) my Nixie clock...
>
To me implementing a Nixie clock is really more of a hardware challenge
than anything -- it is trivial from the software side of things, but I
personally would be lost implementing all the hardware needed for driving
the Nixie tubes.
...says the author of Zeptoforth himself...a FORTH wizard... ;) :) :) 8)
Yes, handling 'higher voltages' (60V++) with electronic driven by 3.3V is
a little of a challange. The driver boards I bought for each tube are
handling this for me. These boards are connected via SPI to the MCU,
which I """hate""" (the SPI thing) ...since I only need to send max 6 signals each
second. SPI is kind of "too fast for that"...
I decided to use an I2C expander and use its GPIOs as CS lines to each
driver board and the rest of the SPI directly from the PI PICO.
A DS3231 rtc is connected via I2C to the Pi Pico.
How to drive the tube to avoid any "electrical" and "switching"
stress is another question I have in mind...these tubes are no longer produced and
the last source of such tubes was ... Russia (as far as I know).
PWM to fade the digits in and out? Is "normal" (instant) switching
better? And everything needs to be handled by software... ;)
> We will see - I will promise nothing.
>
> May I ask another newbie question, Travis?
>
> On the internet I read about "the pearl of FORTH" <DOES and CREATE>.
> ZeptoForth uses <BUILDS DOES> instead...
>
> Is there any difference and/or advantage using <BUILD DOES> ?
>
> Cheers!
The reason why zeptoforth users <BUILDS DOES> rather than CREATE DOES> is
that the traditional CREATE DOES> while maintaining the functionality of
CREATE by itself is hard to implement for compiling to flash (because you
can write to flash once and only once, excluding block erases which cannot
erase individual bytes), necessitating separate <BUILDS DOES> and CREATE
(which is still provided for things like defining constant arrays).
zeptoforth is like Mecrisp-Stellaris in this way, for the record.
"Starting Forth" (the "newer" online version) explains CREATE/DOES.
Will the explanations the docs for Mecrisp will give (?) applicable
for Zeptoforth?
Cheers!
PS: In the /test/-folder I found 'builds-with-name >body' in the sources,
which I didn't find in the docs (which may be caused by me...<hrrrrmmmm>)
A secret weapon? "The zeptoforth - a language for a more civilised
age"... ??? ;)
… Travis
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:42 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> On 02/17 10:44, tabemann wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/16 12:24, tabemann wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 12:49 Travis Bemann ***@***.***> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025, 10:44 mcctuxic ***@***.***> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the
> > > > >> Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is
> > > closed
> > > > >> source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same
> > > for all
> > > > >> boards.
> > > > >> Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP
> and
> > > get
> > > > >> it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
> > > > >> working?
> > > > >> If not: Are there plans to make it work?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers!
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W uses the same WiFi chip as the Pico
> W and
> > > > > Pico 2 W, I anticipate that it would be minimal work to get zeptoIP
> > > with
> > > > > the CYW43439 driver to work with it. If anything would change I
> would
> > > > > anticipate it to be the pinout and/or the workings of the LED,
> which
> > > on the
> > > > > Pico W and Pico 2 W is routed through the CYW43439.
> > > > >
> > > > > Travis
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay I looked it up and Pico 2 W MicroPython UF2 files apparently
> work
> > > > properly on the Pimoroni Pico Plus 2 W (aside from not having access
> to
> > > the
> > > > Pico Plus 2 W's extra flash or its PSRAM), so I don't think you
> should
> > > have
> > > > trouble with zeptoIP and the CYW43439 driver as is on the Pico Plus
> 2 W.
> > > > You would have to modify zeptoforth to gain access to the higher
> flash
> > > > (e.g. expand the blocks/FAT32 space to 14 MiB), but there is code
> already
> > > > in place for enabling PSRAM and using that PSRAM as a RAM disk for
> FAT32
> > > > filesystems.
> > > >
> > > > Travis
> > > >
> > > Hi Travis,
> > >
> > > That sounds very promising - will check that! Thanks a lot for your
> help!
> > > :)
> > > I have already accessed the psram successfully...plenty of space!
> > > When I compare these little boards with what "power" were in
> > > the 8bit home computers ... OMG!
> > >
> >
> >
> > This is a big reason why I am opposed to the use of microcontrollers like
> > the Atmega328p -- they have no real advantage over modern
> microcontrollers
> > like the RP2040, RP2350, and the variety of STM32 microcontrollers, yet
> at
> > the same time do not have redeeming characteristics of being worthwhile
> as
> > retrocomputing platforms either (as they certainly were not used back in
> > the day nor do they seek to be modern recreations of old hardware). To
> me,
> > 8-bit and 16-bit microcontrollers are only worthwhile on the very low end
> > of the price range (mind you a RP2040 itself costs less than $1 USD) or
> in
> > low power applications (which is why the MSP430, which specializes in low
> > power, is still a worthwhile platform in semi-niche uses). But an Arduino
> > board does not have a Pico beat on price, so there is little reason to
> use
> > an Atmega microcontroller when you could be using something better for no
> > more money.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Should we start to (re)build a "Zepto ACE" computer...??? ;)
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> >
> >
> > That is like putting a vintage Mini Cooper label on a Ferrari - lol. :)
> >
> > That said, I am perfectly open to cyberdecks based on zeptoforth. I know
> > one person at least was working on one at one point, even though I am not
> > sure how far they got.
> >
> > Travis
> >
>
> The big advantage of the "Arduino" controller world is the shear amount
> of (young?) users. Technically there are far better choices... :)
>
> (meant not THAT seriously...):
> By no means it was my intention to put any lable on Zeptoforth and your
> work, Travis...
> With "Zepto ACE" I hadn't an emulation of a Mini Cooper type of thing
> in mind...but the idea of a """home computer""" with the raw power and
> the charming character of a Ferrari as a "Next Generation" version...why
> not.
>
> Authors Note:
> From my questions I usually post you will clearly see, that I am a bloody
> beginner when it comes to Forth and Zeptoforth. So a "Zepto ACE"
> is not something which will come to life in the next few months.
>
> As an excercise I am currently trying to get a "Busy Beaver" running
> over a PSRAM-tape of 8MBytes...
>
> Next will be (hopefully) my Nixie clock...
>
> We will see - I will promise nothing.
>
> May I ask another newbie question, Travis?
>
> On the internet I read about "the pearl of FORTH" <DOES and CREATE>.
> ZeptoForth uses <BUILDS DOES> instead...
>
> Is there any difference and/or advantage using <BUILD DOES> ?
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#186 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDMC2GE7MDSIQKEU3H7YHD2QNPIHAVCNFSM6AAAAABXHYKI5KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTEMRTHE2DENA>
> .
> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#186 (comment)
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hi,
as far as I know: The firmware for the BL/WIFI-module, which the Raspberry * W boards have in common with the Pimoroni Pico 2 W is closed source...so I think (read: don't know exactly) that it is the same for all boards.
Would it be successful to apply the procedurces to create ZeptoIP and get it running to the Pimoroni board and get the WIFI
working?
If not: Are there plans to make it work?
Cheers!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions