[Coco] Does anyone have a Level3 disk that actually boots?

[Bill Nobel]

Thats what I thought,  I am merging the OS9P1/P2 and IOMAN to the current 3.3.0 code (which will end up with KRNP1/P2 renaming).  I already have Nitros9 compilable and ready (matching CRC and size).  OS9P2 looks as though Alan did no changes for L3 so it will be soon be ready for testing.

Bill Nobel

> On Nov 29, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There were no changes specifically for DriveWire, but in the process of
> creating DriveWire several bugs in OS9 were discovered and corrected.  If
> this Level 3 uses the current NitrOS9 code then all should be fine, but if
> its based on an earlier version then DriveWire may not work due to those
> old bugs.
> On Nov 29, 2014 10:26 AM, "Bill Nobel" <b_nobel at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Speaking of DW Aaron,  Did you have to do anything for changes in RBF/SCF
>> for DW4?  I am asking this as I need to figure out if I have to disassemble
>> those modules from L3 or are they stock from Nitros9. So far L3 is based in
>> these modules: Nitros9 (splits RBF/SCF) OS9P1 (calls nitros9) and IOMAN
>> (maps and calls SCF/RBF).  I think I do have to look at both SCF/RBF to see
>> if Alan did any mods in those for the memory mapping but not sure yet.
>> 
>> Bill Nobel
>> 
>>> On Nov 29, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Nov 28, 2014 10:22 AM, "Bill Pierce via Coco" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So far, there is one MAJOR disadvantage to Level 3..... The drivewire4
>>> drivers will not function. The reason being the drivewire sits on the
>>> "line" as it is an RBF driver with SCF functions. and cannot be
>> seperated.
>>>> <y question is.. could create another RBF module, renamed to "DW4" or
>>> something (same for SCF), then move ALL the dw drivers out to another
>>> space. How much is DW tied to RBF? I know it's tied heavily to SCF.
>>> 
>>> The SCF, RBF, and clock functionality of Drivewire is already split into
>>> separate modules that do not communicate with each other.  However, all
>>> three of these share a dependency on the common "DW sub" module that
>>> provides the low level serial communication.  This common module will
>> need
>>> to be available to both the rbf and SCF address space (and the clock if
>>> that's made into a separate area).  So long as that is done, there should
>>> not be a problem.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Coco mailing list
>>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Coco mailing list
>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco