Thread: [cbm4linux-users] cbm4linux problem
Brought to you by:
cbm4linux
Menu
▾
▴
cbm4linux-users
|
From: <ds...@pu...> - 2004-06-16 18:47:34
|
Hi. I've been trying to get my 1541 drive working with cbm4linux recently, and I'm having a very annoying problem. What's most annoying about it is that I have no idea what's causing it - cbm4linux, my drive or my cable. Basically, when I boot up and load parport_pc and cbm, I get the following output in my kernel log: cbm_init: using passive (XM1541) cable (auto), irq 7 cbm: resetting devices cbm: sleeping 5 seconds... So far, so good. I then run cbmctrl detect, and it shows my 1541 as device 8. But when I try to write to it (d64copy foo.d64 8), there's several things that seem to happen at random. Either I get the following output: [Fatal] could not identify device [Warning] Unknown drive, assuming 1541 [Fatal] drive 08 (1541): 99, DRIVER ERROR,00,00 Or it starts, and gives back write errors for every sector, with the drive not actually doing anything. Sometimes, however, it seems to work just fine, but then after a few sectors gives write errors. Anyone have any ideas? Hardware malfunction is quite possible, as this drive does sometimes behave strangely. The cable also could be suspect - it's an XM1541 I made. I've checked it several times, and can see nothing wrong with it, but you never know. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. -David |
|
From: Simon S. <ss...@we...> - 2004-06-17 04:08:42
|
> Anyone have any ideas? Hardware malfunction is quite possible, as this > drive does sometimes behave strangely. The cable also could be suspect - > it's an XM1541 I made. I've checked it several times, and can see nothing > wrong with it, but you never know. my first guess would be the drive - is it possible for you to test with another? BTW, which kernel version are you running? |
|
From: <ds...@pu...> - 2004-06-17 13:27:48
|
>> Anyone have any ideas? Hardware malfunction is quite possible, as this >> drive does sometimes behave strangely. The cable also could be suspect - >> it's an XM1541 I made. I've checked it several times, and can see >> nothing >> wrong with it, but you never know. > > my first guess would be the drive - is it possible for you to test with > another? BTW, which kernel version are you running? I'm running kernel 2.6.5 at the moment. I just dug up my c64 and tested the drive with it, and it seems to work like a charm. Listed the files on a few floppies, and loaded up the trusty turbo assembler without any problems. I'm starting to suspect the cable... too bad, I really can't see what's wrong with it. Is there any way to test it? Thanks. -David |
|
From: Joe Forster/S. <st...@c6...> - 2004-06-18 09:58:44
|
Hi David, [XM1541 cable] > I'm starting to suspect the cable... too bad, I really can't see what's > wrong with it. Is there any way to test it? If you don't mind booting and using DOS for an hour or so, ;-) grab XCTest from http://sta.c64.org/scextprg.html#xctest and XCDetect from http://sta.c64.org/scextprg.html#xcdetect . Good luck, Joe --=20 KOV=C1CS Bal=E1zs alias Joe Forster/STA st...@c6...; http://sta.c64.or= g Orsolya u. 5. IV/12., 1204 Budapest, Hungary; +36-1-285-3881, 6-10PM CET (SpamAssassin protection! No HTML E-mails! No uncompressed attachments!) |
|
From: <ds...@pu...> - 2004-06-18 12:19:34
|
Hi, and thanks for the reply. I just tried xctest, and there's definately something wrong somewhere. For the test with the cable connected to the parallel port but not connected to the 1541, the behavior is correct (all inputs follow their respective outputs). However, when I plug the serial end into the 1541, the DATA line is pulled low all the time. The weird thing is that this also happens when the drive is off. I actually watched the data line being pulled low when I connected the drive. All the other inputs followed their outputs as they should. Now I'm even more confused than before... what could cause this? The drive works like a charm on my c64. XCDetect just hung when I tried to start it, before printing anything to screen. Also happened when no cable was attached, so that could be something caused by my machine. Any insight as to possible causes for this weird behavior would be greatly appreciated, as I'm at a complete loss. Thanks, David > Hi David, > > [XM1541 cable] >> I'm starting to suspect the cable... too bad, I really can't see what's >> wrong with it. Is there any way to test it? > > If you don't mind booting and using DOS for an hour or so, ;-) grab XCTest > from http://sta.c64.org/scextprg.html#xctest and XCDetect from > http://sta.c64.org/scextprg.html#xcdetect . Good luck, > > Joe > -- > KOVÁCS Balázs alias Joe Forster/STA st...@c6...; http://sta.c64.org > Orsolya u. 5. IV/12., 1204 Budapest, Hungary; +36-1-285-3881, 6-10PM CET > (SpamAssassin protection! No HTML E-mails! No uncompressed attachments!) |
|
From: Joe Forster/S. <st...@c6...> - 2004-06-18 12:57:47
|
Hi David,
I quote from the XCTest docs:
---
If you have questions about this program, the tests or your test results
then send a detailed report to the author's E-mail address below. Your
report should contain, at least, the following information:
1. Manufacturer and type of the motherboard of your PC.
2. Manufacturer and type of the chipset on the I/O controller card or
the one integrated onto the motherboard.
3. The type of your serial cable.
4. Manufacturer and type of your Commodore drive (if you have connected
one).
5. All configuration settings in the program. (In a later release,
settings will be logged into a file automatically.)
6. The code of the test you tried - it's in all capitals in front of the
test description. (In a later release, input line histories will be
logged into a file automatically.)
7. Any other circumstances that you think to be important.
---
In particular, I think the chipset of your motherboard may not be
compatible with the XE1541/XM1541 cables. So, you should collect the
information listed above and send it to us... Ciao,
Joe
--=20
KOV=C1CS Bal=E1zs alias Joe Forster/STA st...@c6...; http://sta.c64.or=
g
Orsolya u. 5. IV/12., 1204 Budapest, Hungary; +36-1-285-3881, 6-10PM CET
(SpamAssassin protection! No HTML E-mails! No uncompressed attachments!)
|
|
From: Andreas <co...@c6...> - 2004-06-20 08:03:04
|
> In particular, I think the chipset of your motherboard may not be > compatible with the XE1541/XM1541 cables. So, you should collect the > information listed above and send it to us... Ciao, > > Joe Changing around the available BIOS settings for the parport often helps. l8r -- Count Zero/CyberpunX/SCS*TRC http://pokefinder.org Replay Copy Convention 28th - 31st May 2004! |
|
From: Spiro T. <tri...@gm...> - 2004-10-01 15:49:48
|
Hello, just a short question: Can anybody tell me how much time it takes to read a complete floppy image (D64) using only the original IEC bus protocol? As I told, all times without "enhanced" protocols, or even parallel cables? TIA, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ |
|
From: Joe Forster/S. <st...@c6...> - 2004-10-01 16:51:57
|
Hi Spiro, > Can anybody tell me how much time it takes to read a complete floppy > image (D64) using only the original IEC bus protocol? I don't think anyone would have enough time to test this... 8^) Seriously, when I tested it last time with The Star Commander - not cbm4linux! -, I managed to read a full 1541 disk in 7:50 and write it in 9:55. That was normal mode, the usual IEC protocol, no extras and that's what I wrote into the benchmark table in the docs. Bye, Joe --=20 KOV=C1CS Bal=E1zs alias Joe Forster/STA st...@c6...; http://sta.c64.or= g Orsolya u. 5. IV/12., 1204 Budapest, Hungary; +36-1-285-3881, 6-10PM CET (SpamAssassin protection! No HTML E-mails! No uncompressed attachments!) |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@pu...> - 2004-10-03 13:04:54
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Joe Forster/STA wrote: >> Can anybody tell me how much time it takes to read a complete floppy >> image (D64) using only the original IEC bus protocol? > > I don't think anyone would have enough time to test this... 8^) Seriously, > when I tested it last time with The Star Commander - not cbm4linux! -, I > managed to read a full 1541 disk in 7:50 and write it in 9:55. That was > normal mode, the usual IEC protocol, no extras and that's what I wrote > into the benchmark table in the docs. Bye, cbm4linux is a bit slower. Somewhere between 10 and 12 minutes, depending on load and interleave. cheers! -- Michael puffin:~ > uptime 15:00:53 up 59 days, 7:28, 1 user, load average: 0.31, 0.13, 0.07 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X