Hallo Martin, Herzlichen Dank for your input! > > FF1 = !(!(!RDY & CLK) & FF2); > > FF2 = !(!(RDY & CLK) & FF1); When using A # B = !(!A & !B) or A # !B = !(!A & B) then you get indeed: > FF1 = (!RDY & CLK) # !FF2; > FF2 = ( RDY & CLK) # !FF1; But translating your result into hardware would mean I would end up with more, and only partly used, ICs. See later. > PHI0 = CLK # FF2; But PHI0 = !(!CLK & FF2) would become PHI0 = CLK # !FF2 IMHO. Unless you meant PHI0 = CLK # FF1 because FF1 is always !FF2 in this particular design. > FF2 = (RDY & CLK) # (RDY & FF2) # (!CLK & FF2); It took me several minutes to get the same result. But what impresses me is that you showed me that I only need one output instead of two! But my problem is my way of thinking: I'm focussed on ending up with as less ICs as possible. Using GALs it means I have to change that attitude. -- Kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Ruud Baltissen www.Baltissen.org Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2013-04-19 22:00:05
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.