You are completely wrong. The best approach is a fully synchronous design with a clock enable. Sent from my ASUS Pad Istvan Hegedus <email@example.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I have been investigated these cores too and found FPG64's 6510 code the >closest implementation. I am currently playing experiments with it and one >drawback is that it uses fast clock (33Mhz) and slows the CPU down with the >enable signal. This however is needed in order not to violate the clock >domain of the whole FPGA64 design. It can be driven with slower clock speed >too but it is not a good concept to have different clock speeds in your >FPGA. > >http://www.syntiac.com/fpga64.html > >Br >Istvan > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: firstname.lastname@example.org >Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:41 AM >To: email@example.com >Subject: 6510FPGA Suggestions? > >Since for some time I am walking circles around the FPGA/CPLD bandwagon, I >thought it might be time to have a closer look. I checked opencores and >tried to decide where to spend some money (Altera, Atmel, Xilinx, ...?) that >would be able to implement a 6502 and an I/O port together with some RAM and >ROM modules. My n00b questions to the more experienced fellows: > >- how many kgates can be needed for something like I mentioned above? >- what would be the best h/w platform/vendor and why? >- what is the most complete/reliable 6502 core to use as starting point? >- what can you suggest or warn about? > >Cordially, > >-- >SD! > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list 1ë,j°jËžÛa®‹ †Ø^q¹¡iÉ®ÉšŠX§‚X¬Received on 2013-08-26 14:01:23
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.