Talk:83Plus:OS:84 Plus USB Information/1 - Revision history

AndyJ at 20:11, 24 December 2005

2005-12-24T20:11:12Z

ExtendeD: /* 89T information txt file */ RTC ports

2005-07-24T00:51:28Z

‎89T information txt file: RTC ports

ExtendeD: /* Ports */ Port 86

2005-07-20T17:57:14Z

‎Ports: Port 86

ExtendeD: /* Ports */ No mirrored ports on Titanium

2005-07-18T09:16:20Z

‎Ports: No mirrored ports on Titanium

ExtendeD: /* This is just to move the TOC up */ Looking for an adapter

2005-07-15T22:31:52Z

‎This is just to move the TOC up: Looking for an adapter

Kevin Kofler: Add note about 0x710045 in the Titanium RTC

2005-07-15T02:34:33Z

Add note about 0x710045 in the Titanium RTC

AndyJ: /* This is just to move the TOC up */

2005-07-14T00:42:24Z

‎This is just to move the TOC up

Dan Englender: /* This is just to move the TOC up */ cables

2005-07-13T21:11:37Z

‎This is just to move the TOC up: cables

ExtendeD: Cable to connect

2005-07-13T19:27:38Z

Cable to connect

Kevin Kofler: Add comment about RTC

2005-07-13T00:56:11Z

Add comment about RTC

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 This is another page to use for your discussions, as the [[Talk:83Plus:OS:84_Plus_USB_Information|first page]] was getting long.
-== This is just to move the TOC up ==
+__TOC__
 I read the bit about device PIDs and theorized that the 89T was the 000F that it rejected... I hooked it up to my computer and it reported PID=E004, which isn't even an option from what he said. Also, in #wikiti: ''<+Kalimero> exactly, and 84P has pid E008'', which makes me think that it drops the E for OnTheGo transfers.. That explains that, but not what the other devices are. I think it'd be safe to theorize that the ViewScreen adapter would be "allowed", but... Didn't it come out after the calculators, so it would have a higher PID? Hold on, I just had another idea in #wikiti: ''<Andy_J> looking at the PIDs, it would seem that the 84+SE might be 0003, then the 89T would be 0004, then some mysteries, and the 84+ being 0008... maybe they originally planed to just have the 84+SE?'' So if that were the case, what are 0005 through 0007? Just some random ideas to throw out there. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 08:11, 27 May 2005 (PDT)

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 ::From my looks at AMS and ExtendeD's description of it, it looks like on the Titanium, the RTC ports are essentially the same, but numbered differently. 45 through 48 is 710046 through 710049, 41 through 44 is 710040 through 710043, 40 is 71005F and there is a port at 710044 I don't quite understand the purpose for, it's usually set to 0 whenever the clock is set (in OneSecondTimerSet as ExtendeD calls it). Similarly, GetOneSecondTimer reads some value from 710045. --[[User:Kevin Kofler|Kevin Kofler]] 17:56, 12 Jul 2005 (PDT)
 :::Apparently, 0x710045 is some sort of atomicity lock (just like the input and output ports are separate to guarantee atomicity): after reading the ports, AMS checks whether it is zero, and only accepts the value read if it is. I guess this is set to 0 when 0x710046 is read and to some non-0 value when the RTC is incremented, implementing the "non-blocking write" synchronization protocol. This doesn't explain what 0x710044 is for though. --[[User:Kevin Kofler|Kevin Kofler]] 19:34, 14 Jul 2005 (PDT)
 :I have thought about this for a while, it would be really helpful to debug any USB-related software written. The problem is that nothing has been tested yet on a real Titanium (Romain LiÃ©vin was to bring his calc to me during his weekend in Paris, but it seems we have missed each other). There are also many other ports we have not yet thought about. Perhaps you should wait for more information and for the current details to be stabilized.<br>
 :About the RTC, I think we have everything needed to implement it in my titanium-info.txt (in Titarom's package). --[[User:ExtendeD|ExtendeD]] 02:44, 10 Jul 2005 (PDT)

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 : I will check this again on the 84P --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 16:13, 9 Jul 2005 (PDT)
 :: I checked again and the E00F does in fact use a max packet size of 16 bytes.  I guess there's the bigger screen to contend with on the 89t, but I don't really see why TI didn't just make them both the same.  *shrug*  --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 18:33, 9 Jul 2005 (PDT)
 == 89T information txt file ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:16, 18 July 2005
Line 56:		Line 56:

	:::Actually AMS sometimes uses 2x ports, sometimes 8x ports, and this is the same for ports 3x/9x. There doesn't seem to be any logic in the choice (actually for some ports there is, and for others there isn't). Maybe there are some mirrors in the 7100xx range, and TI is using the possible addresses indifferently (perhaps for debugging purposes, using data breakpoints!). I have asked Romain LiÃ©vin to check this on a real Titanium. --[[User:ExtendeD\|ExtendeD]] 02:30, 7 Jul 2005 (PDT)		:::Actually AMS sometimes uses 2x ports, sometimes 8x ports, and this is the same for ports 3x/9x. There doesn't seem to be any logic in the choice (actually for some ports there is, and for others there isn't). Maybe there are some mirrors in the 7100xx range, and TI is using the possible addresses indifferently (perhaps for debugging purposes, using data breakpoints!). I have asked Romain LiÃ©vin to check this on a real Titanium. --[[User:ExtendeD\|ExtendeD]] 02:30, 7 Jul 2005 (PDT)
		+	::::Forget what I have previously said about some ports in 2x and 3x ranges on Titanium: they are not mirrors on anything, actually there are not used at all. I was using a Titarom-patched version of AMS, and it had badly patched these ports (Titarom is a patcher I had released to make VTI accept a Titanium's image. Now TiEmu can be used with a native ROM image, but it wasn't Titanium-compatible when I started to work on USB). So there are actually no 2x ports, and the only 3x ports used are 31 and 39. TI84P's port 3A doesn't seem to be used on Titanium.
		+
		+	::::I have now rewritten a part of the interrupt handler to replace AMS's one, and added a logging system to trace what's happening. Maybe this will help us to find out what are the functions of some currently unknown ports. --[[User:ExtendeD\|ExtendeD]] 02:16, 18 Jul 2005 (PDT)

	I've had a thought that may be nonsense, but also might not be. I'll need to verify it later. It seems like most, if not all, of the ports in the 9X range have two versions: one for incoming pipes and one for outgoing pipes. For example, 90 and 93, 92 and 95, 98 and 9A all seem very similar both based on when they're called, and the values set. It also may be that more than just A0, A1, and A2 can be used for data. Using ports 98 or 9A it might be able to set up other pipes. --[[User:Dan Englender\|Dan Englender]] 00:18, 1 Jul 2005 (PDT)		I've had a thought that may be nonsense, but also might not be. I'll need to verify it later. It seems like most, if not all, of the ports in the 9X range have two versions: one for incoming pipes and one for outgoing pipes. For example, 90 and 93, 92 and 95, 98 and 9A all seem very similar both based on when they're called, and the values set. It also may be that more than just A0, A1, and A2 can be used for data. Using ports 98 or 9A it might be able to set up other pipes. --[[User:Dan Englender\|Dan Englender]] 00:18, 1 Jul 2005 (PDT)

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 : I'm using the [http://www.goldxproducts.com/qc/gx5.htm GoldX five-in-one] converter cable.  I ordered it online, but I recently saw it in an office supply store (Office Max).  They're a bit bulky though, so I recently ordered a couple of smaller cables from [https://serialio.com//store/index.php?cPath=54_61 serialio].  I haven't gotten them yet, but they look like they should do the trick.  --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 14:11, 13 Jul 2005 (PDT)
 ::I saw an appropriate universal cable at Wal-mart for $15 dollars. It has all the tips you could ever need. --[[User:AndyJ|Andy Janata]] 17:42, 13 Jul 2005 (PDT)
 == Source ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 13 July 2005
Line 25:		Line 25:

	Dan, which cable are you using to plug your peripherals to your 84P? A B receptacle/mini-A plug doesn't seem to be very common in stores... --[[User:ExtendeD\|ExtendeD]] 12:27, 13 Jul 2005 (PDT)		Dan, which cable are you using to plug your peripherals to your 84P? A B receptacle/mini-A plug doesn't seem to be very common in stores... --[[User:ExtendeD\|ExtendeD]] 12:27, 13 Jul 2005 (PDT)
		+	: I'm using the [http://www.goldxproducts.com/qc/gx5.htm GoldX five-in-one] converter cable. I ordered it online, but I recently saw it in an office supply store (Office Max). They're a bit bulky though, so I recently ordered a couple of smaller cables from [https://serialio.com//store/index.php?cPath=54_61 serialio]. I haven't gotten them yet, but they look like they should do the trick. --[[User:Dan Englender\|Dan Englender]] 14:11, 13 Jul 2005 (PDT)

	== Source ==		== Source ==

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :Ok, I speculate that E00F is the 84+ ViewScreen adapter and E00E is the 89T ViewScreen. We won't know for sure until we get our hands on one of each. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 17:57, 29 Jun 2005 (PDT)
 ::I agree that that seems likely.  Also, the CBR2 can connect somehow to the 84 via USB.  I'm not sure whether it will have a TI or a Vernier ID though.  I don't really want to drop the dough for that one to find out.  I may buy the Vernier EasyLink when it comes out though. --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 19:07, 29 Jun 2005 (PDT)
 == Source ==

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 ::::: Well, TI84+ has leap year support in fact. The 32-bits value represents the seconds elapsed since midnight (00:00:00), January 1, 1997, almost like coordinated universal time (UTC, 1970) provided by <time.h> (primitives like mktime & localtime).
 :::::--[[User:roms|Romain LiÃ©vin]] 00:13, 13 Jul 2005
 :I have thought about this for a while, it would be really helpful to debug any USB-related software written. The problem is that nothing has been tested yet on a real Titanium (Romain LiÃ©vin was to bring his calc to me during his weekend in Paris, but it seems we have missed each other). There are also many other ports we have not yet thought about. Perhaps you should wait for more information and for the current details to be stabilized.<br>
 :About the RTC, I think we have everything needed to implement it in my titanium-info.txt (in Titarom's package). --[[User:ExtendeD|ExtendeD]] 02:44, 10 Jul 2005 (PDT)