Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA19870 for pups-liszt; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 16:17:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f Received: from alph02.triumf.ca (alph02.Triumf.CA [142.90.114.18]) by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA19865 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 16:17:27 +1100 (EST) Received: by alph02.triumf.ca; id AA22184; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:17:23 -0800 From: Tim Shoppa Message-Id: <9712070517.AA22184@alph02.triumf.ca> Subject: Re: PDP-11: Disk over Serial proposal To: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:17:23 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au Precedence: bulk > How complex is the tu58 protocol? I wanted something that we could > hand-toggle the boot code, if necessary. Many (most) Q-bus processors have TU58 bootstraps in firmware. Certainly all 11/73B, 11/83, 11/93, 11/84, and 11/94 have the bootstraps. Later Unibus processors (11/24, 11/44) often had TU58 bootstrap PROMs to boot diagnostics from TU58. The TU58 drivers aren't as simple as RK05 drivers (is anything as simple as a RK05 driver?) but they are comparable with, say, RL01/02 and RX02 drivers. One thing we don't want people doing is thinking that the TU58 protocol can be used as a poor man's system disk. Yes, it is flexible enough to be used as such, but it would be cruel to allow anyone to do that to themselves :-) Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca)