Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMar2019

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 158775

Article: 158775
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 00:19:16 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>
> So, Xilinx is working for me.  And, yes, after going to the trouble of
> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.

What tool quirks.  I think that is mostly a Xilinx domain.  Altera tools 
just work and I've yet to find much in the way of problems with the 
Lattice tools.  They never tried to roll their own, so I guess that is a 
plus.

I'll be finding out how good Microsemi tools are soon.  I've got a 
Smartfusion2 kickstart board and want to play with it.  But the Avnet 
site is no working this week because of a massive upgrade.  They 
actually made the board and I've not yet found much in the way of 
getting started info.  I guess I should just rely on Microsemi to get me 
started on the tools and figure out the kickstart board specifics once 
I'm up with the tools.

-- 

Rick

Article: 158776
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 05:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a 
> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked 
> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with 
> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
> 
>       386 Chip
>     ____________
>     ++++++++++++                     FPGA
>    ==============                _____________
>     ||||||||||||                 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ===================================================  PCB
>                   ||||||||||||
>                 Plugs into 386 Mobo
> 
> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket.  When emulating the 
> mobo, unplug from the mobo.  When monitoring the 386 in operation plug 
> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
> 
> If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design.  I can use 
> this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been 
> meaning to do.

I think I'd like to design this board, but without the plugs into the
386 motherboard.

Would you still be willing to help me with design?  I'll get the pinouts
and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
format for inspection.

Do you know what part number I'd need for the level converters?

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

Article: 158777
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:29:45 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 8:14 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
>> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
>> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
>> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
>>
>>        386 Chip
>>      ____________
>>      ++++++++++++                     FPGA
>>     ==============                _____________
>>      ||||||||||||                 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>> ===================================================  PCB
>>                    ||||||||||||
>>                  Plugs into 386 Mobo
>>
>> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket.  When emulating the
>> mobo, unplug from the mobo.  When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
>> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
>>
>> If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design.  I can use
>> this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been
>> meaning to do.
>
> I think I'd like to design this board, but without the plugs into the
> 386 motherboard.
>
> Would you still be willing to help me with design?  I'll get the pinouts
> and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
> format for inspection.
>
> Do you know what part number I'd need for the level converters?

I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce.  I prefer the TSSOP (PW) 
package, but that will depend on how you wish to layout the board. 
There is a smaller package, the TVSOP (DGV) and some larger.  No DIPs 
I'm afraid.

If you want to get a board made, you need to use a layout package.  I 
don't know of any PCB fab houses that will work with custom art.  It has 
to be a layout package format or Gerber files.

-- 

Rick

Article: 158778
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/8/2016 8:14 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> >> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
> >> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
> >> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
> >> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
> >>
> >>        386 Chip
> >>      ____________
> >>      ++++++++++++                     FPGA
> >>     ==============                _____________
> >>      ||||||||||||                 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> >> ===================================================  PCB
> >>                    ||||||||||||
> >>                  Plugs into 386 Mobo
> >>
> >> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket.  When emulating the
> >> mobo, unplug from the mobo.  When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
> >> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
> >>
> >> If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design.  I can use
> >> this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been
> >> meaning to do.
> >
> > I think I'd like to design this board, but without the plugs into the
> > 386 motherboard.
> >
> > Would you still be willing to help me with design?  I'll get the pinouts
> > and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
> > format for inspection.
> >
> > Do you know what part number I'd need for the level converters?
> 
> I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce.  I prefer the TSSOP (PW) 
> package, but that will depend on how you wish to layout the board. 
> There is a smaller package, the TVSOP (DGV) and some larger.  No DIPs 
> I'm afraid.
> 
> If you want to get a board made, you need to use a layout package.  I 
> don't know of any PCB fab houses that will work with custom art.  It has 
> to be a layout package format or Gerber files.

Understood.  The idea of the image format would be to present to you my
initial work, so you could scrutinize it and give me notes.  I would
adjust it, and then once it's in final form, translate it to a layout
tool.

I have long-term goals to write a software program called Logician, which
is a logic layout tool which will include routing abilities.  So, this
would be an early implementation of that algorithm so the bitlines are
not trumped by their neighbors. :-)

I envision a 4- or 6-layer board with vias.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

Article: 158779
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:58:07 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 1:33 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>> On 4/8/2016 8:14 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>>>> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
>>>> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
>>>> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
>>>> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
>>>>
>>>>         386 Chip
>>>>       ____________
>>>>       ++++++++++++                     FPGA
>>>>      ==============                _____________
>>>>       ||||||||||||                 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>>> ===================================================  PCB
>>>>                     ||||||||||||
>>>>                   Plugs into 386 Mobo
>>>>
>>>> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket.  When emulating the
>>>> mobo, unplug from the mobo.  When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
>>>> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
>>>>
>>>> If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design.  I can use
>>>> this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been
>>>> meaning to do.
>>>
>>> I think I'd like to design this board, but without the plugs into the
>>> 386 motherboard.
>>>
>>> Would you still be willing to help me with design?  I'll get the pinouts
>>> and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
>>> format for inspection.
>>>
>>> Do you know what part number I'd need for the level converters?
>>
>> I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce.  I prefer the TSSOP (PW)
>> package, but that will depend on how you wish to layout the board.
>> There is a smaller package, the TVSOP (DGV) and some larger.  No DIPs
>> I'm afraid.
>>
>> If you want to get a board made, you need to use a layout package.  I
>> don't know of any PCB fab houses that will work with custom art.  It has
>> to be a layout package format or Gerber files.
>
> Understood.  The idea of the image format would be to present to you my
> initial work, so you could scrutinize it and give me notes.  I would
> adjust it, and then once it's in final form, translate it to a layout
> tool.
>
> I have long-term goals to write a software program called Logician, which
> is a logic layout tool which will include routing abilities.  So, this
> would be an early implementation of that algorithm so the bitlines are
> not trumped by their neighbors. :-)
>
> I envision a 4- or 6-layer board with vias.

To start,  I suggest you take a look at FreePCB.  It has an easy 
learning curve and support in a Yahoo group.  Stick to a 4 layer board 
for cost.  I can't see any reason why this would not be easy.  Pick an 
FPGA in a non-BGA package if you can.  I don't recall how many I/O you 
need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin 
QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the 
wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one 
with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.

-- 

Rick

Article: 158780
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 11:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:58:12 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 4/8/2016 1:33 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2016 8:14 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:51:16 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> >>>> You should be able to design one board with an FPGA, a 386 socket and a
> >>>> 386 plug which will work for any of the three things you have talked
> >>>> about doing, emulating the mobo with your FPGA, emulating the 386 with
> >>>> your FPGA and monitoring the 386 in a real mobo with the FPGA.
> >>>>
> >>>>         386 Chip
> >>>>       ____________
> >>>>       ++++++++++++                     FPGA
> >>>>      ==============                _____________
> >>>>       ||||||||||||                 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> >>>> ===================================================  PCB
> >>>>                     ||||||||||||
> >>>>                   Plugs into 386 Mobo
> >>>>
> >>>> When emulating the 386 unplug it from the socket.  When emulating the
> >>>> mobo, unplug from the mobo.  When monitoring the 386 in operation plug
> >>>> in the 386 and plug the board into the mobo.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you aren't in a hurry, I can help you with the PCB design.  I can use
> >>>> this as a learning tool to come up to speed with KiCAD which I've been
> >>>> meaning to do.
> >>>
> >>> I think I'd like to design this board, but without the plugs into the
> >>> 386 motherboard.
> >>>
> >>> Would you still be willing to help me with design?  I'll get the pinouts
> >>> and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
> >>> format for inspection.
> >>>
> >>> Do you know what part number I'd need for the level converters?
> >>
> >> I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce.  I prefer the TSSOP (PW)
> >> package, but that will depend on how you wish to layout the board.
> >> There is a smaller package, the TVSOP (DGV) and some larger.  No DIPs
> >> I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> If you want to get a board made, you need to use a layout package.  I
> >> don't know of any PCB fab houses that will work with custom art.  It has
> >> to be a layout package format or Gerber files.
> >
> > Understood.  The idea of the image format would be to present to you my
> > initial work, so you could scrutinize it and give me notes.  I would
> > adjust it, and then once it's in final form, translate it to a layout
> > tool.
> >
> > I have long-term goals to write a software program called Logician, which
> > is a logic layout tool which will include routing abilities.  So, this
> > would be an early implementation of that algorithm so the bitlines are
> > not trumped by their neighbors. :-)
> >
> > I envision a 4- or 6-layer board with vias.
> 
> To start,  I suggest you take a look at FreePCB.  It has an easy 
> learning curve and support in a Yahoo group.  Stick to a 4 layer board 
> for cost.

FreePCB looks good.  How much should a board like this cost?

> I can't see any reason why this would not be easy.  Pick an 
> FPGA in a non-BGA package if you can.  I don't recall how many I/O you 
> need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin 
> QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the 
> wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one 
> with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.

I had planned on using my Altera Cyclone V GX dev board with this FPGA:

    http://wl.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-terasic-cyclone-v-gx-starter.html

I have an adapter coming which leverages the HSMC port to GPIO ports:

    http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&CategoryNo=67&No=322&PartNo=2#section

I'm going to begin working on my Logician tool off-and-on this year.
It will allow me to program logic gates and handle translation to a
physical process, along with wire routing.  It will include a full
simulator, and an export-to-Verilog module, which I will use for the
general purpose logic.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

Article: 158781
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:49:55 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:

> On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>
>> So, Xilinx is working for me.  And, yes, after going to the trouble of
>> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
>> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.
> 
> What tool quirks.

I didn't really mean quirks as in things that didn't work, or work right.  I 
just meant that each tool chain has a lot of features to learn, where the 
optional settings are hidden, how to quickly configure the simulator, how to 
set up to generate configuration PROM images, etc.  There is a lot to learn 
before you get fully productive.

Jon



Article: 158782
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:57:44 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:



> 
> I use SN74CBTD3384 on a board I produce.

Also, the 74LVC8T245 is a good bidirectional translator, 8 bits in a 24-pin 
package.  Or, the 74ALVC164245DL, two independent 8-bit translators in a 48-
pin package.  I've used a bunch of both of these in some gear I have 
produced, mostly to connect between FPGAs with 3.3 V I/O and 5V systems.
I also used the former to connect 5 V systems to the old Beagle Board 
computer, which had 1.8 V I/O.

Jon

Article: 158783
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:02:51 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

 I'll get the pinouts
> and work up a circuit and wiring diagram proposal in multi-layer image
> format for inspection.
Complex designs like this require GOOD schematic and PCB layout tools.  I 
use an old one, Protel 99SE, but that is no longer available, and was pretty 
expensive when it was.  I have used Kicad a little, it shows REAL promise, 
but is not yet as good as Protel.  It runs on Windows AND Linux!  And, it is 
free, open-source software.  The advantage of these packages is you can do 
copper pours, inner power plane layers, and it checks the correctness of the 
PCB layout against the schematic.  No human could EVER be sure that a 
complex PCB layout was correct, no matter how long they looked at it.  
Software DRC takes just a couple seconds.

Jon



Article: 158784
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:06:18 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:

> I don't recall how many I/O you
> need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
> QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
> wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one
> with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.
> 
I have learned how to solder QFPs down to 0.4mm pitch, but it takes a TINY 
soldering tip, a stereo zoom microscope and a STEADY hand!  0.65 mm pitch is 
pretty easy, at least for me.

Jon

Article: 158785
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:07:23 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 2:49 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>
>>> So, Xilinx is working for me.  And, yes, after going to the trouble of
>>> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
>>> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.
>>
>> What tool quirks.
>
> I didn't really mean quirks as in things that didn't work, or work right.  I
> just meant that each tool chain has a lot of features to learn, where the
> optional settings are hidden, how to quickly configure the simulator, how to
> set up to generate configuration PROM images, etc.  There is a lot to learn
> before you get fully productive.

Yeah, I guess so.  Is Xilinx still using their own simulator?  I seem to 
recall it compiled to machine code so the compile was slow, but the 
simulation itself was fast.  Still true?

-- 

Rick

Article: 158786
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:05:09 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> 
> > I don't recall how many I/O you
> > need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
> > QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
> > wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one
> > with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.
> > 
> I have learned how to solder QFPs down to 0.4mm pitch, but it takes a TINY 
> soldering tip, a stereo zoom microscope and a STEADY hand!  0.65 mm pitch is 
> pretty easy, at least for me.

I was under the impression I'd use some kind of solder paste over a solder
mask the PCB maker sends, place the parts, and then simply bake in some kind
of high-heat oven.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

Article: 158787
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:59:35 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 3:09 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:05:09 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>
>>> I don't recall how many I/O you
>>> need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
>>> QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
>>> wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one
>>> with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.
>>>
>> I have learned how to solder QFPs down to 0.4mm pitch, but it takes a TINY
>> soldering tip, a stereo zoom microscope and a STEADY hand!  0.65 mm pitch is
>> pretty easy, at least for me.
>
> I was under the impression I'd use some kind of solder paste over a solder
> mask the PCB maker sends, place the parts, and then simply bake in some kind
> of high-heat oven.

You can do that.  But if you are using QFPs, a soldering iron works 
pretty well I am told.  The solder stencil is not so easy to use but 
works ok.  If you have BGAs or land grid array parts you have to use the 
solder stencil.

-- 

Rick

Article: 158788
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 17:11:53 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:

> On 4/8/2016 2:49 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, Xilinx is working for me.  And, yes, after going to the trouble of
>>>> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
>>>> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.
>>>
>>> What tool quirks.
>>
>> I didn't really mean quirks as in things that didn't work, or work right.
>>  I just meant that each tool chain has a lot of features to learn, where
>> the optional settings are hidden, how to quickly configure the simulator,
>> how to
>> set up to generate configuration PROM images, etc.  There is a lot to
>> learn before you get fully productive.
> 
> Yeah, I guess so.  Is Xilinx still using their own simulator?  I seem to
> recall it compiled to machine code so the compile was slow, but the
> simulation itself was fast.  Still true?
> 
Yes.  For the designs I do, the compile only takes a few seconds, and the 
sim runs pretty fast, although not blazingly.  Sometimes I need to run 10's 
of ms of simulated time to get out to the interesting part, and it takes a 
minute or so.  I can't imagine how some of the people simulating gigantic 
systems manage.

But, the GUI aspects of Xilinx' sim is SO much better than that ghastly 
Modelsim product which I never really got competent at running.

Jon

Article: 158789
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 17:17:30 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:05:09 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>> 
>> > I don't recall how many I/O you
>> > need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
>> > QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
>> > wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one
>> > with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.
>> > 
>> I have learned how to solder QFPs down to 0.4mm pitch, but it takes a
>> TINY
>> soldering tip, a stereo zoom microscope and a STEADY hand!  0.65 mm pitch
>> is pretty easy, at least for me.
> 
> I was under the impression I'd use some kind of solder paste over a solder
> mask the PCB maker sends, place the parts, and then simply bake in some
> kind of high-heat oven.
I don't do this for one-offs or prototypes.  There is a big trick to the 
stencils.  You need to reduce the area of the stencil apertures, or the 
excessive solder paste clumps together and bridges between the leads.  As 
the lead pitch gets finer, this gets more and more critical.

Another trick is to place solder blobs on two diagonal pads, and tack the 
chip down.  You can view the alignment on all 4 sides and "walk" the chip by 
melting the solder on one of the tacked-down pins at a time until alignment 
is good.  Then, apply liquid flux down all the rows of pins, and drag a 
soldering iron down the rows.  The solder plate on the board is usually 
enough to solder the pins.  

Jon

Article: 158790
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 00:24:21 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 6:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/2016 2:49 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2016 12:14 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Xilinx is working for me.  And, yes, after going to the trouble of
>>>>> getting comfortable in the Xilinx tools, the last thing I want to do is
>>>>> learn somebody else's tools' quirks.
>>>>
>>>> What tool quirks.
>>>
>>> I didn't really mean quirks as in things that didn't work, or work right.
>>>   I just meant that each tool chain has a lot of features to learn, where
>>> the optional settings are hidden, how to quickly configure the simulator,
>>> how to
>>> set up to generate configuration PROM images, etc.  There is a lot to
>>> learn before you get fully productive.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess so.  Is Xilinx still using their own simulator?  I seem to
>> recall it compiled to machine code so the compile was slow, but the
>> simulation itself was fast.  Still true?
>>
> Yes.  For the designs I do, the compile only takes a few seconds, and the
> sim runs pretty fast, although not blazingly.  Sometimes I need to run 10's
> of ms of simulated time to get out to the interesting part, and it takes a
> minute or so.  I can't imagine how some of the people simulating gigantic
> systems manage.
>
> But, the GUI aspects of Xilinx' sim is SO much better than that ghastly
> Modelsim product which I never really got competent at running.

Can you be more specific?  I got used to Modelsim and then paid for a 
package from Lattice when I got some work using their part.  Between the 
time I ordered the package with Modelsim and the time it was shipped to 
me, they switched to using the Aldec product.  I raised hell with them 
over the phone and email, but they insisted there was nothing they could 
do.  So I got over it and found the Aldec simulator didn't crash 
periodically like the Modelsim product did.  Otherwise it used a 
compatible scripting interpreter and overall worked very similarly.  It 
has been a while since I've done much with it, but I don't recall 
anything that is too awkward.  What is so bad that you find Modelsim to 
be "ghastly"?

-- 

Rick

Article: 158791
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 00:28:57 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/8/2016 6:17 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:05:09 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't recall how many I/O you
>>>> need, but there are 144 pin QFPs (~110 I/Os) and I think some 208 pin
>>>> QFPs around.  Even if you go with an older FPGA like a Spartan 3A the
>>>> wider pitch package is worth it.  If you have to use a BGA, pick one
>>>> with a wide ball spacing like 1.0 mm.
>>>>
>>> I have learned how to solder QFPs down to 0.4mm pitch, but it takes a
>>> TINY
>>> soldering tip, a stereo zoom microscope and a STEADY hand!  0.65 mm pitch
>>> is pretty easy, at least for me.
>>
>> I was under the impression I'd use some kind of solder paste over a solder
>> mask the PCB maker sends, place the parts, and then simply bake in some
>> kind of high-heat oven.
> I don't do this for one-offs or prototypes.  There is a big trick to the
> stencils.  You need to reduce the area of the stencil apertures, or the
> excessive solder paste clumps together and bridges between the leads.  As
> the lead pitch gets finer, this gets more and more critical.
>
> Another trick is to place solder blobs on two diagonal pads, and tack the
> chip down.  You can view the alignment on all 4 sides and "walk" the chip by
> melting the solder on one of the tacked-down pins at a time until alignment
> is good.  Then, apply liquid flux down all the rows of pins, and drag a
> soldering iron down the rows.  The solder plate on the board is usually
> enough to solder the pins.

I have yet to deal with hand soldering of anything this fine, but I'm 
told you can put a blob of solder on the iron tip to do the swipe you 
are referring to.  *Very* little solder is needed to make a good 
connection.  Many follow up the solder swipe by a solder braid and iron 
to remove the excess which may not be easy to see between or behind the 
pins.  Someone who was hand soldering one of my boards told me he had a 
fit trying to remove a short once because it was so fine he couldn't see 
it even *with* a magnifier.  Eventually he just passed a sharp point 
between all the leads on the connector and the short was gone.  I guess 
it was virtually like a tin whisker (but before RoHS).

-- 

Rick

Article: 158792
Subject: Re: Altera HSMC connector
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 00:34:10 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/5/2016 3:23 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 3:03:53 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 2:53:15 PM UTC-4, Rob Gaddi wrote:
>>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>> Hello all.  I'm looking for some information about Altera's FPGA.  I have
>>>> this Cyclone V GX dev board:
>>>>
>>>>      https://www.altera.com/products/boards_and_kits/dev-kits/partners/kit-terasic-cyclone-v-gx-starter.html
>>>>
>>>> It has a 160-pin HSMC connector, which connects using this flexible cable:
>>>>
>>>>      https://www.altera.com/en_US/pdfs/literature/ds/hsmc_spec.pdf
>>>>      http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&No=275
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if this connector can be used for general purpose off-board
>>>> communication for custom uses outside of connecting to other Mezzanine
>>>> boards?  Could I, for example, connect some wires to the pins and signal
>>>> them independently for GPIO?
>>>>
>>>> Or... is this cable interface something proprietary that only allows
>>>> interconnect between Mezzanine devices?
>>>
>>> It's a bit of a pain as connectors go.
>>> http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&CategoryNo=67&No=322&PartNo=1 makes a convenient breakout.  You want the (M), to mate the dev kit, not the (F).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com
>>
>> Thank you, Rob.  That's exactly what I was looking for.
>
> Ordered.  Thank you again.

I think you are better off not using the FPGA eval board and just making 
your own board with the 386 and the FPGA.  The adapters and cables are 
going to add a lot of capacitance and noise to your signals.  Why mess 
with the added complexity?

-- 

Rick

Article: 158793
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 09:15:40 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:28:39 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> After hearing all of the difficulties I may have on the motherboard
> side, the re-grouping of just working with the Am386 CPU makes a lot
> more sense. Plus, it actually accomplishes nearly all of my goals as my
> goals were to replace the CPU's instruction set with my own, and to
> validate it 1:1 that I am correct.  By having a side-by-side comparison
> I can do that.  And as I've stated, it might even be interesting to try
> to get other 80386-clone CPUs to test out side-by-side in the
> configuration, and then write a paper outlining where they are
> different.  But, that's the lowest possible goal, just a "wouldn't it be
> interesting" thought. :-)

Yesterday I remembered an additional thing that can go wrong, and almost 
certainly will go wrong.

The system you are hacking (the motherboard) almost certainly uses DRAM 
as its main memory. DRAM needs to be refreshed every so often. This is 
done by the memory controller toggling a particular command to the chip 
when it wants the chip to refresh the memory. The question is how does 
the memory controller know when to order a refresh. Almost 100% 
certainly, it has a counter that responds to the clock signal driven by 
or derived from the main system clock. The system clock you underclock.

So if you slow the clock enough, you are certain to violate the refresh 
timing of the DRAM and ruin its contents.

And you can't have a computer without a functional main memory. :)

Article: 158794
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:38:19 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
> garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes!

I'm in. :)

Although, for the time being, I'm fine with using FPGAs.

I've been thinking about building a completely open-source computer, down 
to the atoms, but it's really a group project. There's literally no point 
in building a computer that will not be used outside of a single family 
or "close knit community". A bunch of villages and a city would be the 
smallest user base I would target.

Yet, so far, I seem to be the only person I ever met off the Internet to 
have such interests.

>> I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
>> BETTER architectures out there? :)
> 
> I have a long history on 80386.  I wrote my own kernel, debuggers, etc.
> It's been a relationship dating back to the late 80s.

Oh, ok. 

> However, one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I am extending the
> ISA out to include 40-bit addresses, rather than just 32-bit,
> which accesses memory in the Terabyte range, and to include a built-in
> ARM ISA which allows the CPU to switch between ISAs based on branch
> instructions.

Ouch, ouch, ouch, too much - unless you're good at it. :)

I designed and implemented a 16-bit soft CPU from scratch, and I can tell 
you it's seriously difficult to make it work. Right now, I'm hacking a 32-
bit CPU (aeMB, to be very specific) and interfacing it to a SoC I plan to 
publish eventually and again, it's seriously difficult to make it work.

If you add a bit to the word or address size, you are not just doubling 
the CPUs capabilities, you are also doubling the number, size and scope 
of problems you have to deal with.

Now, if you already did work on this, or have a working Verilog/VHDL 
model, it's probably OK - taking into account your time horizon. But if 
you are at the stage of an idea, I would suggest making up your mind 
between x86 and ARM and just focusing on one untill you make it work.

>> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
>> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?
> 
> To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was
> gifted with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow
> man (and not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other
> such things, but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).

Oh. OK. :) Works for me.

Did you publish any of your work?

>> Does simulation count? :D
> 
> Yes.  Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does
> not plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation.  Here's an
> Aleksander who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):
> 
>     https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486

Verily, I shall review this. I'm starting to get the impression that all 
the stuff I'm making on my own has already been solved, but hasn't been 
advertised. I'm working on my dream computer, but these solved systems 
constantly keep popping up. Maybe all of it has already been solved?

At any rate, this implementation is an absolute MONSTER, clocking in at 
36k gates (and providing a passe 30 MHz of x86). Just how the fuck am I 
supposed to fit that in a sane chip? You know, the ones for which you can 
get synthesizers for free, instead of paying several thousand dollars for 
them.

But the HDD or VGA *might* be salvageable, depending on the 
implementation.

Article: 158795
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:15:20 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/9/2016 5:15 AM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:28:39 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> After hearing all of the difficulties I may have on the motherboard
>> side, the re-grouping of just working with the Am386 CPU makes a lot
>> more sense. Plus, it actually accomplishes nearly all of my goals as my
>> goals were to replace the CPU's instruction set with my own, and to
>> validate it 1:1 that I am correct.  By having a side-by-side comparison
>> I can do that.  And as I've stated, it might even be interesting to try
>> to get other 80386-clone CPUs to test out side-by-side in the
>> configuration, and then write a paper outlining where they are
>> different.  But, that's the lowest possible goal, just a "wouldn't it be
>> interesting" thought. :-)
>
> Yesterday I remembered an additional thing that can go wrong, and almost
> certainly will go wrong.
>
> The system you are hacking (the motherboard) almost certainly uses DRAM
> as its main memory. DRAM needs to be refreshed every so often. This is
> done by the memory controller toggling a particular command to the chip
> when it wants the chip to refresh the memory. The question is how does
> the memory controller know when to order a refresh. Almost 100%
> certainly, it has a counter that responds to the clock signal driven by
> or derived from the main system clock. The system clock you underclock.
>
> So if you slow the clock enough, you are certain to violate the refresh
> timing of the DRAM and ruin its contents.
>
> And you can't have a computer without a functional main memory. :)

There is a 14.31 MHz clock on the main board that is used to time 
various activity including the refresh.  I believe this was divided by 3 
to get the original CPU clock rate (8088) and further divided to get the 
clock to the 8253 timer chip which controlled the refresh as well as the 
speaker logic and generated the time of day clock.  The clock rate to 
the CPU changed as PCs ran faster, but the clock to the timer chip 
remained.  The 14.31 MHz clock was used on the backplane connectors to 
be used by the video cards when needed.

Refresh needs to be done on DRAM, but if you aren't using DRAM, then you 
don't need refresh.

-- 

Rick

Article: 158796
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:42:23 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/9/2016 6:00 AM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:38:19 -0700, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> My ultimate goal is to build a completely homemade CPU using my own
>> garage fab on 3 to 10 micron processes!
>
> I'm in. :)
>
> Although, for the time being, I'm fine with using FPGAs.
>
> I've been thinking about building a completely open-source computer, down
> to the atoms, but it's really a group project. There's literally no point
> in building a computer that will not be used outside of a single family
> or "close knit community". A bunch of villages and a city would be the
> smallest user base I would target.
>
> Yet, so far, I seem to be the only person I ever met off the Internet to
> have such interests.

I expect trying to get anything remotely like a critical mass is 
virtually impossible.  There is an open source chip similar in size and 
capability to the ARM processors called RISC-V that is getting wide 
attention and will produce a chip soon.


>>> I have to ask: why spend time hacking x86 when there are so many other,
>>> BETTER architectures out there? :)
>>
>> I have a long history on 80386.  I wrote my own kernel, debuggers, etc.
>> It's been a relationship dating back to the late 80s.
>
> Oh, ok.
>
>> However, one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I am extending the
>> ISA out to include 40-bit addresses, rather than just 32-bit,
>> which accesses memory in the Terabyte range, and to include a built-in
>> ARM ISA which allows the CPU to switch between ISAs based on branch
>> instructions.
>
> Ouch, ouch, ouch, too much - unless you're good at it. :)

It will never be possible to include an ARM ISA unless a license fee is 
paid.  I recall some years back a student produced an HDL version of an 
ARM 7TDMI.  ARM spoke to him and the core was withdrawn.  He also got a 
job with them.  Win/win


> I designed and implemented a 16-bit soft CPU from scratch, and I can tell
> you it's seriously difficult to make it work. Right now, I'm hacking a 32-
> bit CPU (aeMB, to be very specific) and interfacing it to a SoC I plan to
> publish eventually and again, it's seriously difficult to make it work.

I'm surprised that you say it is hard to make it work.  Do you mean it 
is hard to build all the infrastructure?  I have designed my own CPUs 
before and found that part easy.  It is creating the software support 
that is hard, or at least a lot of work.  I use Forth which helps make 
things easier.


> If you add a bit to the word or address size, you are not just doubling
> the CPUs capabilities, you are also doubling the number, size and scope
> of problems you have to deal with.

???  My CPU design did not specify the data size, only the instruction 
size.  I didn't have a problem adjusting the data size to suit my 
application.


> Now, if you already did work on this, or have a working Verilog/VHDL
> model, it's probably OK - taking into account your time horizon. But if
> you are at the stage of an idea, I would suggest making up your mind
> between x86 and ARM and just focusing on one untill you make it work.
>
>>> Also, why are you doing this? Is this a hobby? Work related? Starting a
>>> new bussiness? Want to design and implement a NSA-proof PC?
>>
>> To be honest, I am a Christian, and I want to use the talents I was
>> gifted with and give the fruit of my labor back to God, and to my fellow
>> man (and not a pursuit of money, or proprietary IP, or patents, or other
>> such things, but rather an expression of love basically in giving back).
>
> Oh. OK. :) Works for me.
>
> Did you publish any of your work?
>
>>> Does simulation count? :D
>>
>> Yes.  Also in emulation, as by a real FPGA product, but one which does
>> not plug into a socket, but is its own entire creation.  Here's an
>> Aleksander who created a 486 SX CPU (it has not integrated FPU):
>>
>>      https://github.com/alfikpl/ao486
>
> Verily, I shall review this. I'm starting to get the impression that all
> the stuff I'm making on my own has already been solved, but hasn't been
> advertised. I'm working on my dream computer, but these solved systems
> constantly keep popping up. Maybe all of it has already been solved?

Exactly what is your dream computer?


> At any rate, this implementation is an absolute MONSTER, clocking in at
> 36k gates (and providing a passe 30 MHz of x86). Just how the fuck am I
> supposed to fit that in a sane chip? You know, the ones for which you can
> get synthesizers for free, instead of paying several thousand dollars for
> them.
>
> But the HDD or VGA *might* be salvageable, depending on the
> implementation.
>


-- 

Rick

Article: 158797
Subject: Re: FPGA Internal or external USB PHY/SIE ??
From: Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@antispam.uni.wroc.pl>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 22:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What part of the CPU chip on the rPi is not documented in the manual? 
> It is large and I have not read it all of course, but I'm sure I would 
> have heard in these discussions if there were any other part than the 
> GPU that was driven by closed source code.

Have you lookead at the manual at all?  I have BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf
which seem to be the only official documentation and it has 205
pages.  This is tiny compared to other chips.  For example main
i.MX6 manual from FreeScale has 5739 pages and there are additional
smaller manuals for i.MX6.

USB part in BCM manual tells you that they use Synopsys IP,
what configuration options they use with Synopsis core and
list registers that Broadcom added.  In a sense Broadcom
released all _their_ information, but you need to get
Synopsys information from other source.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

Article: 158798
Subject: Re: FPGA Internal or external USB PHY/SIE ??
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 19:08:08 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/9/2016 6:48 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What part of the CPU chip on the rPi is not documented in the manual?
>> It is large and I have not read it all of course, but I'm sure I would
>> have heard in these discussions if there were any other part than the
>> GPU that was driven by closed source code.
>
> Have you lookead at the manual at all?  I have BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf
> which seem to be the only official documentation and it has 205
> pages.  This is tiny compared to other chips.  For example main
> i.MX6 manual from FreeScale has 5739 pages and there are additional
> smaller manuals for i.MX6.
>
> USB part in BCM manual tells you that they use Synopsys IP,
> what configuration options they use with Synopsis core and
> list registers that Broadcom added.  In a sense Broadcom
> released all _their_ information, but you need to get
> Synopsys information from other source.

Yes, I looked at the manual.  I think I already said I didn't read the 
entire manual, so why do you even ask?  I was only looking for info on 
the part I was using.  I don't read 205 page manuals for fun.

Seems weird that there is open source driver code for the various parts 
of the chip that has no released documentation.  I guess you can figure 
out some aspects of how the chip is being used by looking at the driver 
code, but anything not being used would still be unknown.

-- 

Rick

Article: 158799
Subject: Re: Using an FPGA to drive the 80386 CPU on a real motherboard
From: Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: 10 Apr 2016 18:05:59 +0100 (BST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote:
> Complex designs like this require GOOD schematic and PCB layout tools.  I 
> use an old one, Protel 99SE, but that is no longer available, and was pretty 
> expensive when it was.  I have used Kicad a little, it shows REAL promise, 
> but is not yet as good as Protel.

Just to note that there's a free descendent of Protel which is called
CircuitMaker:
http://circuitmaker.com/

I haven't used it, but I use its commercial sister Altium which is pretty
nice.  The difference with CircuitMaker is your boards have to be public,
there is no way to keep them private.  So it's no good for commercial work,
but that limitation is not a problem for an open source project.

(It's also not open source, but my experience is the proprietary tools are
generally several steps above the open source tools - depending on board
complexity, going with proprietary tools can be a necessary evil to get work
done.  It also relies on an internet connection)

Theo



Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMar2019

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search