Google-apper
Hovedmeny

Post a Comment On: Ken Shirriff's blog

"Reverse engineering RAM storage in early Texas Instruments calculator chips"

12 Comments -

1 – 12 of 12
Anonymous Joolzg said...

I did the code for a c64 mouse using a 4bit micro from Toshiba. TCLS42. Was fun as i was only 18 at the time, around 85

November 28, 2020 at 10:13 AM

Blogger CuriousMarc said...

Nice. I wonder why they used the complicated DRAM cell instead of SRAM. It does not appear to save any real estate. Or does it? Does it save power then?

November 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM

Blogger Rob Schofield said...

The TMS1000/1100 series 4-bit uPs were the start of my professional career as a programmer, working at GEC Telecoms in the UK on electronic (rather than simply electro-mechanical) telephone designs to work with small PBX systems.

All our coding was done on Cipher CP/M machines, in assembler. Masks were generated from our tapes sent to TI Bedford, taking around 12-16 weeks to fab. You really *couldn't* afford to have any bugs in your code...

It gave me a greater appreciation of economy of coding and documentation in the code, and *always* testing results rather than just assume success ("Happy Path" coding).

As a precursor, my final year B.Sc. project, completed before starting at GEC, was the implementation of a microstrip scaling algorithm by large, floating point matrix multiplication - implemented on a TI-59 programmable calculator: restricted memory and register availability was directly applicable to what I later ended up doing on the phone designs - a program coded in just 76 nibbles, using 14 nibbles of RAM for the entire button control panel and call management!

This is a great article, and much enjoyed. 10/10, Ken!

November 28, 2020 at 1:05 PM

Blogger Brian of Romsey said...

s/caell/cell/

November 28, 2020 at 2:38 PM

Blogger Pane said...

Hi Ken,

Thank you for another brilliant write-up. I read all of them as detective stories and take my hat off to your knowledge and ease you are explaining it to us.

It seems that density of actual transistors, which are surprisingly small, in each RAM cell is quite low. Is there any particular reason for it?

Thank you
KR
Pavel

November 29, 2020 at 8:06 AM

Blogger DHess said...

> Nice. I wonder why they used the complicated DRAM cell instead of SRAM. It does not appear to save any real estate. Or does it? Does it save power then?

Without complementary transistors, the passive pull-ups for the inverters would draw too much power compared to a dynamic memory cells which spend considerable time idle.

November 29, 2020 at 6:26 PM

Blogger John S said...

Are the two refresh signals 180 degrees out of phase with each other? I was reading and re-reading the paragraph describing how it works, and wondering why you have Clock 1 on two seperate lines, but the patent application made it more clear why was was. But I'm still confused. Just a dumb CS major. *grin*

But, very interesting anyway since I've worked with ASIC design groups for the past 16 years, so I've picked up some of this over time. Very little, and these posts help me learn more.

December 1, 2020 at 8:25 AM

Blogger Ken Shirriff said...

Pane: the density is pretty good for metal-gate circuitry. Since there's just one layer for wiring (no polysilicon), chips often use most of the area to get signals to the transistors, and the transistor density is very bad. So I think they did a good job with the memory cell given the constraints.

John S: According to the patent, phase 1 is active for two clock intervals, then phase 5 is active for 1 clock interval, then they are both inactive for 3 clock intervals. They don't overlap, but since they are different widths they aren't really 180 degrees out of phase.

Others: thanks for the comments!

December 1, 2020 at 10:03 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for these posts as well. This post and the previous post form some great foundations as to how RAM works and I have found them very informative.

December 2, 2020 at 7:15 PM

Blogger Markus said...

You regularly read that chips have to be redesigned when processes change. And as a software person, I am wont to say: "Why can't they just take the masks and make them a little smaller? Or when going from NMOS to CMOS, why wouldn't they put the same transistors in the same places?".

The progression of RAM technology is a great example of why that is naïve. Thank you for explaining so clearly. When dealing with software we work at a much higher abstraction layer, but it really helps to understand how things work and why we can or cannot make these abstractions.

December 3, 2020 at 3:17 AM

Blogger Aashi said...

nice post.

March 12, 2021 at 4:06 AM

Blogger prof prem raj pushpakaran said...

Professor Prem raj Pushpakaran writes -- 2023 marks the birth centenary year of Jack S. Kilby!!!
https://worldarchitecture.org/profiles/gfhvm/prof-prem-raj-pushpakaran-profile-page.html

January 3, 2023 at 2:26 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot