Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!think!ames!amdahl!nsc!voder!apple!baum From: baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: why people create write-only registers Message-ID: <12539@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 20 Jun 88 21:28:08 GMT References: <12441@apple.Apple.COM> <12135@ut-sally.UUCP> Reply-To: baum@apple.UUCP (Allen Baum) Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 33 [] >In article <12441@apple.Apple.COM>, aek@Apple.COM (Al Kossow) writes: > > Sometimes when you're running tight on pcb (or chip) real-estate > you have to weigh how important it is to have lots of area tied up in > space-hogging buses just for reading a register back. > I've designed hardware both ways. In my "youth" I designed systems that had write only registers. It saved chips. We didn't build very many of the beasts, but they were moderately complex. I had to build them, debug them, and write diagnostics for them. I immediately started believing that the registers should be read/write. Debugging and diagnostics were hell to write. It wouldn't have made that big a difference to our budget; we didn't build very many, after all. But it would have made the project go a much faster, and thats worth a LOT of chips. On the other hand, I've built cards that I just couldn't afford the extra chips to do the readback. It was a fairly simple board (20 chips+RAM), and lots were built. I've never felt bad about the tradeoff- the board was simple enough that there wasn't that much to test anyway, and simple enough that the write only register could be worked around and tested. I've also built a more complex board, with its own microprocessor and self-test diagnostics, and made sure that the microprocessor could read every bit of state and every register in the machine. It was a godsend, and I haven't regretted that decision either. So, sometimes you can get away with it, and sometimes you can't; you just have to know when the right time is. -- {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!apple!baum (408)973-3385