Re: LIst addition - WAS :::::Re: Anyone got any, Axil material?

On 8/20/13 12:17 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Alan Perry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/20/13 10:32 AM, Michael Zacherle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Volker Borchert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if the attributions are messed up.  I have a list of Sparc
>>>> manufacturers (clones and Sparc-alikes).
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sonic.net/~coad/sparc_man.html
>>>>
>>>> Any additions would be appreciated.  Some of the entries have some of
>>>> their
>>>> machines listed, but that part is totally incomplete.
>>>
>>> I have another machine that is mot yet on that list. It's a shoebox (IPC?
>>> IPX?) clone made by XEROX. I found an article at
>>> http://www.cbronline.com/news/xerox_unveils_fruits_of_three_year_sparc_effort
>>> which could describe my machine.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> The correct term is "lunchbox" ;)  I collect those and have one of each.
>> Well, I don't have a Classic X (the X term version of the Classic).
>>
>> Before I went to Sun (the first time), I worked at Lynx Real-Time Systems
>> and one of the things that I worked on was porting LynxOS to a Tadpole board
>> that was effectively a SPARCstation LX that was going into Xerox copiers.
> Cool! The Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LynxOS )
> doesn't mention that LynxOS ever run on SPARC CPUs. Care to extend the
> article?
> Was it possible to run LynxOS on a normal LX or other sun4m machines?
>
I'll take a look at the Wikipedia article this evening and see what 
isn't there and see what I can remember.  One of LynxOS' selling points 
at the time was that it could run on so many different processors.

IIRC, there was already a working general sun4m port when I started on 
the Tadpole work. I was mostly dealing with bugs in the Tadpole hardware 
(specifically, there were some h/w registers that had to be written 
twice to get the values to stick).  Otherwise, the SPARC code that I 
started with mostly just worked.  The thing that I spent most of the 
time on was coming up with a compressed kernel boot scheme because the 
Xerox application image took up most of the available space and someone 
told Xerox that we could fit the kernel in very little space.

alan