In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004031337150.17213-100000@sol.compendium-tech.com>,
kernel@blackhole.compendium-tech.com (Kelsey Hudson - kernel mailing list account) writes:
>> FYI, a Z-80 works better. It doesn't get as hot. However, the
>> op-codes are not compatible.
>
> ...which is more than obvious, as Z80 was designed by Zilog, which is not
> Intel, and if it had compatible instructionset it would be a clone of 8085
> and have some sort of a similar name.
This is not at all obvious... AFAIK, the Z80 is indeed binary backward
compatible with Intel's 8080 and 8085 parts. It was specifically designed
as a drop in replacement for the 8080 by ex-Intel employees (who founded
Zilog). Only some mnemonics are different but the opcodes are the same.
> Besides, the 8085 is real slow and
> has too many instructions. The Z80 is much easier to program and has a
> better instructionset.
The Z80 is a superset of the 8080/8085, so it has even more instructions.
Again, AFAIK, the 8085 is one of the few processors that are available
in a rad hard version, i.e. they can be used in for instance in outer
space missions without excessive shielding. I seem to remember that
the Mars Rover used an 8085 for exactly that reason.
So there may well be valid reasons for using an 8085 these days..
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 sarcar@vsnl.com wrote:
> I am also rather inconfident about whether the code should be developed as a
> "driver" for a microprocessor or just as a program which probes serial/parallel
> port for communication signals of a predefined protocol and acts accordingly.
I would strongly suggest the latter (which implies that this is all off-topic
in this mailing list).
Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST