Subject: Re: Q-bus to CF [was: IOmega]
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp at gjcp.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:13 +0000
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 00:19 -0500, tiggerlasv at aim.com
I stopped holding my breath for creation of a Q-Bus IDE
controller a long time ago. While I like to think that I
do a reasonable job troubleshooting some problems,
I'm definitely not a hardware/software engineer.
It would have been nice, but it makes more sense
these days to go Q-Bus to SATA. I would imagine
that it would be alot less hassle, and certainly alot less
real estate on the board, with the smaller connectors,
and fewer traces.
Actually SATA is extremely exacting and needs unbelievably complicated
PATA, on the other hand, is just a fast parallel port. You can hook a
CF card up to anything, even a microcontroller, with just a tiny amount
of glue logic.
At any rate, back to the topic, Q-Bus to Compact
If you can do Q-bus to Compact Flash, then you can do
Q-bus to IDE, because CF *is* an IDE interface.
Those wonderful CF to IDE adapter boards generally don't
have any circuitry on-board, except to drive status LED's.
Exactly. Simply grafting a PATA interface onto a QBus card is trivial.
Actually getting something that will either pretend to be an existing
controller or writing a device driver for the operating system in use is
much much harder.
If you really wanted to push this forwards, write me some MSCP
controller firmware for an Atmel microcontroller...
Right now, I have Compact flash / IDE on my
albeit in a round-about way.
I have older CMD SCSI controllers (CQD-200's).
Attached to those are ACard 7720U SCSI <> IDE adapters.
These seem to crop up on the various sampler mailing lists I'm on, as a
way of using CF with older samplers which often have "funny" SCSI
Generally IDE and CF (compactflash) are the same interface and for
Qbus-11 fairly simple. It's been done, however, the problem is the
driver as bare IDE or CF is NOT MSCP not is it DL, DX, DY or RK
so a driver is needed and noone has apparently stepped up to do it.
I beleive its fairly straight forward work but never having done it
but having seen drivers like DD and DY They have a structure that
must be held to.
SCSI is actually harder to talk to than CF or IDE, I have done that
for CP/M and SCSI is a pain as you have to deal with the SCSI chips
and their particular protocal.
MSCP is a complex protocal whols primary job is to create a logical
abstraction hardware from the software and I don't think an atmel uP
is enough and definatly enough ram plus enough is not known to create
it(MSCP) from scratch.