intro & bus standard

[John S Gwynne]

(Message jsg:105)
Received: from [192.105.104.3] by coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI)
	for /usr/local/lib/mh/slocal -user jsg id AA04196; Thu, 5 May 94 12:57:40 -0400
Received: from  by system3.lcs.gov.bc.ca with SMTP
	(1.37.109.6/16.2) id AA04255; Thu, 5 May 94 09:59:16 -0700
From: Evernden_Wes_A/lcs_system3 at system3.lcs.gov.bc.ca
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Thu, 5 May 94 09:58:30 -0700
Message-Id: <79A9A312 at MHS>
Subject: RE: intro  & bus standard
To: Diy_Efi-Owner

Greetings from a small island in the Pacific Ocean.

I am a ME working as a network analyst, no programming and no 
engineering. I have been trying to get started on a digital ignition 
system for about a year now. This is just a hobby for me so sometimes I 
find time for it and sometimes its on the back burner. I have been 
gathering tools and information to try and make this project as easy as 
possible. I now have a scope, signal gen., a HC11 EVB and a good book 
just about the HC11 with some automotive application examples.

My biggest problem seems to be teaching myself assembler. I don't find 
assembler terribly exiting and would rather be using somebody else 
code; modifying it for my own purposes. I don't suppose any of the big 
developers have ever released any of their programs have they? Top 
secret stuff I hear.

As for a bus standard I am not sure I exactly understand what the 
options are and for what reasons but I vote for whatever works with the 68HC11.


Wes Evernden
Victoria, BC
----------


I would like to hear comments for everyone on this as this is something that
must be decided up-front. It will be much more difficult to work together if
we all use the CPU bus directly (i.e., asynchronous 68000 type CPU bus vs the
synchronous 68HC11 vs the parallel port on a lap top). IMHO, we need a common
point between all of these approaches.




                                       John S Gwynne
                                          Gwynne.1 at osu.edu
_