8061 / 8063 op-codes

[Mike Wesley]

Tom Cloud wrote:
> 
>  I wrote:
> >>
> >> I've "found" a list of op-codes for the 8063.  The processor
> >> in the eec-iv is supposed to be an 8061 -- don't know the
> >> difference --- anybody out there know ?
> >>
> >> actually, what I have are mnemonics only, no definitions
> >> or machine code -- could use some help here ......
> 
>  and then Mike wrote:
> 
> >
> >Um, the 8063 never made it to production as far as I know. Somebody
> >snuck that info out of Intel(Toshiba/Motorola) or Ford. I'd be a bit
> >wary of using information like that. Ford thought I was and it cost me a
> >buttload of money to prove I wasn't. They watch these lists.
> 
> to which I respond:
> 
>  - first, it is my understanding that the newer Ford ECM's now use
> the 8063 instead of the 8061
> 

8065. I remember seeing documents about the 8063, but the part never
came about as far as I know.

>   (I've also noticed that the mnemonics for the 8061/3 are a good
>    bit different from the 8096; the interrupt vectors are different;
>    and I understand the pinouts and port designators are different)

Yeah, some big differences. To this day, Ford says it's impossible to
figure out the 8061/65 without some inside information.


> 
>  - second, the info I posted I found by being very persistent.
> If someone snuck it out of wherever, I didn't do it and I don't
> know about it

Doesn't matter. The data was never published to where the general public
can get to it. Everything was done internal to Ford and/or it's
suppliers. Ford was somewhat pi$$ed when I told them I had seen some
Intel ads for the 8096 where they referenced the Ford EEC-IV and that's
where I got my start reverse engineering the thing. From what they told
me (true or not, don't know), it's like if you bought a laptop from
someone. Cops come by and say it was stolen, you didn't know about it,
you still have the potential for trouble.

> 
>  - third, I'm not looking to compete or profit by any of this
> information ..... I think all or most of us already OWN these
> units and we just want to know how they work !!
> 
>  - fourth, mnemonics can be copyrighted, but that doesn't
> mean that they can't be published -- I just can't use them
> to build my own processor (besides, the mnemonics are so
> standard, I don't see how they could even be copyrighted,
> and "trade secrets" aren't covered by any patent, copyright
> or trademark protections)

Not sure. We didn't get into all of that. 

> 
>  - in the same vein as the above, the "Harvard architecture"
> can't be copyrighted or patented -- it is the standard architecture
> we are familiar with for the confuzers of today -- op-codes,
> registers, memory, addressing modes, etc
> 
>  - you can't patent or copyright op-codes (i.e. numbers) -- that's
> how AMD is able to make the 80486 but can't make a "Pentium"

Yup.

> 
>  - you can't be prevented from "reverse engineering" something
> you own (and I don't know the current status of the legal
> maneuver that says you're only "leasing" something you bought,
> but I suspect it's been thrown out by the courts)

Right. This was the basis of most of my case. I reverse engineer
EVERYTHING. All of my friends always kid me about not having the covers
to any electronic device I have. The circuits are always exposed. (in
fact I probably couldn't find 90% of the screws I took out of all of
this stuff!). I go through batteries in my DMM like water. Test probes
on my logic analyzer only last a few months. Reverse engineering is
totaly legal. One tricky part about the EEC is (and we fought somewhat
over ownership of the thing), is you cannot dump the EEC legally. Once a
copy is made (to your hard drive, to RAM in your PC, to a buffer box,
whatever...) you've broken the law. Now who owns the EEC your trying to
dump..you or Ford. You bought the car, or the EEC from another source.
Law says you can make a backup of software. Isn't there software inside
the EEC? Yes. What can you do with this backup? Nothing. We went round
and round for awhile on this and got nowhere. Ford's pockets were MUCH
deeper than mine. I could have fought them on this one and won, but at
what cost. When your in Federal Court, who is right and who is wrong
comes down to who has the most money. A company with a big bankroll can
'win' even if they are totaly wrong. What they do is drag it out legally
until you cannot afford the fight anymore. I won't say how much it cost
me...6 figures for sure. Money I didn't (still don't) have.


> 
>  - you CAN stop someone from using your ideas (that you've
> copyrighted, trademarked or patented) "against" you or to
> make a profit -- i.e., as I understand, I could build
> a copy of an eec-iv or a macintosh computer for myself if
> I wanted to (I could not "copy" their software, however,
> as it's covered by copyrights -- but if its modified 20% or
> more I can)

You sure can. We didn't get into the 20% thing as I was just doing data
(which is NOT copyrightable). Ford did say they 'might' try to get data
in the EEC-V copyrighted. Not sure it will fly, but they were pretty
ticked at my for even thinking of doing EEC-V equippped vehicles. They
do put a copyright notice in the data section of the EEC-V.

> 
>  - BTW, are you familiar with "Sams PhotoFacts"??  Back in the
> forties and fifties, all electronics mfgrs kept their schematics
> secret, so no one could work on anything.  Howard W. Sam (think
> that was his name) started taking radios and TV sets and reverse
> engineering the schematics, parts lists and signal levels so
> they could be worked on.  He sold those (still does) to repair
> shops.  Don't know if he got sued, but he probably did.  Obviously,
> he must've won!  Obviously, it can't be illegal to reverse
> engineer schematics (or op-codes) for that matter.  I know
> that some companies try to say that it's illegal to reverse
> engineer their software -- even put that in their license
> agreements, but I don't believe it's enforcable (???).

I sure am. I have Photofacts for all kinds of things around here.
I started drawing PS/2 schematics before Sam's or anyone else had them
available. IBM was a bit upset. We were using them for internal use..to
repair PS/2's. IBM gave very little information about the hardware
itself. Most of the computer was filled with PAL's and custon IC's with
IBM part #'s. I spent months hacking them apart and developed some
pretty detailed schematics of the entire PS/2 line. A year or so later,
SAM's had some schematics of the smaller models (full of errors which
they later fixed). I think at that time, GTE was the only company IBM
wanted repairing them. A friend of mine came up with a way to use an off
the shelf hard drive to replace the ultra-expensive IBM models (which
were off the shelf drives with some code stuck in a EEPROM that the BIOS
looked for). IBM was not happy about that either. Allthough they didn't
threaten a lawsuit or anything, we 'paid' for it.


> 
>         **********************
> 
>  - and lastly, all the above (and any following) statements
> are mine alone and are probably a bunch of uninformed crap  ;-)
> 
>         **********************
> 
> [I understand why Ford hides its code, but I don't understand
> why they keep the data about the hardware secret.  They could
> make quite a bundle with people buying eec units to run
> their vehicle's engine (why not make them usable as an after-market
> sort-of add-on??>) -- and even then, if people cracked
> their code, the market shows that that doesn't necessarily
> hurt them.  Yeah, it gives the competition access to their
> investment in development, but I'll bet the competition
> already has their code, and vice-versa.  I can get schematics
> for the radio and I can get data on virtually everything
> else on the car, so why not the ecu?  How is revealing ALL
> the details of the eec going to impact Ford at all?  I guarantee
> you GM and the other competitors already have all the data
> about it they want -- this is not a new product we're trying
> to figure out.  If we're successful, I think it'd actually
> make Ford some money (though an insignificant amount in
> comparison to their other sales).]
> 


They don't see it the way you and I do. They are not in the business of
selling EEC's, just cars. They spent untold amounts of money developing
this stuff. One message had said something about bugs in the Ford code.
They do exists. I've found some rather useful ones. There could possibly
be things in there that Ford doesn't want anyone to know about...like
the EPA. Companies have been caught before putting checks in thier code
looking for FTP cycles and modifying the engine when they detect the EPA
drive cycle. I remember a company who got caught with a subroutine that
looked for the car being driven with the door open (which is how you
used to have to do an FTP cycle to be able to acess the cell computer).
If Ford has something like that in thier code, they wouldn't want anyone
to know about it. I had told Ford what I am doing INCREASES their
potential for sales. They didn't see it that way. Liability, warranty,
things like that is all they would talk about. I got into warranty on
their transmissions. The way they slip them, it burns them up. I
decrease the slippage and increase the life of the trans (been proven by
police fleets I work on). They still didn't see it that way. 
I probably know more about the EEC than most of Ford (that probably
didn't sound too good). Ford says the EEC in a Mustang is good for 7300
RPM..PERIOD. They say that over that RPM, the EEC runs out of time.
Wrong. We just got one to go 8000 RPM successfully. They way I get into
the EEC, I learn it's little quirks and how it works from the hardware
level up. I drew schematics of their EECs, their MAF sensor, their DIS
and EDIS controllers, all kinds of things. This is all I do all day(and
night) long. But I still constantly look out my window to see if someone
is following me again, tapping my phone lines, whatever. I don't talk
about things Ford might say are proprietary. I know the 8061 instruction
set as well as the 8065. I know how the code works. I wrote my own
disassembler (not planning an assembler..but who knows). I learned all
this stuff the hard way. Years of poking at the thing. I also know I do
not want to be back in Federal Court defending myself again. Doesn't
matter if I'm right or not, it costs ALOT of money either way.
Ford (well the lawyers they had) told me when I was agruing my case with
them, that they could go on for years and outspend me to death. That's
true, very true and very common. They have to protect whatever rights
they feel they have and will do it.

Just about everything you said is true (legal stuff, copyrights...). I
don't want to 'scare' anyone away from reverse engineering the thing. I
did it and it's fun. What I'm trying to do is warn people of things I
went through. That was not fun. Be careful of what you say and where you
get information. But keep at it. I'll help where I can.

Mike...