SGC ROM position RFC
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2025 10:27 pm
Hi folks.
Just want some feedback. I'm putting this in the Software section because it's about loading software in the memory map. The hardware behind it is secondary.
On a running Super Gold Card, there is an unused area from the top of the vector table ending at $3FF up to the bottom of the IO area at $18000. This is 96K that appears unused in the SGC memory map.
If I map SRAM into $00000 to hold the vector table, I could map SRAM up to the start of the internal IO area. Then, if users wish, they could copy ROM images into there arbitrarily and call them. This could free up as much as 95K in main memory. The internal IO notch is really very small. There is another 16K above that to the base of video RAM at $20000 that could be SRAM too.
I see people may like to have a boot script that copies ROMs into that extra space, calls them to link them in, then continues on.
Is that useful? Does it break anything? Would you use it? If you don't care, does it make any difference?
Feedback!
Just want some feedback. I'm putting this in the Software section because it's about loading software in the memory map. The hardware behind it is secondary.
On a running Super Gold Card, there is an unused area from the top of the vector table ending at $3FF up to the bottom of the IO area at $18000. This is 96K that appears unused in the SGC memory map.
If I map SRAM into $00000 to hold the vector table, I could map SRAM up to the start of the internal IO area. Then, if users wish, they could copy ROM images into there arbitrarily and call them. This could free up as much as 95K in main memory. The internal IO notch is really very small. There is another 16K above that to the base of video RAM at $20000 that could be SRAM too.
I see people may like to have a boot script that copies ROMs into that extra space, calls them to link them in, then continues on.
Is that useful? Does it break anything? Would you use it? If you don't care, does it make any difference?
Feedback!