Open Source Finally Hits Real Silicon 247
pagercam2 writes "While Open Source software has many success stories, hardware and particularly chips haven't had as much. While there have been multiple Open Source projects, none have come to a final product until now. The OpenRISC 1000 has been implemented by Flextronics Semiconductor(a division of Flextronics, the contract manufacturer possibly best known for its production of many Cisco products) along with PCI, 10/100 Ethernet, serial, GPIO etc. ... Details and pretty pictures available at OpenCores.org, and it even runs uClinux. Good Job!"
Watch out... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Watch out... (Score:5, Interesting)
But I'd like to point out that opencores has had a fair amount of its open IP commited to silicon to date... not via lithographic processes maybe, but in FPGA's at least in onesies twosies lots if not more.
It's pretty sweet to be able to put a Z80 core on an FPGA along with a few peripheral cores and make a machine-on-a-chip that can run your legacy embedded code with little or no change... and at a faster clock rate.
So what's Sparc V? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So what's Sparc V? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what's Sparc V? (Score:5, Informative)
For quite awhile, as I understand. The Leon chip [gaisler.com] is an example of this. Other areas such as Fujitsu's processors and set top devices have been based on Sparc.
I'm not saying that OpenCores is a bad thing. I'm just refuting this "we were here first" bullshit.
Re:So what's Sparc V? (Score:2)
Re:So what's Sparc V? (Score:5, Informative)
From the SPARC website [sparc.org]:
Hell, it doesn't even look like much of an open standard. You need to license the instruction set in order to be able to implement it. This is like saying UNIX is open source, since anyone can implement POSIX and license the UNIX trademark, and because a lot of people have licensed the source code. That's not open source; it may be an open standard (although I'd argue that in order to be an open standard, you can't restrict who implements it with licensing agreements). So really, SPARC is in no way open source, and I wouldn't even consider it an open standard.OpenCores, on the other hand, is really open source. You get the full design of the entire chip; you could just produce the chip by sending the CAD files to a chip fab and having them produce it. All of the Verilog/VHDL/etc. are open and freely available for you to use and modify. Even if you license the SPARC ISA, you still have to design the chip yourself.
Hell, there are plenty of ISA's that you can license. The IA32 architecture is implemented by Intel, AMD, Transmeta, and others. PowerPC is implemented by IBM and Motorola. MIPS chips are produced by lots of people. Open ISA's are a dime a dozen. What's important about OpenCores is that the full chip design is completely open.
Re:So what's Sparc V? (Score:3, Informative)
You need to license the instruction set in order to be able to implement it.
What is the GPL? It is a license. You need to license GPL code before you can use it. The main difference is that everyone is used to GPL software being easily accessable (i.e. Click and download). That's not actually a requirement of the GPL or Open Source. In fact, if the shit hit the fan, many OS developers may receive no compensation for damages d
Re:So what's Sparc V? (Score:2, Informative)
If by "use" you mean "run", you are absolutely incorrect. You are only required to accept the GPL if you want to distribute the software. To quote from the GPL (which you should read): "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
One can always hope.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If they make money with this and other chip fabricators get on the open source boat then perhaps one day we'll see an entire open source chipset and motherboard combo. No "SecureThisBIOS" and "TrustedThatOS" needed.. That would be damn sweet.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One can always hope.. (Score:4, Funny)
Until 'trusted' is mandated by law.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Dont laugh, its comin... The hints are already in the air.
Re:Until 'trusted' is mandated by law.. (Score:2)
I hope some of the bright-eyed folk who want to use an unapproved 'open' system decide to hop out of whatever country that institutes such a crazy law. It won't happen everywhere, I'm sure.
This might not affect the industry much (Score:5, Interesting)
The cost of R&D and design of the chip is probably a drop in the bucket compared to building a chip fabrication plant. And much of it the advances required to make a fast chips would be in fabrication technologies (materials, layering, etc.) that might has nothing to do with the chip design. And these technologies are likely to be patented.
Re:This might not affect the industry much (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but this is only true for companies who do full custom designs and do their own fabrication. There are plenty of ASIC companies which will do everything from mask development to testing for you. There are also companies to which you can outsource manufacturing, if you really want to go the full custom route.
Re:One can always hope.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Finally a competitor for the 286 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Finally a competitor for the 286 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Finally a competitor for the 286 (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of what's floating in space runs with what we could consider antiquated hardware.
Old != Junk
Re:Finally a competitor for the 286 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally a competitor for the 286 (Score:2)
Orbital-Debris FAQ [nasa.gov]
Re:Finally a competitor for the 286 (Score:3, Funny)
With an open core chip, how do you ever expect to have enough processing power to run, say, the next generation of Windows? Furthermore, an open core design won't have innovations like DRM. Imagine how much processing power would be required for the next generation of Windows, let's hypothetically call it, Windows Secure Ultra eXtreme, or just WinSUX for short.
WinSUX will need more processor power than these knockoff ope
Where do they expect this to go? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where do they expect this to go? (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM, comming soon to a computer near you! Whether you want it or not! Restrictions that the whole family can enjoy together.
Re:Where do they expect this to go? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take an open-source, standards-compliant 486 computer over a 2Ghz Trusted Computing appliance any day.
--K.
Re:Where do they expect this to go? (Score:3, Informative)
This might come as a shock to you, but ignorance is not bliss. Use Google. Read up on "Trusted Computing."
Trusted Computing Homepage. [trustedcomputing.org]
Trusted Computing Criticism [eff.org]
Decide for yourself, but I'm able to verbally articulate myself so I don't think I'm dumb but I do think you're ignorant.
--K.
Re:Where do they expect this to go? (Score:2)
- When did I state that one should purchase a 486 over a newer computer? I said that given the possible options, I would choose the 486 over the faster alternative if the faster alternative implied Digital Restrictions Managemant.
SLASHDOTTED! comments thread here (Score:4, Funny)
homepage: (Score:4, Informative)
Silicon Implementations
Several companies are making silicon implementations (ASICs) of OR1200 using different library vendors and foundaries, process geometries from 0.35um to 0.13um. For references contact lampret@opencores.org.
Here is an example of System-On-Chip (SOC) from Flextronics Semiconductor. It is a 32-bit general-purpose microcontroller implemented on UMC 0.18um targetting embedded applications with maximum clock frequency of 160MHz. The SOC features:
* OR1200 processor
* Memory Controller (FLASH, SDRAM, SRAM, DPRAM)
* PCI 2.2 32-bit interface 33/66MHz
* Ethernet MAC 10/100
* UART16550
* GPIO
* JTAG/Debug Interface
The OR1200 is implemented with 8KB instruction and 8KB data caches, I/DMMU with 64 TLB entries each, power management unit, debug unit, tick timer and interrupt controller. Its 32x32 multiplier is coupled with a 64-bit MAC unit.
Test board for testing the SOC has 64MBytes of SDRAM, 32MBytes of FLASH, RS232 transceiver, Ethernet 10/100 PHY. Connectors are for RS232, Ethernet, JTAG/Debug and several Mictor logic analyzer connectors. The board has its own DC/DC regulators for 3.3V IO power supply and 1.8V core power supply. It can be used as stand alone board or as PCI standard form plugin board.
Software running on the SOC is Embedded Microcontroller Linux (uClinux) with a console on serial RS232. The console shows a network ping to a local network host - the ping shows the Ethernet 10/100 capability.
This board was the first prototype built (not fully assembled at the time)
Dynamic power of the entire test board is 1.4W. Dynamic current of the SOC IO power supply is 52mA (3.3V) and dynamic current of the SOC Core power supply is 86mA (1.8V). These are nominal values measured at 100MHz system clock.
Maximum system clock frequency of the SOC is 160 MHz. System clock is used to clock not only the OR1200 processor but the entire chip (exception is memory controller which can also run at 1/2 system clock). Max system clock 160MHz was obtained at 25C ambient temperature, 3.3V IO and 1.8V core.
Test boards are available to Flextronics Semiconductor ASIC customers. For more information about the test boards, the SOC technical details and business engagement please contact Flextronics Semiconductor.
IMPORTANT NOTE: For a live demonstration of the SOC in Silicon Valley, California during Dec 8th 2003 and Dec 15th please contact Damjan Lampret.
Re:homepage: (Score:5, Interesting)
the real question is: where's the compiler? no, i didn't read the article, because the site is slashdotted. i presume they will have a gcc port shortly, if it doesn't exist.
the real problem with open architectures (mips, arm, sparc,
if this project is dedicated to optimizing the compiler for their cores, they could give established players a run for their money in performance. or at least force other core makers to distribute optimized compilers at far lower costs.
this is a good thing for everyone.
Good job but not quite (Score:5, Informative)
The LGPL'd SPARC-compatible processor Leon [gaisler.com] was put to silicon a long while ago.
Give credit where credit is due, the Leon tracked over this territory years before OpenRISC.
Flextronics Xbox (Score:5, Informative)
Flextronics would actually be best known for being the main manufacter of the Microsoft Xbox.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/flex.ht
Re:Flextronics Xbox (Score:3, Funny)
/.'ed already (Score:4, Informative)
Project: OpenRISC 1000
Silicon Implementations
Several companies are making silicon implementations (ASICs) of OR1200 using different library vendors and foundaries, process geometries from 0.35um to 0.13um. For references contact lampret@opencores.org.
Here is an example of System-On-Chip (SOC) from Flextronics Semiconductor. It is a 32-bit general-purpose microcontroller implemented on UMC 0.18um targetting embedded applications with maximum clock frequency of 160MHz.
The SOC features:
The OR1200 is implemented with 8KB instruction and 8KB data caches, I/DMMU with 64 TLB entries each, power management unit, debug unit, tick timer and interrupt controller. Its 32x32 multiplier is coupled with a 64-bit MAC unit.
Test board for testing the SOC has 64MBytes of SDRAM, 32MBytes of FLASH, RS232 transceiver, Ethernet 10/100 PHY. Connectors are for RS232, Ethernet, JTAG/Debug and several Mictor logic analyzer connectors. The board has its own DC/DC regulators for 3.3V IO power supply and 1.8V core power supply. It can be used as stand alone board or as PCI standard form plugin board. Software running on the SOC is Embedded Microcontroller Linux (uClinux) with a console on serial RS232. The console shows a network ping to a local network host - the ping shows the Ethernet 10/100 capability.
This board was the first prototype built (not fully assembled at the time)
Dynamic power of the entire test board is 1.4W. Dynamic current of the SOC IO power supply is 52mA (3.3V) and dynamic current of the SOC Core power supply is 86mA (1.8V). These are nominal values measured at 100MHz system clock. Maximum system clock frequency of the SOC is 160 MHz. System clock is used to clock not only the OR1200 processor but the entire chip (exception is memory controller which can also run at 1/2 system clock). Max system clock 160MHz was obtained at 25C ambient temperature, 3.3V IO and 1.8V core.
Test boards are available to Flextronics Semiconductor ASIC customers. For more information about the test boards, the SOC technical details and business engagement please contact Flextronics Semiconductor. IMPORTANT NOTE: For a live demonstration of the SOC in Silicon Valley, California during Dec 8th 2003 and Dec 15th please contact Damjan Lampret.
Open Source Chipsets (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, I'm just being fanatical and ranting about nothing, whatever.
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that a good and durable machine could be developed with a high speed bus and provide most, if not more speed than people need.
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:3, Funny)
It would take off like gangbusters! Think of it as a donation to get the initial chips produced and off it will go!
What's to stop them from making PC chips then?
What's their stock ticker symbol?
Re:Sheesh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sheesh... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:5, Insightful)
Because advanced CAD tools to design state of the art microprocessors costs millions of dollars. Even if you afford these tools, state-of-the-art fabs cost billions of dollars. Open Source works in software because equipment to develop software is cheap enough that anyone can afford it. Equipment to develop hardware costs a fortune, and needs some corporate support, or a lot of donations. Until a process makes it to MOSIS, the average person can't afford access to it.
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:2)
We have FPGA dev boards available for a resonable price now, we now need a completly open source design language to unify the development. Like a gcc for FPGA design, without GCC we would never have had Linux, without this open FPGA dev language, we won't ever have our own hardware.
Yep, I will agree, it is expensive to own a fab, that might be why noone small does anymore, the big ones are paid for by hopefull
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:3, Funny)
Because they are the only ones who can afford to develop and bring us real DRM. That's why. Do you think open source developers could come up with this kind of innovation?
Re:Open Source Chipsets (Score:2)
yes, they could. but OS developers like to scratch an itch, not create an itch. Why create something to restrict legal access to information? in most cases, DRM is meant to stop legal actions. restricting access to information by technological means is not in line with the very idea of open source.
Hardware development (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, you really don't want to have to submit a critical bug patch when the first mass run of chips is half-done... (Or the coder whose bug it fixes!)
What can't be open-sourced? (Score:5, Interesting)
In general, what problems would there be in creating open-source engineering designs for hardware of all kinds branched off from off-patent intellectual property? That, as it turns out, was the express purpose of the US Patent system as conceived by Benjamin Franklin, unless I am mistaken.
Re:What can't be open-sourced? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll never be able to produce an automobile en mass scale cheaper than VW (or nearly as good).
In general, what problems would there be in creating open-source engineering designs for hardware of all kinds branched off from off-patent intellectual property?
Again you would never be able to mass produce the item cheaper than a proprietary company. Besides there is very little demand for box cameras and tube radios.
Emission regs... (Score:2)
That's a really big deal in most cities in developing countries, which are choking under smog levels that make LA look like Alaska.
Re:Emission regs... (Score:2)
though, i can't imagine what the use would be for an open source car design, as there's plenty of equivalents already(shitloads of 'kit' sports cars exist for example). it's not that complicated to design a *car*, however it can be very complicated to design a car that would be like the cars sold in western countries nowadays(safety/rigidness calculations
Re:What can't be open-sourced? (Score:2)
Your right! This does happen, and your correct the VW Bug is very popular for this kind of thing. Other cars that have modded/evolved are the Fiat something (the US even wound up importing one of these as the Yugo) and Deux Cheveux.
Cars are pretty open source as it is though. You can deconstruct a car, or even just look at it and decipher pretty much what it is or how to do one yourself. The problems in distribution come in the assembly lines, and how sophisicated a piece it can cheaply produce. Not to men
Re:What can't be open-sourced? (Score:2, Informative)
Because physical hardware costs physical resources to build (modern designs are more efficient to construct because of advanced materials and fabrication techniques now available) and consumes physical resources (newer designs are more energy efficient), it's more likely to make sense to pay the expense of creating a modern design up front, depen
It was a trick question (Score:5, Interesting)
This represents a branch point from the First World industrial paradigm of economy of scale and elimination of manual labor, coupled with planned obsolescence and faddishness to ensure a short interval between new car purchases. An open-source car reverses this drastically. Low economy of scale and higher manual labor content coupled with an open-ended product lifetime shifts the focus from the manufacture of the car to that of its components. The car owner repairs the vehicle over a period of many years, possibly turning over the majority of its components one or more times over a long period of time. Small-scale manufacturers would build a mix of components based on demand for specific versions of a component. Clever management of the project should consciously support this. This business model is unsustainable by massive industrial concerns, but might work well in an economy with lower-skilled, small-scale enterprise. It would not be massively profitable, but may be a model for keeping large populations employed.
If the interconnection ot the automobile's components is carefully and thoughtfully evolved, a single vehicle might be an ever-changing machine, gradually absorbing better components over time. It would not be a static piece of technology that quickly becomes obsolete. This is a subtext of my original post.
Old fords never die... (Score:2)
Of course, you'd never see old designs here, the standards bar moves up too fast.
Xix.
Re:What can't be open-sourced? (Score:2)
Nifty idea though.
So what's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my two cents...
Re:So what's the point? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm currently designing a tiny Single Board Computer (Z80-based) for embedded control applications. Sure, the specs aren't that impressive (a couple MHz, 32K RAM, 512K flash), but that's not the point. The thing is designed to fit on a robot and run on batteries.
Open hardware designs are still about geeky people doing fun things.
Re:So what's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
But once you have a board with the chip on it, you can even get all the development software for free from Xilinx and the programming hardware's not too expensive (last I checked anyway, I was always able to use my school's stuff).
I always thought it was pretty nifty to compile a CPU and upload it into a chip using nothing but my laptop...
Re:So what's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what's the point? (Score:2)
If you go to the opencores website there is code for all sorts of things, PCI bus interface, DDR SDRAM, video controllers etc. Alot of stuff these days is done on FPGA's and it's not expensive like it used to be. Granted you wont be producing any high end processors but the majority of problems dont need them. If you're starti
Re:So what's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, thats my full time job. There are plenty of electronics techs out thier who are slowly or not so slowly losing their jobs. Most electronics are becoming less hardware and more software(thank you software guys you suck):P. So many of us could contribute in some way while we are sitting in the unemployment lines with the rest of IT the way alot of you guys conribute to your favorite o
Apparently... (Score:4, Funny)
This is free as in free beer right? (Score:2, Funny)
It's Free as in Speech (Score:2)
Step 2) Synthesize (and simulate if you don't trust the guys who designed it)
Step 3a) Upload to FPGA (the coolest EE toy *ever*)
-or-
Step 3b) Send to fab of your choice (along with a big wad of cash) to be put in "real" silicon
Step 4) Enjoy your new chip
cool, but I want more specs (Score:5, Interesting)
Judging from the specs included at the linked site, this core compares favorably with CPU cores from ARM, NEC and others who make big bucks selling (and supporting) these cores for system integration. This is interesting, and it's maybe even more interesting that I haven't noted it in any trade journals (did I miss it, or has this thing been going on under the industry radar?)
However, it seems like the CPU core itself is open-source, while a lot of the bonus features on the SoC (System On a Chip) example cited are IP from Flextronics (the the company that did the physical design for this open-source CPU core, which was manufactured by UMC). I can't tell for sure because the site is slashdotted already. The links on PCI, JTAG etc. would presumably tell if all these IP macros (besides the CPU) are open source also -- does anyone know for sure?
Either way, the specs on the sample chip are interesting: SoC with OR1200 CPU implemented by Flextronics Semiconductor: 32-bit general-purpose microcontroller, UMC 0.18um fab process, maximum clock frequency of 160MHz. This SoC contains (1 each I assume): OR1200 processor, Memory Controller (FLASH, SDRAM, SRAM, DPRAM), PCI 2.2 32-bit interface 33/66MHz, Ethernet MAC 10/100. UART16550, GPIO, JTAG/Debug Interface.
BTW, 160MHz is pretty darn good, until you see that 160MHz is not really "MAX" as in "max (worst-case) operating conditions" as one usually specs these things. Usually, when a spec says "maximum clock frequency", it means that you can safely run the part at these speeds under the entire range of allowed operating conditions (temperature and voltage). It's rather meaningless to tell the fastest it canpossibly go (which would be 0Kelvin, with a voltage almost high enough to fry the cip), so wpecs tend to tell you the max safe speed.
That would be the highest temperature (usually ~70C, but it's really based on the junction temp, which is calculated from ambient temp, airflow, and package thermal characteristics -- higher than 25C in any case, since that's usually called "typical"), lowest voltage (usually nominal minus 5% or 10%; so for 3.3V system, worst case voltage would be 3.3-0.33=2.97V, for 1.8V core it would be 1.62V), and slowest process from the fab (whther this is the case or not is unspecified in the list). Instead, lower down the page I see:
Max system clock 160MHz was obtained at 25C ambient temperature, 3.3V IO and 1.8V core
I could take a wild guess and say the thing would run at least 125MHz (respectable for the tech at hand), so calling it 160MHz (but not at worst-case conditions) is a little odd, or at least non-standard. If it were a "normal" industry player quoting me a part's clock rate that way, I'd become very, very suspicious of them for the rest of the negotioations.
It's still way cool, and if those IP cores are all available open source also, I'm really excited. But, I still have a lot of unanswered questions that I expected to see at least a brief mention of:
- Is a hardware/software co-simulation environment available?
- If so,what simulators and languages are supported?
- What support model(s) are available for design teams considering this core?
- What is the die size for the SoC made by Flextronics?
- How much is Flextronics selling these SoC's for, or are the ASIC (customer-specific)?
I guess I could do as the article suggests and call or email Flextronics:Test boards are available to Flextronics Semiconductor ASIC customers. For more information about the test boards, the SOC technical details and business engagement please contact Flextronics Semiconductor.
Re:cool, but I want more specs (Score:2)
Re:cool, but I want more specs (Score:2)
Objection! Asked and answered... c
Re:cool, but I want more specs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:cool, but I want more specs (Score:2)
Re:cool, but I want more specs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:cool, but I want more specs (Score:2)
As far as I know, no such thing has ever been released offic
Open source cores as disruptive technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Open source cores as disruptive technology (Score:2)
This, I think, is unique in that it is not that old or outdated. We do several vaguely sim
A somewhat different approach (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of what makes Open Source hardware important is that Open Source designs are what will actually be implemented as small scale manufacturing [ennex.com] becomes more practical. There are various proposals around for doing manufacturing of chips using rather different processes than we are used to today(i.e. "growing" chips in a chemical medium). What these ultimately take us towards is robotic infrastructure that can be remotely controlled and is as "self-replicating" as a lathe or a blacksmith's shop.
Chip production the bottleneck (Score:2)
I personally think this shift will be as big as the shift from stone tools to blacksmithing or from blacksmithing to use of lathes.
Watch out - Xbox and Globalization (Score:4, Interesting)
Flextronics also makes the famous XBox for Microsoft in their Guadalahara Mexico facility. I just listened to a special on NPR about globalization and NAFTA and an economist was saying that without NAFTA the XBox would cost $400.
Your Cisco routers would probably cost more too, but I'm not sure if the cheap prices are worth it for the loss of US jobs.
Re:Watch out - Xbox and Globalization (Score:2)
SCO (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:whats the point? - It moves is the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it won't stop there. Turning this new capability to its advantage, it will make sense to re-compile the CPU cores to perform the task at hand with maximum efficiency. If you're going to start doing that, an open design is nigh on essential.
We are rapidly entering an era where it is worth designing things that cannot yet be built, because the manufacturing technology is catching up very rapidly. Even now, Sony are designing their consumer device chipsets as FPGAs to shorten time to market. The trend will not decrease.
Vik
Re:whats the point? - It moves is the point. (Score:2)
Great! It won't be long now, until my flying car's computer has an automatically recompiling CPU!
I'm sure were less than a decade away... No really, I mean it this time...
Re:whats the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming you can come up with the cad tools to implement your schematic and layout changes, you can use MOSIS [mosis.org] to fab the chip. It costs money, but getting hardware for free as in beer is unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:whats the point? (Score:2)
So, in-line with saying that OpenHardware is useless, you are also saying that we shouldn't have open video/audio codecs in hardware either... No Ogg player for you.
After all, what's the point? You can't make changes to the hardware yourself, therefore a hardware Ogg player would be pointless.
Open is good.
Real World vs. Abstract World (Score:3, Insightful)
really now... (Score:4, Insightful)
while i'm sure the opencores crowd has done an outstanding job, you need to look further at the Big Picture.... and comparable processors.
a motorola ppc8245 at 300MHz is $19 in qty (at least that's what we pay). it has all of the features enumerated in the article above (16K caches, PCI, MMU, ethernet, dual UARTs, etc etc etc), and is supplied replete with a Big DataBook of We're Pretty Damn Sure This Will Work Knowledge and 10e6 embedded programmers worldwide. not to mention an entire library of (linux AND powerpc) Google entries. you can attach all manner of BDM/BDI/JTAG debuggers (e.g. BDI2000) to an 82xx and there are a half dozen compiler suites (including gcc) to choose from. boundary scan routines are already understood and implemented, which eases ICT development at production time. if it's 2AM the day before the Big Pitch to the client, i'm pretty sure i can find someone who's awake and can fix my 82xx register access problem. i'm no motorola bigot (i always try to make a PIC fit until it can't do the job) but the economies of scale are WAY WAY WAY against the little guy when it comes to microprocessors.
you are not selling your soul to moto for $19. you are making a cost effective, performance increasing, risk reducing decision, that's all.
just another datapoint.
no final products? (Score:2)
Websphere-Apache?
MacOSX-Darwin?
JBoss?
come one poor slashdot poster do a little thinking please!
Re:no final products? (Score:2)
Will open source hardware push CPU design forward? (Score:2)
But with hardware, it is a different story. Open source hardware development is restrained by physical resources and its costs. Although an a small scale, we may see many examples, I wonder if and when it will be possible to compet
FPGA rules for sure (Score:3, Informative)
I use Xilinx FPGAs, which are both cheap and super powerful. For the company, i am woring for, i am developing digital signal poccessing processors and software for them using FPGA. one twenty dollar FPGA can process extremely high-order filters and analyzers on samplerates as high as hundred MHz, which we use for microwave communication in extremely baad environments.
With my addiction to open sources i am on developing a open-hardware computer (for a long time already)and will put online all sources, schematics, cerbers, layouts, so any Geeky guy (or Woman -- Jennifer E. Elaan? sorry if i am wrong) will be able to put together one, or buy components and ask somebody who can.
You would say You might need license for buying FPGAs used in by militaries for missle targeting (yes!) - then You would would be right. However there are no problem to by those in russia or anywhere else without having any license.
So hold on for a home-brew computer era coming back (from the times we were assembling Sinclair ZX Spectrums 16k and 48k at our homes:). How those computers will reincarnate from tv-calculators to plaforms being able to "process" (remove:) macrovizions, copyright bits on multiple streams, as well as directly capture satellite broadcast and process it.
Only drawback is that it will be with its own OS - BrainOS i am working on at te time. Just because it will be programmed not in sequential language, but parralel (VHDL) as it will be embedded in hardware (however modifiable by user at any time -- fpga!). We should be ready about that we could not (legally:) build any x86 on it, as we will have no license from intel. But i don't miss them. For running old x86 software and games we can use old x86 computers, which are widely available in trashmarkets.
asap i will try to do some artickle on this and try to post it there, that we could discuss what is ood and what is not).. Leave me some personal message if You are interested in it, so i could see how many of us are interested in this project. I hope it to be the same as linux is for software world, it could be for hardware world.
Re:Whats the point........ (Score:5, Informative)
Sure.
For chips derived from this test SoC:
MP3player
VoIP hard phone
Network Router
Firewall
Wireless Access Point
DVD player
Car stereo
Cell Phone
PDA
For uClinux:
It's all around you, many of the products _you_ use every day run it. Just because you think Linux means servers and desktops doesn't mean that's the only place it's widely deployed!
J
Re:Whats the point........ (Score:2)
I only caught the last sentence as I was scolling down, and I almost thought you were going to tell me that these Open source chips are opressing me for my electrical properties and I am a slave to some sort of artificial consctuct.
Thank God you were only talking about open source ships that could be so superior in their design one day thet they could acheuve a state of consciou...er...eh never mind
--
Re:Whats the point........ (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Whats the point........ (Score:2, Insightful)
...because I, and many others, would rather run linux on a 160Mhz processor than MS Windows on a 5.03G processor.
Sera
Re:Whats the point........ (Score:2)
"Embedded" doesn't mean "small". A cable set-top box, a DVD player, a vending machine, a map display in a new car and an MRI scanner are all "embedded".
Re:Almost Used in iPod (Score:4, Informative)
Bad troll. Bad.
Re:Almost Used in iPod (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Almost Used in iPod (Score:2, Informative)
Re:where ? (Score:3, Insightful)
MIPS/Watt of OpenRISC,XScale,VIA C3 and Transmeta (Score:3, Informative)
a VIA C3 800 + motherboard is about 12W. Given the CISCy instructionset you get about 1200MIPS on that. so 100MIPS/Watt (200MIPS/Watt bare) [don't believe me? many claim this chip gets 1600MIPS, but they are probably reading BogoMIPS as MIPS. still, it's an extremely fast inte