Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

debian for riscv open source hardware

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.
Message
Author
hthi
Posts: 213
Joined: 2015-05-09 15:43
Has thanked: 1 time

debian for riscv open source hardware

#1 Post by hthi »

https://riscv.org/. Isa for open source, no restrictive license hardware. Debian for riscv is being made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYbHqPNHGs.

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#2 Post by tomazzi »

hthi wrote:https://riscv.org/. Isa for open source, no restrictive license hardware.
Not really.
I've just started to read the specifications and I've found this:

The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual, page 61:
Guaranteed Non-Standard Encoding Space

To support development of proprietary custom extensions, portions of the encoding space are
guaranteed to never be used by standard extensions.
In English:
Just like this is in case of ARM, every chip will have proprietary bootloaders and proprietary extensions, which will be not available for open source solutions, not to mention Free Software.

Regards.

edit: page 61, not 62 ofc.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#3 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

How about OpenSPARC?

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/syste ... index.html

You'll need OpenBSD for that, ofc.
:)
deadbang

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#4 Post by pylkko »

tomazzi wrote:
hthi wrote:https://riscv.org/. Isa for open source, no restrictive license hardware.
Not really.
I've just started to read the specifications and I've found this:

The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual, page 61:
Guaranteed Non-Standard Encoding Space

To support development of proprietary custom extensions, portions of the encoding space are
guaranteed to never be used by standard extensions.
In English:
Just like this is in case of ARM, every chip will have proprietary bootloaders and proprietary extensions, which will be not available for open source solutions, not to mention Free Software.

Regards.

edit: page 61, not 62 ofc.

But is this really so? I may not understand some part of your communication, but it seems to me that you are saying that since the specification allows for non-standard extensions, this automatically causes the situation that every chip manufacturer will certainly use non-standard extensions, make them proprietary and also that they will have proprietary bootloaders. Seems a bit non sequitur, unless you mean that you're guessing that that will happen for other reasons or maybe I am not uderstanding something?

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#5 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

FSF wrote: The BeagleBoard (various versions) as well as the PandaBoard use the TI OMAP family of SoCs. These come with free startup software as well as free drivers for the peripherals.
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers

EDIT: Somewhat dated link, does anybody have more current information?

This topic is relevant to my interests :)
deadbang

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#6 Post by tomazzi »

pylkko wrote: But is this really so? I may not understand some part of your communication, but it seems to me that you are saying that since the specification allows for non-standard extensions, this automatically causes the situation that every chip manufacturer will certainly use non-standard extensions, make them proprietary and also that they will have proprietary bootloaders.
There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "guaranteeing support" for non-standard, proprietary extensions.

Open ISA specification has completly nothing to do with open hardware (implementation of the ISA).

The ARM ISA is also open, but if You'll take a look at the page linked by Head_on_a_Stick above, then You should quickly realize what's the reality.

Regards.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#7 Post by pylkko »

tomazzi wrote: There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "guaranteeing support" for non-standard, proprietary extensions.
I'm afraid I don't see your point. It appears to me that there is not a huge difference, and that even if there were your previous statement would not hold... I just don't see what you are saying.
Open ISA specification has completly nothing to do with open hardware (implementation of the ISA).
What do you mean? Has absolutely nothing to do. Certainly is has something to do?
The ARM ISA is also open, but if You'll take a look at the page linked by Head_on_a_Stick above, then You should quickly realize what's the reality.

Regards.
Really? Because to me it looked like as countering your claim that all ARM boards have non-open bootloaders?


Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong, when you brought up the point that the specification allows for custom proprietary extensions, did you not bring is up while say "not really" to the OP's point that there is a very liberal license? Now my understanding is (and it might not be perfect) that even if RISC-V allows for these things, nevertheless the license is BSD, meaning that - and I cite WIkipedia here:
The RISC-V authors aim to provide several CPU designs freely available under a BSD license. Such licenses allow derivative works, such as RISC-V chip designs, to be either open and free, like RISC-V itself, or closed and proprietary.
and it continues...
By contrast, commercial chip vendors such as ARM Holdings and MIPS Technologies charge substantial license fees for the use of their patents.[8] They also require non-disclosure agreements before releasing documents that describe their designs' advantages and instruction set. Many design advances are completely proprietary, never described even to customers. The secrecy interferes with legitimate public educational use, security auditing, and the development of public, low–cost free and open-source software compilers, and operating systems.
SO, if I am getting this right, even if RISCV does not use a license model that requires derivative works to be only open and free (for example GPL), it nevertheless is very different from ARM and especially in the context that the OP was talking about, the license. Or do you disagree with that passage from wikipedia, because obviously wikipedia is not the last authority on anything.

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#8 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

As RISC-V is released under a BSD-style licence, perhaps the GPL'd OpenRISC project would be more suitable for these boards:

https://openrisc.github.io/

There is also Novena:
A new open-hardware computing platform, flexible and powerful, designed for use as a desktop, laptop, or standalone board.
https://kosagi.com//w/index.php?title=Novena_Main_Page
deadbang

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#9 Post by tomazzi »

pylkko wrote:SO, if I am getting this right, even if RISCV does not use a license model that requires derivative works to be only open and free (for example GPL), it nevertheless is very different from ARM and especially in the context that the OP was talking about, the license.
Apparently You don't get it.
Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) is merely a draft. It does not describe or define the final hardware. For a real-life example You can take the x86 ISA - it is used by both Intel and AMD, but the hardware is completely different and closed (proprietary).
The same example applies to the ARM ISA - f.e. Broadcom and Samsung CPUs are using different hardware implementation.

Both in case of ARM and x86, the ISA specification is open and available free of charge - but the real, final products are containing unofficial, non-documented proprietary extensions and the hardware spesc are closed.

In other words, just because You have an open ISA it does not mean that the hardware is open.

And in case of RISC-V, the ISA specification contains explicit garantee for supporting proprietary solutions...

-------------
Moreover, the project is supported by both Microshit and Google - microshit: no comment needed, Google: they've already demonstrated how to turn GPL-ed project into a cyber-weapon working against the end users: they've made Android.

The problem with Android is that due to the licensing terms, it must stay partially open... and some crazy guys have decided to remove Google's crapware - they've made cyanogen...
The solution for the above "problem" is to hide Google's crapware in the proprietary extensions, bootloaders and firmware blobs in the new CPU family, what means that the open source part of the software will not allow to change anything significant in the device.

But, the project is still in a very early stage of development - I think that they need at least 5 years to create final product.

Regards.

edit:
PS: And to be honest, I can't find anything revolutionary in the RISC-V ISA - for me, it is just yet another set of opcodes...
...but it's just my opinion...
Last edited by tomazzi on 2016-08-27 18:21, edited 1 time in total.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#10 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

tomazzi wrote:Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) is merely a draft. It does not describe or define the final hardware. For a real-life example You can take the x86 ISA - it is used by both Intel and AMD, but the hardware is completely different and closed (proprietary).
Whilst it is true that the microarchitecture of the x86 series is closed, the reference "Rocket" implementation of RISC-V does indeed have a fully open microarchitecture:

http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs25 ... scv.pdf#13

:)
deadbang

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#11 Post by tomazzi »

Yes, but microarchitecture is part of hardware implementation of the ISA.

The ISA *must* be open, because the opcodes are used by the preprocessor-compiler-assembler toolchain to generate the machine-language representation of the program.

Regards.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#12 Post by pylkko »

tomazzi wrote:
pylkko wrote:SO, if I am getting this right, even if RISCV does not use a license model that requires derivative works to be only open and free (for example GPL), it nevertheless is very different from ARM and especially in the context that the OP was talking about, the license.
Apparently You don't get it.
So, does that mean that you do recognize - or that you do not recognize - that when you said "Just like this is in case of ARM, every chip will have proprietary bootloaders" that it is not actually the case that all ARM platforms have proprietary bootloaders? As you pointed out, this is something that "I do not get". But maybe you can try to explain.

Are you saying or not that RISC-V is just like ARM when you look at the licenses/rights to make further products and that all the future bootloaders absolutely have to be - just like with ARM - proprietary and non free?? It is indeed really hard to get what you are saying here. It seems like you are using a lot of strong verbiage, but that the actual content of the statements are quite obscure. It seems as if you are dismissing RISC-V as "just like ARM", whereas the statement cited from Wikipedia is claiming that RISC-V is not just like ARM in many interesting ways. Is this not the case?

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#13 Post by tomazzi »

pylkko wrote:So, does that mean that you do recognize - or that you do not recognize - that when you said "Just like this is in case of ARM, every chip will have proprietary bootloaders" that it is not actually the case that all ARM platforms have proprietary bootloaders?
Every ARM-based chip I know of is using proprietary bootloader, even such "primitive" ones like the NXP/Philips LPCxxxx series.
If You know about some ARM-based chip that does not use bootloader (proprietary initialization code) - please let me know.
pylkko wrote:Are you saying or not that RISC-V is just like ARM when you look at the licenses/rights to make further products and that all the future bootloaders absolutely have to be - just like with ARM - proprietary and non free?? It is indeed really hard to get what you are saying here. It seems like you are using a lot of strong verbiage, but that the actual content of the statements are quite obscure. It seems as if you are dismissing RISC-V as "just like ARM", whereas the statement cited from Wikipedia is claiming that RISC-V is not just like ARM in many interesting ways. Is this not the case?
First, RISC-V is not a product yet - it works only in the simulators (not counting that reference chip, which can be seen only on a photo).
I'm saying that there's completely no guarantee that the hardware will be open in the final product.
And taking into account that guaranteed support for proprietary extensions, I do claim that RISC-V is just like ARM, which have also started as an educational project.

Regards.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#14 Post by pylkko »

tomazzi wrote: Every ARM-based chip I know of is using proprietary bootloader, even such "primitive" ones like the NXP/Philips LPCxxxx series.
If You know about some ARM-based chip that does not use bootloader (proprietary initialization code) - please let me know.
Ah, now I see what you want to say. You mean that when HOAS wrote:
FSF wrote:The BeagleBoard (various versions) as well as the PandaBoard use the TI OMAP family of SoCs. These come with free startup software as well as free drivers for the peripherals.
That the "free startup software" contains what you call "proprietary initialization code". OK.
First, RISC-V is not a product yet - it works only in the simulators (not counting that reference chip, which can be seen only on a photo).
I believe that no one here has said that RISC-V actually "exists" in that sense.
I'm saying that there's completely no guarantee that the hardware will be open in the final product.
Well, can you see why I it appears to me that earlier you made a stronger claim? Did you not claim that it is guaranteed that RISC-V will not be open in the final product. The way I see it, that claim is completely different.
And taking into account that guaranteed support for proprietary extensions, I do claim that RISC-V is just like ARM, which have also started as an educational project.

Regards.
What about the license fees or mandatory non-disclosure agreements? Surely that is different in such a way that RISC-V is not like ARM??

hthi
Posts: 213
Joined: 2015-05-09 15:43
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#15 Post by hthi »

Riscv must be subject to a critical evaluation too. I have followed and corresponded with lowric. http://www.lowrisc.org/. Lowrisc is attempting to manufacture a fully open source cpu. Not libre software. About the lowrisc cpu everything will be open source. A less restrictive license than fsf's. Bradbury from lowrisc has told me, that they wanted to make the mainboard open source. He expects it will be impossible from start because getting all peripherals open sourced is to big a task.

The riscv isa is open source. No one can make it closed source or demand license fees. A manufacture can or cannot decide to close derivatives. Consumers decide if they want to buy it. Any entity can manufacture a riscv fsf approved device. About arm and intel you cannot make that decision by yourself. Arm or intel has to approve which they do not. According to my information.

The google objection is valid. Google could if they wanted to put big resources into riscv. They have not. Thinkpenguin has said, google wanted to buy arm tablet hardware. One can assume, that google buys big numbers. Google insisted getting all the source code.. They did not get it. It could be google wanted to make their own closed software.

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop is a free software arm computer. I cannot see through if it became free software because of reverse engineering, illicit actions or agreements. Maybe it was a combination. The computer card is relevant because they are on the market. In general counting on getting free software arm and intel devices is not. The riscv path is better because from step 1 you can get open source or free software devices.

I consider riscv another example of the difficulty for free software or open source software to accumulate resources and produce software and devices.

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#16 Post by tomazzi »

hthi wrote:The riscv isa is open source. No one can make it closed source or demand license fees. A manufacture can or cannot decide to close derivatives. Consumers decide if they want to buy it. Any entity can manufacture a riscv fsf approved device. About arm and intel you cannot make that decision by yourself. Arm or intel has to approve which they do not. According to my information.
Nope, things are a bit different, and this particular topic apparently (again) needs an explanation:
The ARM Holdings/Intel/etc. are selling/licensing the implementation of the ISA, that is, the specifications, code and schematics for the microarchitecture - which means that they are selling/licensing the hardware-based interpreters.

Both the ARM and x86 ISA specifications are open/free (like in freedom) - anyone can build his own ARM or x86 CPU without buying a license. This is also true for CPU emulators, like Softgun or QEMU f.e.

Among other things, and for the above reasons, I can't find anything which is making the RISC-V exceptional/revolutionary.
I suppose that there can be other reasons, but for sure this is not about licensing...

Regards.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#17 Post by pylkko »

Your attitude seems to be a bit condescending when you say things like “apparently this needs to be explained again”, while at the same time the only one making strong claims in this thread is you, and apparently your “explaining” is not working. So when you are asked specificities over what you mean, you decline to answer, but then you "get angry" because your "people don't get your point"??

I think it is interesting that the Wikipedia article portrays the two (ARM vs RISCV) in such a contrastive manner. One would think that they are from entirely different universes. Yet you seem to think that they are “essentially the same”. This is interesting and you would think that it would open up some new opinions or views or alternative ways to look at the same thing. However, you refuse to comment the Wikipedia article. I don’t understand why you would do this?

I don’t know… you say that ARM is “selling/licensing the hardware-based interpreters” and that “anyone can build his own ARM or x86 CPU without buying a license”. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but even if it is true that anyone can build an ARM processor, you certainly cannot sell ARM processors or products containing the processors without paying both the license and royalties on every chip that you sell.

According to this article “How ARM makes money”.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/2 wrote:There are two amounts that all ARM licensees have to pay: an upfront license fee, and a royalty.
and:
The upfront license fee depends on the complexity of the design you’re licensing. An older ARM11 will have a lower up front fee than a Cortex A57. The upfront fee generally ranges from $1M - $10M, although there are options lower or higher than that (I’ll get to that shortly).
The royalty is on a per chip basis. Every chip that contains ARM IP has a royalty associated with it. The royalty is typically 1 - 2% of the selling price of the chip.
Now I don't want to get all confrontational about it, but if I am getting this right it does appear that RISCV is very different from ARM.


Wikipedia:
Significance
The RISC-V authors aim to provide several CPU designs freely available under a BSD license. Such licenses allow derivative works, such as RISC-V chip designs, to be either open and free, like RISC-V itself, or closed and proprietary. This is unlike the alternative OpenRISC cores, which under the GPL license, requires derivative works to be open.

By contrast, commercial chip vendors such as ARM Holdings and MIPS Technologies charge substantial license fees for the use of their patents.[8] They also require non-disclosure agreements before releasing documents that describe their designs' advantages and instruction set. Many design advances are completely proprietary, never described even to customers. The secrecy interferes with legitimate public educational use, security auditing, and the development of public, low–cost free and open-source software compilers, and operating systems.

Developing a CPU requires design expertise in several specialties: electronic logic, compilers, and operating systems. It's rare to find this outside of a professional engineering team. The result is that modern, high-quality general-purpose computer instruction sets have not recently been widely available anywhere, or even explained, except in academic settings. Because of this, many RISC-V contributors see it as a unified community effort. This need for a large base of contributors is part of the reason why RISC-V was engineered to fit so many uses.

The RISC-V authors also have substantial research and user-experience validating their designs in silicon and simulation. The RISC-V ISA is a direct development from a series of academic computer-design projects. It was originated in part to aid such projects.[3][9]

tomazzi
Posts: 730
Joined: 2013-08-02 21:33

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#18 Post by tomazzi »

Apparently You've missed the fact, that in my previous post I've just showed 2 examples of open and free implementations of the ARM ISA (Softgun and QEMU).

Most of what You said is true, but the wiki resources are talking about the proprietary extensions and about the hardware implementations - and that's exactly what I mean in regard to RISC-V.

RISC-V has the open part, but most likely it'll contain proprietary extensions and closed hardware.
If You think that I'm wrong, please explain why they are guaranteeing support for proprietary extensions?

For me this is obvious: RISC-V ISA is just nothing special, and for me this is all about creating a cheaper alternative to ARM.

Regards.
Odi profanum vulgus

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#19 Post by pylkko »

I don't think you are wrong. I wasn't sure what you were trying to say. It looked like you were saying that RISC-V is designed so that open platforms are impossible. I didn't understand on what basis you meant that. Now I realize that you are saying that the platform allows for non-open and nonfree stuff, (and maybe also that you believe that if non-open stuff is allowed, then all real implementations in the future will certainly be non-free and proprietary).

So maybe you think that until a platform is published with a GPL kind of basis, which explicitly prohibits any and all commercial and closed derivatives, you will not consider it different in a interesting way. Maybe you think more positively about OpenRISC?

Well, I guess we can say that while it is not perfect, it is better than anything else now? To me it sounds like something truly different from ARM in an interesting way.

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: debian for riscv open source hardware

#20 Post by pylkko »

tomazzi wrote:
First, RISC-V is not a product yet - it works only in the simulators (not counting that reference chip, which can be seen only on a photo).

Regards.

I think you might be interested to know. By coincidence I was introduced today to a product described in the link. This was announced as recently as Jul 11, 2016, but they appear to be real existing products with prices cited. I have not looked thoroughly into how "open" they are, other than reading this line from that link "Like RISC-V, both designs are fully open source" whatever that is supposed to mean... since some of the products appear to include other auxiliary harware, for example ARM cores.

https://store.digilentinc.com/arty-boar ... hobbyists/ (price $99)
https://dev.sifive.com/dev-kits/
http://hackerboards.com/first-socs-base ... run-linux/
https://www.arrow.com/en/products/sf2pl ... ment-tools

also, the low risc project is claiming on their FAQ that they expect to be able to produce chips by 2017 that will run for approx 10 USD

Post Reply