debian for riscv open source hardware
Posted: 2016-08-24 18:51
https://riscv.org/. Isa for open source, no restrictive license hardware. Debian for riscv is being made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYbHqPNHGs.
Not really.hthi wrote:https://riscv.org/. Isa for open source, no restrictive license hardware.
In English: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.
tomazzi wrote:Not really.hthi wrote:https://riscv.org/. Isa for open source, no restrictive license hardware.
I've just started to read the specifications and I've found this:
The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual, page 61:In English: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.
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.
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computersFSF 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.
There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "guaranteeing support" for non-standard, proprietary extensions.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.
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.tomazzi wrote: There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "guaranteeing support" for non-standard, proprietary extensions.
What do you mean? Has absolutely nothing to do. Certainly is has something to do?Open ISA specification has completly nothing to do with open hardware (implementation of the ISA).
Really? Because to me it looked like as countering your claim that all ARM boards have non-open bootloaders?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.
and it continues...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.
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.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.
https://kosagi.com//w/index.php?title=Novena_Main_PageA new open-hardware computing platform, flexible and powerful, designed for use as a desktop, laptop, or standalone board.
Apparently You don't get it.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.
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: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).
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.tomazzi wrote:Apparently You don't get it.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.
Every ARM-based chip I know of is using proprietary bootloader, even such "primitive" ones like the NXP/Philips LPCxxxx series.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?
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).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?
Ah, now I see what you want to say. You mean that when HOAS wrote: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.
That the "free startup software" contains what you call "proprietary initialization code". OK.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.
I believe that no one here has said that RISC-V actually "exists" in that sense.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).
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.I'm saying that there's completely no guarantee that the hardware will be open in the final product.
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??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.
Nope, things are a bit different, and this particular topic apparently (again) needs an explanation: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.
and: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.
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.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.
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.