Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

abopen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#81

Post by nickik »

stevefan1999 wrote: post #76

Why did the article claim that "Free and Open Source Silicon" is a threat to ARM? Thinking further, we already have RISC V up and running, but doesn't it really impact traditional chip OGs like ARM and Intel?

Of course RISC-V impacts ARM and to a lesser extent Intel. Most costumer that goes to RISC-V would have picked ARM.

Of course changes like that don't happen in 1-2 years. RISC-V is still young, 2015 is when it actually went public with the foundation.

Not to mention that back then many things we not frozen, so now basically everything you need for a Linux stack is frozen.

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#82

Post by nickik »

stcredzero wrote: post #44

How suitable is RISC-V for military use? If we were to redesign the F-16 from scratch in 2018, would be able to make it using hardened Arm or RISC-V chips in place of x86 processors?

DARPA is has RISC-V projects. There was a Keynote by DARPA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hIA4ZIXtxA

https://content.riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Wed-104...

I think the RISC-V startup called 'Denver' is also working with DARPA.

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#83

Post by JoachimS »

JoachimS wrote: post #79
Zenst wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equally by offering this for Xilinx, it makes them more palatable over Altera offerings (owned by Intel). So a very tactile move on many levels. But as an end user, I like competition like this, as long as there is competition tomorrow.

The release of the M1 is not just for Xilinx. ARM is releasing the M1 for Xilinx, Altera, Actel FPGAs. These are firm (i.e. technology mapped) cores adapted for each FPGA family. Here for example is the documentation for the Altera version. Note that it sports the Altera Avalon bus interface which would not be used in a Xilinx design. https://developer.arm.com/docs/dui0395/latest/introduction/a... And here is the ann…

This article from EE Times lists all FPGA vendors as well as EDA vendors supporting the M1 cores:

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1303843

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#85

Post by exikyut »

duskwuff wrote: post #61
phire wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beer. Pretty sure they will be precompiled RTL blobs.

> Pretty sure they will be precompiled RTL blobs. They are. Encrypted, too.

Ugh. That's all I needed to know. (Thanks.)

There goes a very large pile of potential security research out the window.

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#86

Post by angry_octet »

sweden wrote: post #33
jgome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda off-topic, but I feel like they could gain a lot by opening their graphics stacks or simply by letting FOSS devs work on them, instead of making their work more difficult/impossible (see: history of the FOSS lima driver).

The problem with graphics is that it's a patent minefield. This is one of the main reasons why graphics stacks are usually so closed.

Yes but if it is patented that doesn't mean it is secret -- in fact the opposite. I can copy the code but I can't sell a product using it without getting a licence or risk being sued. Obviously I can't licence it as GPLv3. But I don't see why the driver implementation should be so closed.

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#87

Post by hyperman1 »

angry_octet wrote: post #86
sweden wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with graphics is that it's a patent minefield. This is one of the main reasons why graphics stacks are usually so closed.

Yes but if it is patented that doesn't mean it is secret -- in fact the opposite. I can copy the code but I can't sell a product using it without getting a licence or risk being sued. Obviously I can't licence it as GPLv3. But I don't see why the driver implementation should be so closed.

Because you don't hide the driver to hide what's in your patent. You hide the driver to hide code that violates someone else's patent.

'Patent minefield' means there are so many patents for so many basic things it's impossible to do anything without violating something. You'll never know you've violated a patent until your competitor sues you. A lot of these patents are probably invalid, but the fights in court will take years, judgement will sometimes happen by someone without know how, and losing 1 fight will cause you severe damage.

The 'solution' is trying to hide all your violations by closing the driver. Reverse engineering costs a lot, so if someone is doing it to find your patent violations, you build your own patent war chest and cross license with them - they have engineers so they probably produce something that has violations for your patents.

Re: ARM releases free Cortex-M processor cores for FPGAs

#88

Post by angry_octet »

hyperman1 wrote: post #87
angry_octet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but if it is patented that doesn't mean it is secret -- in fact the opposite. I can copy the code but I can't sell a product using it without getting a licence or risk being sued. Obviously I can't licence it as GPLv3. But I don't see why the driver implementation should be so closed.

Because you don't hide the driver to hide what's in your patent. You hide the driver to hide code that violates someone else's patent. 'Patent minefield' means there are so many patents for so many basic things it's impossible to do anything without violating something. You'll never know you've violated a patent until your competitor sues you. A lot of these patents are probably invalid, but the fights in court will…

Ah, that makes total sense. Makes you wonder how they avoided this situation with RISC-V (they say via identification of prior art), but graphics does seem to be worse patent-wise (though ARM is notoriously litigious).
Post reply on HN