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

Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

ariadne.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#11

Post by zozbot234 »

cleemens wrote: post #5

"As should be obvious by now, there is no situation where these foundry processes and tools are open source." This is already false. The famous OpenPDK by Skywater (sponsored by Google) is proving this article wrong from the beginning. ( https://github.com/google/skywater-pdk ) Yes, thats a rather old technology node, but you can now synthesize your free RISC-V design with a free Toolchain (openROAD) onto this open P…

That process node is not just "rather old", it is literally 20 years old. Sure, it's nice that these old processes are being opened up, but for anything finer you're still going to run into the patent concerns that the article talks about.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#12

Post by mananaysiempre »

netr0ute wrote: post #3
turbinerneiter wrote: post #2

I think that the patent threat will crumble with more and more complex features being implemented on the Open Source cores, like BOOM and so on. I don't think that ideas that are taught commonly at university and are all over GitHub will be able to stay "owned". The question than will be how close we can come to the proprietary systems and which use-cases are low-key enough that their cutting edge new innovations don…

I think for the high-performance stuff, history will repeat itself like with China's silk production. The "silkworms" (today's silicon IP) will eventually become open and everyone will know how China did it.

China’s silk industry attempted to prevent replication by withholding information: in today’s lingo, that’s not patents, that’s trade secrets. Those are intentionally mutually exclusive: the motivation for patents was quite literally to prevent knowledge being kept secret and eventually lost by granting time-limited exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure. (That’s why you can’t get a patent for something that was previously published elsewhere, even if it was you publishing it.)

In theory, every patented technique is already public: it’s described by the text of the patent. In practice, today’s patents are malicious compliance writ large: most of the time, they describe only the most indispensable (not necessarily the most difficult) parts of the processes in the most obtuse language possible. And while I hold that a patent lawyer’s job is morally repugnant, the overall fault is hardly with those exploiting loopholes, it’s with those who cast the loopholes in stone (making them part of national law, pervasive international agreement bundles such as the WTO, etc.) in the first place.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#13

Post by zrm »

klelatti wrote: post #9

Can someone explain why the RISC-V ecosystem won’t eventually stabilise into a series of lower performance open source cores and higher performance closed source (and non licensable) cores. In other words why should designers open source performance leading cores for competitors to copy?

You're Netgear or Asus or someone. You need a core to put in your network equipment, and the low performance one is nearly good enough. If you spend some money to make it 10% better then it is good enough. If that amount of money is less than you'd have to pay to license ARM, you might as well do that.

You also might as well release your changes.

If you try and keep your improvements to yourself then when someone else goes to make their own improvements, they start with the original design instead of yours. To get the benefit of their improvements you now have to do more work yourself in order to integrate them with yours. How does that help you?

Think about how Linux works. If you release it for anyone to use, when someone else wants to make independent improvements, they start with your design and you get the benefit of their work for free (and vice versa). And you make your money selling routers/phones/coffee machines/whatever, not processors, so this is in your interest.

Several iterations of this later and the "higher performance closed source (and non licensable) cores" are starting to look like HP-UX and AIX, meanwhile Linux has captured nearly the entire market.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#14

Post by turbinerneiter »

MisterTea wrote: post #10
turbinerneiter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that fabs like TMSC or global foundries will develop tools to support IP designers with this, to drive their own business? There is stuff like that going on in PCB design, where manufacturers make free design software, or distributors making footprint libraries.

> There is stuff like that going on in PCB design, where manufacturers make free design software, or distributors making footprint libraries. Totally different things. Asking TMSC how to design a RISC-V chip is akin to asking Advanced Circuits or OSH Park how to design an Intel motherboard. They can make the board for you, but they dont design it.

It's not about asking them how to design a chip, it's about them providing the tools needed to go from a Verliog design to something they can manufacture.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#15

Post by vineyardmike »

MisterTea wrote: post #10
turbinerneiter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that fabs like TMSC or global foundries will develop tools to support IP designers with this, to drive their own business? There is stuff like that going on in PCB design, where manufacturers make free design software, or distributors making footprint libraries.

> There is stuff like that going on in PCB design, where manufacturers make free design software, or distributors making footprint libraries. Totally different things. Asking TMSC how to design a RISC-V chip is akin to asking Advanced Circuits or OSH Park how to design an Intel motherboard. They can make the board for you, but they dont design it.

> they can make the board for you, but they dont design it.

TSMC is a manufacturer, but they still have a whole IP/Parts library that they share with their customers.

> TSMC's Design Service Alliance partners provide industry-leading, silicon-verified libraries, IP and design services directly to designers in fabless semiconductor companies, IDMs and systems houses. DSA partners provide best-of-class, silicon-verified libraries; high-performance, leading-edge intellectual property cores; unprecedented accuracy in design simulation, validation and verification; faster cycle time from specification through tapeout to finished wafers; and access to experienced designers and developers of complex functions.

https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/2211 (year: 2000)

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#16

Post by klelatti »

zrm wrote: post #13
klelatti wrote: post #9

Can someone explain why the RISC-V ecosystem won’t eventually stabilise into a series of lower performance open source cores and higher performance closed source (and non licensable) cores. In other words why should designers open source performance leading cores for competitors to copy?

You're Netgear or Asus or someone. You need a core to put in your network equipment, and the low performance one is nearly good enough. If you spend some money to make it 10% better then it is good enough. If that amount of money is less than you'd have to pay to license ARM, you might as well do that. You also might as well release your changes. If you try and keep your improvements to yourself then when someone els…

The key point you’ve missed is that Linux is gpl licensed. If you make changes and make those changes available in a binary you have to release the source code. Not so for a new RISC-V core (or notably for many of Linux’s competitors).

Sure if you make a small change then you might release it. Designing cores isn’t all about small incremental changes though.

Still not sure what the incentives are for a firm that has made a significant investment in a new core or in extending an existing core, what the incentive is for them to release those changes.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#17

Post by Epiphany21 »

klelatti wrote: post #9

Can someone explain why the RISC-V ecosystem won’t eventually stabilise into a series of lower performance open source cores and higher performance closed source (and non licensable) cores. In other words why should designers open source performance leading cores for competitors to copy?

It's a fair question. How does an open high end chip design benefit anyone other than a competing company? How would an end user be able to verify that the chip in their hand is the same as what's in the schematics they get? Wouldn't it be cost-prohibitive for regular people to have those designs manufactured? High performance cores being opened would be nice to have but not really practical, unless I'm missing something.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#18

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #14
MisterTea wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is stuff like that going on in PCB design, where manufacturers make free design software, or distributors making footprint libraries. Totally different things. Asking TMSC how to design a RISC-V chip is akin to asking Advanced Circuits or OSH Park how to design an Intel motherboard. They can make the board for you, but they dont design it.

It's not about asking them how to design a chip, it's about them providing the tools needed to go from a Verliog design to something they can manufacture.

So I would say to that extent they do, the foundries provide dev kits with cells to use on their process, and there's definitely the same incentive, good reusable IP gets you products faster which gets them more business. I think a lot of the landscape is just driven by the sheer cost of getting it wrong. Spinning a pcb is a bummer. Needing a new mask set is so much worse.

There is eFabless, among other efforts in the vein you describe, they do a multi project wafer shuttle thing that google sponsors using skywater. It's supposedly an open source PDK, I haven't used it.

https://github.com/google/skywater-pdk

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#19

Post by floatboth »

klelatti wrote: post #16
zrm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're Netgear or Asus or someone. You need a core to put in your network equipment, and the low performance one is nearly good enough. If you spend some money to make it 10% better then it is good enough. If that amount of money is less than you'd have to pay to license ARM, you might as well do that. You also might as well release your changes. If you try and keep your improvements to yourself then when someone els…

The key point you’ve missed is that Linux is gpl licensed. If you make changes and make those changes available in a binary you have to release the source code. Not so for a new RISC-V core (or notably for many of Linux’s competitors). Sure if you make a small change then you might release it. Designing cores isn’t all about small incremental changes though. Still not sure what the incentives are for a firm that has…

With software, the one true incentive is that someone else will maintain your code and you won't have to spend valuable time constantly rebasing your downstream patches. This is why e.g. Netflix contributes heavily to FreeBSD's network stack.

This is the real reason to upstream, regardless of license. When that incentive doesn't apply and companies only release for compliance, we get Android-vendor-style source dumps and "BSPs" that are not very useful — not upstreamable and often barely even work as documentation.

It's a bit harder with silicon since a chip is "done" once you've sent it to manufacturing, but still somewhat applies when you maintain an evolving line of chips.

Re: Open cores, ISAs, etc.: what is open about them?

#20

Post by klelatti »

floatboth wrote: post #19
klelatti wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key point you’ve missed is that Linux is gpl licensed. If you make changes and make those changes available in a binary you have to release the source code. Not so for a new RISC-V core (or notably for many of Linux’s competitors). Sure if you make a small change then you might release it. Designing cores isn’t all about small incremental changes though. Still not sure what the incentives are for a firm that has…

With software, the one true incentive is that someone else will maintain your code and you won't have to spend valuable time constantly rebasing your downstream patches. This is why e.g. Netflix contributes heavily to FreeBSD's network stack. This is the real reason to upstream, regardless of license. When that incentive doesn't apply and companies only release for compliance, we get Android-vendor-style source dumps…

Thanks - agree completely. Possibly also true that Netflix isn’t really worried about competitors using their contributions to FreeBSD to compete with them?
Post reply on HN