Live data from Hacker News

Putting out the hardware dumpster fire

dl.acm.org

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: Putting out the hardware dumpster fire

#111
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kind of high speed interfaces aren't just something that one just bitbangs on some microcontroller. I think even the first step, ie. finding a RISC-V chip that has capability of acting as a PCIe device at all will be a challenge. "Inexpensive" for sure not.

There are RISC-V chips with PCIe controllers on them. I'm not sure if you can use the hardware designed to act as a host to act as a device, but it wouldn't surprise me. In any case I would find it hard to believe that the hardware that can act as a device would cost significantly more. You can get a whole NVMe SSD for $15: https://www.newegg.com/silicon-power-128gb-p34a60/p/N82E1682... The hardware required to do th…

> I'm not sure if you can use the hardware designed to act as a host to act as a device, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I don't how it is for PCIe, but for example USB is very asymmetric and host controllers generally cannot as devices. There do exist dual-mode IP cores (e.g. for mobile SoCs)

> In any case I would find it hard to believe that the hardware that can act as a device would cost significantly more.

Indeed the area/cost difference between host-only and dual mode controller may be small. But in a general purpose chip there will be dozens of other competiting features in all the other subsystems besides PCIe. Each of those small features would increase the chip cost, so they won't be added without a cost-benefit calculation. So it can still be that while PCIe device support would be cheap to add, it could still be considered too low bang-for-buck to be worth including. Or that there may be such chips supporting PCIe device mode, but they then also would include things like video encoding/decoding, HDMI, ethernet, etc. and thus be an expensive chip.

> The hardware required to do this can't be that expensive.

With a custom ASIC (the linked one seems to have Phison E12) that includes only the minimal needed hardware, yes.

Re: Putting out the hardware dumpster fire

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i only hit NDA on secure element chips and similar things. 99% of my embedding work is plain ol mcus w reams of datasheets available. i do not do pc stuff tho

One common component where things are really secretive is with flash storage. This is because the underlying physical components are pretty commodified, and the software/firmware (like block virtual addressing) is where brands actually distinguish themselves. It's kind of unfortunate since there's a lot of really cool stuff you could do with more control over the hardware like reducing the size of a failing disk to e…

i have done lots of flash storage and never hit an nda thankfully

Re: Putting out the hardware dumpster fire

#113
post #14

I think one of the primary reasons that it is such a dumpster fire is there traditionally hasn't been an "open" ecosystem in the hardware world, though now they are being forced towards that direction kicking and screaming. Every part of the hardware ecosystem has traditionally been done in closed, NDA ridden environments and only over the last 5-10 years has that even started to change. Designing chips has required…

Traditionally there hasn't been an "open" ecosystem in the hardware world only if the "traditions" are understood to be no older than three decades ago. The IBM Personal Computer has been amazingly open and this has been tremendously important for the evolution of the computer industry, by creating de facto hardware standards. Unfortunately many managers have been less impressed by the huge benefits for the entire so…

I completely agree here. I would say that POSIX is to software and OSI layers as the PC/104, ATX standards are to hardware design.

Software designers, being the privileged bunch, wags the hardware dog, when the limitations of hardware previously limited software decadence prior to the late 90s. I'm not advocating for dominance of one over the other, but great design requires coordination. I wanted to say "platform independent", but that can sometimes introduce its own issues. I don't think there is such a thing as "too platform agnostic" until it runs into performance and compatibility issues.

A few months ago, Hackaday wrote on the Single Board Computer ecosystem, and lamenting the lack of standards (some which have more to do with connectors that dimensions of the board): https://hackaday.com/2022/10/05/the-state-of-the-sbc-interfa...

I would add to that, that SBCs are little more than glorified motherboards, with major developers- Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone, Orange Pi, Rock Pi, not all discussing their form factors, feeling a $25 board is too cheap to require a discussion on mounting holes, similar to ITX and ATX. I've built PCs since the 2000s. My first was a VIA C7 with integrated CPU. I still have an integrated ASROCK AMD E-350 in an ITX form factor (E350M1), Which I can use in an ATX case, or a tiny MBox 350 case. A never adopted mobile standard, such as Mobile-ITX, and EOMA68, allows hand-me-down boards to be repurposed into laptop cases, such as the Pi-Top v3. Most buyers of a RPi 3 have a desktop PC, or laptop, and might not use it as one, but at the same time, someone in the 3rd world might, and the laptop form factor isn't going away anytime soon (despite the interest in VR/AR glasses).

Even if some laptops are getting much slimmer than a PiTop v3, there are still many gaming laptops keeping up the bulky form factor alive. One of the failures of the OLPC was the battery life, and that it wasn't really repairable or upgradeable. This isn't to say there needs to be a laptop for everyone, but that a lot of the obvious issues have already been addressed with truly solar powerable computers, such as the Ambiq Apollo 4, which run at 6uA/mhz (and they have plans to develop a linux-capable chip in an Apollo4 like energy footprint). The Raspberry Pi is already a household name, for over 10 years, and yet they are more ignorant of competing boards. If you see all the boards out there- Pine 64, Caninos Loucous, it's like "Join my platform!" We're the virtuous developers, using all GPL software.

But honestly, I don't think someone who has no PC really cares about that- they might, if they had the time to read about the differences between open source, BSD and GPL, but I think the engineers at Broadcom and RPi seem to think that, the environment is an inevitable victim, and not much effort should be spent on component design when it seems like such a low priority in designing something for only 3-4 years of product support, and they aren't even going to think about it after its official End of Life. To that , I say, if someone handed me a bunch of salvaged parts- an empty laptop case, a Raspberry Pi 3, I could put it together. But if someone just handed me a Rpi 3, and a keyboard, and a mouse, and a USB power, and a 720 monitor, and I live in a country with no power, that's not a really practical solution. It's more future proof to develop a form factor that can outlive its individual components. so that while a LCD display on a modular laptop might only be 13" and use 2 watts of power today, it could be designed today, and a future one that can be retrofitted, like a large SHARP Memory in Pixel one, that uses 30mW, could be solar powered. And it wouldn't require buying a new laptop case. (For reference a 4.4" MIP uses around 5mW)

At the very worst, SBC makers would have to allocate more empty PCB space to fit a form factor, when they could get by making a smaller one (or at least having to pay for developing 2 form factors, one "universal.")

Yet, it wouldn't be as embarrassing as Walmart's $200 Linux PC in 2007, which used an embedded VIA C7 in a Mini-ITX motherboard, in a Mid-ATX case, to keep up the appearance of face. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/200-everex-gree/ (And there isn't really anything wrong with having an ITX in a full-ATX either, esp if installing a 3-slot RTX 4090.

At best, more users might be willing to buy a universal form factor because they could easily adapt it to components they already have.

Of course, I'm only addressing a very specific issue/request, and it isn't suggesting that technology is going to solve everything. There is a book written on the OLPC that already addresses its failures "The Charisma Machine". In my opinion, though, a computer is a tool that can serve more as an appliance than a service, much like TI-Solar calculators were useful tools. Software as a Service and Apple (Hardware as a Service), are not always practical solutions, because not everyone can afford the security updates (and sometimes, the application might not even require it, like a public kiosk for general information). I think computers reaching their "end-of-life" have a utility at the very least, as an offline encyclopedia, and e-library.

Re: Putting out the hardware dumpster fire

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of the world? I've heard that the cost of converting office spaces to residential is more than building new.

People keep telling me this too, so I’d be super interested to know if it wasn’t the case, because it really feels like a weak/overinflated reason.

The reasons I've seen cited, chiefly individual unit plumbing, don't jive with modern building construction.

Most office buildings are reinforced concrete floors, supported by internal load bearing columns, with glass facings.

... that's exactly the same as a hotel.

Hotels have per-unit bathrooms, typically stacked on top of each other (floor over floor).

Ergo, you can frame out/lose some space to cut several hotel-like vertical utility paths, plumb pipes from them to each floor's bathroom (or HVAC), and Bob's your uncle.

Actual reasons would be things like office floors are built to lower load bearing standards than residential... which I don't believe is true.

Re: Putting out the hardware dumpster fire

#115
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep telling me this too, so I’d be super interested to know if it wasn’t the case, because it really feels like a weak/overinflated reason.

The reasons I've seen cited, chiefly individual unit plumbing, don't jive with modern building construction. Most office buildings are reinforced concrete floors, supported by internal load bearing columns, with glass facings. ... that's exactly the same as a hotel. Hotels have per-unit bathrooms, typically stacked on top of each other (floor over floor). Ergo, you can frame out/lose some space to cut several hotel-l…

I found some papers [1,2] which claim conversions are not prohibitively expensive, though I assume not all office buildings are equally suitable. Open-plan office in particular seem impractical to convert. I wonder how many of the companies that built them that way to save money are now stuck with an empty building no one wants to buy?

[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/da2d/49a0090e8631ff08eb4813...

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/004209805003803...

Post reply on HN