Live data from Hacker News

Google offers free fabbing for 130nm open-source chips

fossi-foundation.org

401–404 of 404 posts

Re: Google offers free fabbing for 130nm open-source chips

#401
post #151

I've spent some time in the chip industry. It is awful, backwards, and super far behind. I didn't appreciate the full power of open source until I saw an industry that operates without it. Want a linter for your project? That's going to be $50k. Also, it's an absolutely terrible linter by software standards. In software, linters combine the best ideas from thousands of engineers across dozens of companies building on…

You're making an argument that open source is better because it is free. This is a 30 year old argument. The problem is, people need to get paid in the interim. For exmaple, Intel is the biggest contributer to the linux kernel, but without Intel paying its employees by charging for chips, millions of patches would never have made it into Linux. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it is more nuanced than you are implying.

Re: Google offers free fabbing for 130nm open-source chips

#402
post #75
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You generally don't do small runs of chips, unless cost is no object. The NRE costs of getting the masks made, even on older processes like these are still comfortably in the $X00,000 range, blowing past $1 million pretty quickly if you need a process that isn't ancient. That's without design software licenses, which can be hundreds of thousands more. So the minimum order quantity usually needs to be at least in the…

There are cheap-ish multi-project wafers (MPW). These organizations typically also gives access to software design tools. But that's still a sizeable investment. Last project I've worked on used a (more expensive than usual I think) GloFo 22nm technology. Price was around €9k/mm², 9mm² was the minimum area. Still much more accessible to academia than individuals or open source projects, but not out of the realm of a…

A while back I came up with the idea of an ultra-miniature quadro copter with asynchronous outrunner motors who's stators would most likely be sintered (with or without a ferromagnetic matrix) to handle the power density, and a simple tube-shaped rotor (though a squirrel cage style might be better).

I'm thinking 5-20 mm rotor diameter (3M-750k rpm transonic limit), or maybe even smaller.

The interesting part would be an analogue ASIC that decodes an external control signal modulated onto the microwave (via rectenna) or optical (solar cell/photodiode) "wireless power" beam.

Demodulation would first do naive rectenna-based AM demodulation, followed by a bandpass and FM demodulation, revealing 12 carriers corresponding to the 4 3-phase motors, which are just FM-demodulated to yield the H-bridge control signals.

These would primarily be one xx MHz PLL and 12 lower-frequency ones spaced 50-200 kHz (the FM subcarrier's bandwith (assuming narrow-band FM) is twice the maximum motor field frequency), starting as low as feasible while still being able to use AC-coupling liberally.

Also either some amplifiers for (potentially-overdriven) "linear" H-bridge operation or (NE555-like?) PWM chopper drivers to exploit the winding inductance for less-wasteful H-bridge operation.

Far too much to realize in discrete circuitry, but nothing really fancy beyond a parametric PLL design. And not really realistic for a μC, either, because of brown-out resilience and overall latency.

At least the polyphase induction motors are very easy to drive, compared to the typical 3-phase permanent magnet outrunner motors used in most multicopters.

Depending on how predictable the effects of some tuning parameters are, maskless litho could allow for chips to be tuned to measured electro-mechanical properties of these sintered motors, reaching optimal drive waveforms. And for digital circuits, hard-wired ROM (security/shelf life/radiation-hardness) for individual chips or even doping-controlled ROM for anti-readout private/secret key storage.

I expect a maskless double-patterning ArF+immersion process allowing NDA-free-usage to be "the" thing that would enable true state-of-the-art experimentation and true ASICs (where the prototype needs an ASIC to be more than a paperweight after some photoshoots and staged interactions).

Feel free to contact me/let me know if you'd like further discussion(s).

Re: Google offers free fabbing for 130nm open-source chips

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > I believe freescale currently owns the architecture, > Owns it how? 68060-- the last of 68k's designs-- was released in 1994. Any patents should now be expired. Sure, patents wouldn't be a barrier to clone the design and create an equivalent using the same patented ideas, but copyright still prevents you from copying the design, and will prevent copying significant parts of the design as well.

In other words: you can rearchitect it from scratch, but you probably can’t extract the die.

"Probably" doesn't seem strong enough. I mean, the only thing that would give you any hope of avoiding being sued out of existence leaving nothing but a small greasy spot behind would be obscurity and commercial irrelevance.

Re: Google offers free fabbing for 130nm open-source chips

#404
post #151

I've spent some time in the chip industry. It is awful, backwards, and super far behind. I didn't appreciate the full power of open source until I saw an industry that operates without it. Want a linter for your project? That's going to be $50k. Also, it's an absolutely terrible linter by software standards. In software, linters combine the best ideas from thousands of engineers across dozens of companies building on…

I think the underlying issue here is that IC design is one or two orders of magnitude more complex than software. In my experience, the bar for entry into actual IC design is generally a masters or PhD in electrical engineering. There is a lot that goes into the design of an IC. Everything from the design itself to simulation, emulation, and validation. Then, depending on just how complex your IC is, you have to also…

It's not "IC design" that's orders of magnitude more complex. It's "IC implementation" where the complexity lies.

Design for test, Logical verifcation (simulation, logical equivalence checks, electrical design rules), Physical implementation (library development and characterization, floorplanning, place and route, signal integrity), signoff (timing closure, electrical desing rules (again), physical verification, OPC) all require highly complex tools to automate. For large designs you will have people dedicated to each individual step because the ways in which things can go wrong -- and the absolute necessity of things going right to get a working chip -- are legion. And there's no substitute for experience to know the right questions to ask.

It's like the difference between driving your car across the country and flying to orbit. If you make a wrong turn in your car you can just make another turn or backtrack (edit the source code and rebuild). If don't have the right torque on the tank strut bolts on your rocket, "You will not go to space today".

Source: 30 years in the ASIC and EDA industries doing chip implementation and EDA tool flow development.

Post reply on HN