Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
amazon.com
Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#2Ooof. €109.70 in paperback
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#3Ooof. €109.70 in paperback
I just pre-ordered this book and think it's definitely worth it.
Full disclosure: I have no affiliation with the author, but I'm sharing because I genuinely believe in the work.
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#4Judging by the authors, I'm sure the book will be excellent. Hopefully it will be available through O'Reilly Online, because the price is a bit steep.
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#5You know what. I feel like it’s a fair price.
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#6Ooof. €109.70 in paperback
You can get it direct from Elsevier for ~78 euros: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/risc-v-system-on-chip-design...
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#7Everything RISC-V is good (even the mistakes which is making it more robust and more mature).
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#8Based on description it doesn't sound like SoC design, it sounds like a book about RISC-V microprocessors. To the untrained eye, that sounds similar, but a microprocessor is one part of an SoC, and sometimes it can be a very small part based off the role the microprocessor plays.
Re: Book: RISC-V System-on-Chip Design
#9Everything RISC-V is good (even the mistakes which is making it more robust and more mature).
I like RISC-V (it's been my job for the last 7 years) but this is nonsense. Not everything RISC-V is good. CLIC was awful (thankfully it has been abandoned). The spec is not especially well written - the style is inconsistent due to being written by many authors, and it is waaaay too much of a textbook rather than a proper spec. (There is some ongoing work to improve this tbf.)
There's a practically unending list of undefined/implementation defined behaviours, which is great if you want to implement an ultra minimal microcontroller with 100 flops, but pretty awful otherwise.
Requiring the C (compressed) extension in the RVA profiles was definitely a mistake. The lack of true 16/64kB pages and conditional moves are probably a mistake (though fixable).
I don't know how any of these make it more robust and mature.
(But to be clear, I still think it's pretty good overall.)