Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 7 / 7
pattrsn
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Why not build on OpenRISC
pattrsn   8/7/2014 12:38:36 PM
If you want to learn more about the RISC-V ISA, go to riscv.org

pattrsn
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Why not build on OpenRISC
pattrsn   8/7/2014 12:31:58 PM
We started in 2010, when OpenCore only had a 32-bit address space, which was a fatal flaw that was later corrected. It is still missing the small code size option, which is requirement for IoT. 

And I am not sure if everyone understands the importance of the "Base+Extension" approach to instruction sets. This is a new approach to coping with software compatability of instruction sets. As we wrote in the associated technical report:



"RISC-V is aimed at SoCs, with a base that should never change given the longevity of the basic RISC ideas; a standard set of optional extensions that will evolve slowly; and unique instructions per SoC that never need to be reused."

Software compatability with controlled evolution.

(And it's really hard in 2014 to embrace an ISA that offers delayed branches:)

jeremybennett
User Rank
Rookie
Why not build on OpenRISC
jeremybennett   8/7/2014 12:07:07 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm not sold on the idea that we have to start from scratch to get an industry standard open ISA. As the article notes, we already have OpenRISC, which comes with an open bus standard (WishBone). The architecture is based on something well proven (DLX, of which David Patterson was half the design team), for which there is plenty of tutorial material.

It takes a long time to build all the software infrastructure around a new ISA. Surely far better to start with something like OpenRISC that has spent 15 years invested in its software.

The OpenRISC architecture doesn't tick all the author's boxes, but it is extensible, and the missing features (do we really need 128-bit addressing) could be added.

One feature that is not mentioned is multiprocessor support. Thanks to the work of Stefan Wallentowitz at TU Munich and others, this is something that OpenRISC now supports. It seems to me this ought to be a key feature of any new ISA.

The authors are two engineers for whom I have the greatest respect. I wish RISC-V well, because this team is certain to innovate, and that can only be good for the field. But as the basis of an industry standard open ISA? I wish they had built on what was already there, rather than starting again from scratch.

<<   <   Page 7 / 7


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Feast Your Orbs on My Jiggly Exercise Machine
Max Maxfield
46 comments
Last weekend, I was chatting with my mother on the phone. She's all excited that I'm coming over to visit for a week in November. "I'll be seeing you in only seven weeks," she trilled ...

Glen Chenier

Missing Datasheet Details Can Cause Problems
Glen Chenier
3 comments
It is often said that "the devil is in the details." All too often those details are hidden deep within a datasheet, where you can easily overlook them. When a datasheet reference circuit ...

David Blaza

RadioShack: The End Is Nigh!
David Blaza
120 comments
I'm feeling a little nostalgic today as I read about what looks like the imminent demise of RadioShack, at least as we currently know it. An old ubiquitous cartoon image popped into my ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
46 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)