Lup Yuen Lee 李立源 @lupyuen@qoto.org

@AmpBenzScientist

Yes, I read it all... ;-)

I am probably more hopeful that we will see progress (outside copy/paste-china) for all but the most compute intensive usages, i.e. embedded controllers.

With prices for custom asic also dropping quickly, I think there is a future for open source adopted by many non-asic companies, and a decent job market for people with experience in it.

We are now roughly at 1990 in software, long way to go.

Also found; https://opencores.org/projects/neorv32

@lupyuen

@niclas @lupyuen The T-HEAD cores are open source. I suspect they are odd because they were pulled from their targeted applications.

You can get on GitHub and run a C910 if you have a powerful enough FPGA because they have the Verilog up. It's not going to be the 16 core module that was supposed to be part of a larger system.

At least T-Head released information when alleged competitors hide their information. RISC-V was a good idea but it just lets others blatantly copy and obfuscate the fact that they copied a design. If you want a good example, look at the C910 and other manufacturers who made innovations after it. They outperform it because they took inspiration and made it on a smaller process with some improvements.

If one thing is clear about RISC-V, to me, it's that copycats love open source and T-Head processors show their heritage by being difficult. It's almost as if their processors aren't as trashy as the implementations are but are instead being obtuse because they are not working with hundreds more cores in a system cared for by scientists who know how to make them work properly.

If you have read this far, congratulations. We still don't have an Open FPGA that hasn't been reverse engineered. The problem with RISC-V is that it got controlled by companies and it has little to no integrity. Applaud the company that took a RISC-V processor and paired it to nearly dead GPU technology that still refuses to make it open.

Perhaps I'm too cynical about the open hardware aspect that could have been and I should just embrace the shameless desecration of ideals. Perhaps I'm bitter about past experiences that lead me to believe that a man with an interest in open hardware was misled by a few companies and it rocked their business. Just put legal landmines in the mix and we are at the current state of RISC-V. There's good, there's bad and there's the reality that this is how it's going to be. I don't see RISC-V as a path forward for those who want open source or open hardware.

With all that being said, I could see T-Head destroying competition with what would be a considerably small investment and make a fully open source and open hardware SoC that has its own open GPU that's wrapped up with a non commercial use clause. It might sell poorly but it would be yet another first they could claim. The Party wouldn't like it, their competitors would try to destroy it and the US would be bribed to not accept it. Perhaps it would be successful as it's ideologically pure, modern computation is plagued by inefficiencies which are legal landmines and the fact that no intelligence agencies can trust their own hardware because they had the foresight to embed backdoors in everything.

@lupyuen

But is there any serious RISC-V that is "open source" licensed?

An free/open specification doesn't mean that free/open RISC-V implementations exists that are of high enough quality.