2015-05-02 17:00 Paul Boddie:
On Saturday 2. May 2015 17.07.57 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
Speaking of openness/FSF-endorsability, and having into account that the current focus is to go ahead with what is already planned like the A20, with which I fully agree (so please don't take this as a demand, just as showing interest) -- would it be feasible in the near future to have OpenRISC or RISC-V (or RISC-V-based lowrisc, when ready)?
I imagine that it depends on things like availability of hardware versions of CPUs for these architectures. I recall that there was a board for OpenRISC that used an FPGA, and there was also a fundraising campaign for an ASIC version of, I think, the OR1200 which didn't succeed. So it may be the case that an FPGA solution is the only remotely near-future option, and that brings a lot of other issues.
Basically, the underlying question of what I was wondering (because I don't have any idea about hardware manufacturing), is if instead of asking companies to manufacture EOMA-68 A20 CPU cards, they could be asked to manufacture the same but with OpenRISC or RISC-V cores instead.
There's also the distinction between plain CPUs and SoCs. I don't really follow what goes on around these things, but I recall that the people who were developing the Milkymist One hardware were aiming to deliver an SoC solution based on the LatticeMico32 core:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Labs
I don't know what the situation is with OpenRISC and SoCs.
I also don't know much about this, but there are efforts in that direction (both in OpenRISC and RISC-V camps), for example:
http://opencores.org/or1k/ORPSoC
lowrisc themselves want to go ahead with a SoC based on RISC-V, with additional CPU features.
Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com