Slashdot Mirror


Consumer Device With Open CPU Out of Beta Soon

lekernel writes "After years of passionate and engaging development, the video synthesizer from the Milkymist project is expected to go out of beta in August. Dubbed 'Milkymist One,' it features as central component a system-on-chip made exclusively of IP cores licensed under the open source principles, and is aimed at use by a general audience of video performance artists, clubs and musicians. It is one of the first consumer electronics products putting forward open source semiconductor IP, open PCB design and open source software at the same time. The full source code is available for download from Github, and a few hardware kits are available from specialized electronics distributors."

25 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. ok by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yea ok I will admit this is the first time I have seen an open source CPU, but that is becuase the rest of us would have grabbed a fpga and not wasted a bunch of time.

    I will also admit that this is cool as shit after calling it a waste of time, its a bit of both I guess

    1. Re:ok by wspraul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The entire video synthesizer runs on less than 5W. We didn't pick an fpga because we wanted to make an fpga computer. We picked an fpga because it allows us to make a spectacularly well performing and low power (!) video synthesizer. It can easily beat a multi-GHz Intel system.

    2. Re:ok by dvdkhlng · · Score: 2

      Freescale iMX51 and TI OMAPs are completely proprietary, AFAIR. If at all you'll only get closed-source drivers for their built-in GPUs. That doesn't make them very sexy for such open-source hardware projects. Also I guess you'll soon run into real-time execution problems, if the GPU drivers aren't 100% perfect. Even with my ATI card I have these problems from time to time (something flushing GPU pipelines? no clue.). This FPGA CPU with RTOS kernel and custom-made 2-D acceleration will allow you to get perfect frames, all the time.

  2. What makes it not great... by mark_elf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Judging from what the screenshots look like, the "video art" it produces looks a lot like Winamp circa 1998. I'm part of the target audience for this thing and it looks pretty useless for making video. But if you shine some lights on it, it looks kinda cool I guess. If you tell people about the open source CPU it gets even cooler.

  3. Re:3 pin DMX? by guruevi · · Score: 2

    Not necessarily, depending on the age of your components this can actually be a liability since the 2 extra pins were never standardized. Some (bad) designers have used it historically to carry a destructive current over it.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. Re:Open source always takes a backseat. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    I don't see anything about EMC or safety testing from an accredited lab, so I doubt this can be sold as anything other than a "development kit". That's not what you would find on Amazon or at Best Buy. If this thing really interests you, then they hassle of getting one will be worth it. This is more interesting as a general FPGA tinker box than for the stated purpose.

  5. Re:Whoop dee doo by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I doubt you have any idea what you're talking about.

    It's actually a great looking device for musicians like myself. Built in MIDI & DMX512 ports.

    Nice attempt at trolling open source projects.

  6. Re:it's an entire system by JackDW · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed, hardly unusual. At the very beginning of opencores.org, which was certainly around a decade ago, there was a project of this sort. "ORsoc" ran Linux. The CPU was an Opencores design named OR1200, with a completely custom instruction set and a fork of GCC/glibc to support it. Everything was open source: the peripherals, the CPU, the video drivers, even the USB and Ethernet cores.

    That SoC worked on FPGAs, but there were also ASICs, and I think it even turned up in some commercial products.

    I suspect that this project is probably reusing quite a few components from Opencores. That Wishbone bus looks awfully familiar...

    --
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
  7. Re:Whoop dee doo by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's actually a great looking device for musicians like myself.

    I doubt that. It's a $500 dev kit. Any tool you need for making music can be had from private companies with superior specs for less cash. Even if not, you could make a superior product by using an ASIC from a private company rather than a FPGA. If you buy one, it will be because you like the notion of it being open, not because it's technically superior to existing products.

  8. Open source? by pem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not particularly happy about my chances of legally
    reusing code that starts like this:

    //                           COPYRIGHT NOTICE
    // Copyright 2006 (c) Lattice Semiconductor Corporation
    // ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    // This confidential and proprietary software may be used only as authorised by
    // a licensing agreement from Lattice Semiconductor Corporation.
    // The entire notice above must be reproduced on all authorized copies and
    // copies may only be made to the extent permitted by a licensing agreement from
    // Lattice Semiconductor Corporation.
    //
    // Lattice Semiconductor Corporation        TEL : 1-800-Lattice (USA and Canada)
    // 5555 NE Moore Court                            408-826-6000 (other locations)
    // Hillsboro, OR 97124                     web  : http://www.latticesemi.com/
    // U.S.A                                   email: techsupport@latticesemi.com

    1. Re:Open source? by pem · · Score: 4, Interesting
      BTW, that license was from the tarball at http://www.milkymist.org/socdist/milkymist-1.0RC3.tar.bz2

      Before bothering with that, I actually tried figuring out the license by looking at Lattice, but other than reassuring verbiage about free, I came up blank when looking for an actual license:

      http://www.latticesemi.com/products/intellectualproperty/ipcores/mico32/mico32opensourcelicensing.cfm?source=sidebar

      And, of course, most of the Lattice junk in the source tarball, and the documentation at the milkymist site, can't even be retrieved from Lattice itself without registering and executing some sort of license agreement:

      http://www.latticesemi.com/dynamic/index.cfm?fuseaction=view_documents&sloc=01-01-08-11-48&source=sidebar

      Lame. BTW, the main article links to http://www.milkymist.org/.

      Which links to the SOC code page.

    2. Re:Open source? by krispaul · · Score: 2

      Please read the license from the Milkymist github repository: https://github.com/milkymist/milkymist/blob/master/LICENSE.LATTICE - "11. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE...."

    3. Re:Open source? by pem · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Forgot to mention that I did read section 11 that you point out to. It doesn't include all the source. There are plenty of files that self-identify as being under one of the licenses referenced by section 11, but the core CPU RTL files don't seem to fall into that category.

      Color me naive/fearful/stupid/untrusting/whatever, but when I see a license that covers both open source components and non-open source components, and a source file with a copyright notice that doesn't say anything about the code inside being under any kind of open source license, and in fact starts off by saying "This confidential and proprietary software ...", why the hell would I assume that the "open-source" parts of the license apply to that particular source file?

  9. The elephant in the room by femto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is the highly proprietary FPGA technology used to implement the CPU. FPGA partition, place and route (ppr) is some of most proprietary software on the planet, slathered in trade secrets and patents. The chips themselves are worse. Think of them as a type of processor (after all an FPGA is just a bit cruncher) with a secret instruction set and compiler (ppr). Xlinix (major FPGA company) want potential customers to sign an NDA simply to have their salespeople say more than "we sell FPGAs".

    If the Free Software community is to use FPGA's, as more than just a curiosity, first task is to design/build its own silicon and write its own toolchain. Then they come up against the proprietary nature of semiconductor manufacturing.

    I'm not belittling the Milkymist project, as what I describe above is a separate project. It's a huge project, essentially a reimplementation of 50 years of semiconductor progress, ultimately linked to the (seminal) desktop manufacturing projects that some have started. Imagine RepRap mk42 with semiconducting, conducting and insulating inks, printing circuits at the micro-scale.

    1. Re:The elephant in the room by krispaul · · Score: 2

      Step by step !!,
      We’re aware of the current use of non-free synthesis tools. But it dint mean, we're happy with.
      So far the flashing process uses now free/open hardware and software, something that was not possible before.
      The history don’t end here, there are very smart people working on some replacement for this missing free parts, but is Work In Progress, and requires more people to join and develop around it.

      As in contrast the GNU compiler was no developed in a free/libre system from once. All require transition, and support, keep that mind :-)
      If you are interested please join our irc channel #milkymist at freenode and tell us how you can help:

      http://webchat.freenode.net/?randomnick=1&channels=milkymist

      About the secrecy part i recommend you to read this interesting thread, worth take the time to read it, and scape from misinformation that is very common those days:
      http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/pipermail/discussion/2010-September/005369.html

    2. Re:The elephant in the room by Arlet · · Score: 2

      Isn't it the same with all open source projects, running on a highly proprietary CPU ?

    3. Re:The elephant in the room by lekernel · · Score: 2

      First, we are working on this, and your patches are welcome. https://github.com/sbourdeauducq/llhdl/wiki https://github.com/sbourdeauducq/antares FPGA companies are not as evil as you make them out to be. As a matter of fact, a large part of Xilinx's motivation about closing the bitstream is not to be evil, but to limit the damage that can be done from their (stupid and large) customers misusing the FPGAs. They still publish a lot and you might be surprised to learn, for example, that the ISE software has options to dump the complete routing graph of all Xilinx FPGAs as well as some raw timing characterization numbers. The information is there, but it takes more work to go looking for it than to sit on your ass bashing the FPGA companies - as most free software activists do whenever the topic of FPGAs arises. No wonder why so little open source FPGA and EDA stuff gets done. Finally, Milkymist SoC and FPGAs lie at two different levels of abstraction. When you are using a traditional CPU, both the logic design (HDL) and the physical implementation system (ASIC cells, P&R tools, ...) are closed. When you are using Milkymist SoC, the logic design is open and the physical implementation system is closed. The logic design is portable, and ported, to other technologies. I think we all agree this represents a progress.

  10. Re:Whoop dee doo by wspraul · · Score: 4, Informative

    -- disclosure: I manufacture Milkymist One -- If it's a dev kit, it's the most stunningly beautiful dev kit I know. Have you seen the pictures? http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Milkymist_One_pictures Technical superiority is very hard to judge, our goal is to make it super easy to use (basically just turn on), and then allow for anybody to dive deeper and deeper into it, all the way to the free hardware acceleration in the fpga. Tutorials needs to be written, videos made, etc. I will take some time. But please accept for the 'dev kit' feedback: From day 1 of this project, we didn't want it to be a dev kit. All we care about is make very easy to use, beautiful, long lasting and fun products.

  11. Re:Whoop dee doo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any tool you need for making music can be had from private companies with superior specs for less cash.

    Really? Maybe you can tell me where to get a MIDI controlled audio/video synthesizer hardware solution off-the-shelf for under $500?

    I bet someone told Don Buchla and Bob Moog that there was no need to build their silly little gizmos because hey, you can get any instrument you want down at your local music store. I can't believe you made such an idiotic statement, artor3.

    Even if not, you could make a superior product by using an ASIC from a private company rather than a FPGA

    You really don't know what you're talking about. Go start with an ASIC and build a MIDI-controlled audio/video synth for under $500. You'd spend more than $500 in time before you even started putting together the hardware.

    Would you have any idea how to put together a box like this one that would be an appropriate tool for musicians/video artists? Would you have any clue as to what the requirements of the artists would be? Well, the people who are putting together the device described in this article have clearly given it some thought. And even as a "Dev-kit" it's a great tool. Shit, most of Cycling '74's products are "dev-kits" when it comes right down to it.

    I think you owe everyone reading this tonight an apology, artor3, for making such an arrogant, dunderheaded comment. Oh, and then there's this:

    If you buy one, it will be because you like the notion of it being open, not because it's technically superior to existing products.

    Maybe you'd like to tell us about the "existing products" that would do what this device does that sell for $500?

    I want that apology, right now mister.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Re:Open source always takes a backseat. by wspraul · · Score: 4, Informative

    All wrong :-) It has no metal shielding because it is so well designed. We absolutely went to an EMI test lab to be able to classify it under CE and FCC regulation. Under FCC regulation, Milkymist One is a non-intential radiator and thus does not require an FCC ID. It is enough that the manufacturer verifies that it is in fact meeting the requirements of a non-intentional radiator. The entire test lab report (31 pages) is online

    http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/File:Reichl_milkymist_one_tests_11000301.pdf

  13. Re:Sweet by krispaul · · Score: 2

    Or even boot the board choosing from different patched CPU's :-). Like a multi-boot option. That could be implemented as well with some development.

  14. Re:it's an entire system by krispaul · · Score: 2

    You are right, Really Very few components from Opencores, actually Wishbone core is a modified version from the conbus core from opencores. But some cores developed by the main developer during the process, like the navre cpu and hpdmc controller we're published in opencores as well. Feel free to ask more questions here or at the IRC Channel at Freenode #milkymist also follow the development of the project by github A Quick Webchat link for IRC Chat here too: http://webchat.freenode.net/?randomnick=1&channels=milkymist

  15. That's all it does? by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Years of work, special purpose hardware, a price tag higher than an entire PC, and all it does is generate screen-saver like video wallpaper in sync with audio?

    If you're building technology for a rave, build something that makes the track spots follow the dancers. Something the dancers can play with. A Kinect might make that work.

  16. Re:Too difficult to read the license again by wspraul · · Score: 2

    Thanks a lot for contacting Lattice, I hope they can help you. What you ask them is hastily written nonsense, but maybe they can calm you down somewhat :-) I really think you should slow down a bit, think more, act less. But that's up to you of course...

    Who claimed that "section 11 of this license applies to those files"? Kristian Paul merely pointed to section 11. The entire license agreement applies to those files, specifically 1. 2. a. 2. b. 2. c. and so on. Maybe you read the entire license first and slow down a little. Section 11 is for 3rd party open source stuff Lattice included with their open source stuff. If you read 11.a., you should at least read 11.b and 11.c as well. Best is if you start at 1. And actually you should start on that latticesemi.com webpage you found yourself. Don't you think they want to tell you something there? What is it?

    You did find something good still - the confusing "proprietary and confidential" remark at the top of some files that Lattice open-sourced under the license you haven't fully read yet. Let's see what Lattice says, you certainly wrote to them in the most disturbing style, so hopefully that wakes them up and you get a response... If the Slashdot comment section is really closed before you get an answer, please post to the milkymist development list.

  17. Re:Whoop dee doo by lekernel · · Score: 2

    -- disclosure: I work on Milkymist One -- The only comparable product from proprietary hardware companies is the Edirol CG8, which has inferior specs in most regards and is sold for a lot more (about 6 times the price of Milkymist One).