Slashdot Mirror
'Is It Time For Open Processors?' (lwn.net)
Linux kernel developer (and LWN.net co-founder) Jonathan Corbet recently posted an essay with a tantalizing title: "Is it time for open processors?" He cited several "serious initiatives", including the OpenPOWER effort, OpenSPARC, and OpenRISC, adding that "much of the momentum" appears to be with the RISC-V architecture. An anonymous reader quotes LWN.net:
The [RISC-V] project is primarily focused on the instruction-set architecture, rather than on specific implementations, but free hardware designs do exist. Western Digital recently announced that it will be using RISC-V processors in its storage products, a decision that could lead to the shipment of RISC-V by the billion. There is a development kit available for those who would like to play with this processor and a number of designs for cores are available... RISC-V seems to have quite a bit of commercial support behind it -- the RISC-V Foundation has a long list of members. It seems likely that this architecture will continue to progress for some time.
Here's some of the reasons that Corbet argues open souce hardware "would certainly offer some benefits, but it would be no panacea."
Here's some of the reasons that Corbet argues open souce hardware "would certainly offer some benefits, but it would be no panacea."
- "While compilers can be had for free, the same is not true of chip fabrication facilities, especially the expensive fabs needed to create high-end processors... It will never be as easy or as cheap as typing 'make'..."
- "Without some way of verifying underlying design of an actual piece of hardware, we'll never really know if a given chip implements the design that we're told it does..."
- "Even if RISC-V becomes successful in the marketplace, chances are good that the processors we can actually buy will not come with freely licensed designs..."
- "Finally, even if we end up with entirely open processors, that will not bring an end to vulnerabilities at that level. We have a free kernel, but the kernel vulnerabilities come just the same. Open hardware may give us more confidence in the long term that we can retain control of our systems, but it is certainly not a magic wand that will wave our problems away."
"None of this should prevent us from trying to bring more openness and freedom to the design of our hardware, though. Once upon a time, creating a free operating system seemed like an insurmountably difficult task, but we have done it, multiple times over. Moving away from proprietary hardware designs may be one of our best chances for keeping our freedom; it would be foolish not to try."
There are several dozen teams designing RISC-V implementations. And many ASICs have RISC-V cores buried in them today. With a handful of designs being open.
The main barrier for ordinary people and software developers to have a proper R5 workstation is for there to be a market for such a chip. Right now the market is driven by the needs of ASICs, and that's not really what people are asking for when they say an "Open" processor.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
One online article notes 16nm Finfet fab entry cost at $80M, 66 mask steps. You would need a very wealthy patron.
I believe you need to go back and re-read the REASON for the law.
The idea for it started from "lazy journalism" - which this is none of. This is a vetted technical person actually asking a technical question to the community at large. The technical question is followed up with detailed analysis on why such a question is being asked, and the ramifications of the decision if it were to be made.
Designing the architecture and logic is fraction of the engineering effort necessary to design and build a modern high end microprocessor.
In addition, a high end processor needs a complicated motherboard to run it, with high speed memory, and various peripheral I/O systems, driven by separate ASICs, or integrated in the CPU. A desktop PC motherboard is a very complex design, which is only made affordable by huge volumes.