[libre-riscv-dev] PowerISA, NLNet grants

[whygee at f-cpu.org]

Hi Staf,

On 2020-01-18 21:54, Staf Verhaegen wrote:
> All,
> 
> First as announced in other mail I am funded by NLNet to do a first
> 0.18um test tape-out. In the end I will tape out what is decided here
> on the list what will be designed and layouted.

great !

> That said, I join the thought that going for the PowerISA would just
> reduce the reach of LibreSOC a lot and I don't see it getting the
> wanted traction in that way. Although Risc-V has currently some/lot's
> of vibe, it itself is not decided yet if it will get real traction
> compared to ARM. I do think there is some middle way though that I will
> explain below.

:-)

> AFAICS this is all about the Risc-V trademark where the bylaws are not
> fit for community driven projects. It only consider lone hobbyist or
> corporates; not a libre development community.
> Being 'just' a trademark issue I do think it is possible keep on
> developing libreSOC as you plan to do but just don't call it Risc-V
> (yet). As the Risc-V foundation makes sure the ABI is free of any known
> patents they can't forbid you to have a design which is compatible with
> it, they can only forbid you to use the Risc-V name.

That's my point :-)

What matters is the ISA/ABI, they say it very clearly in the 
conferences.
They want everybody to use it, right ?
And for now we're "only doing a research project" after all.

> In parallel one can do lobbying to get the Risc-V foundation bylaws
> more fit for libre community driven development projects. And with
> lobbying I mean talking off-line with people who are part of the Risc-V
> foundation. I don't think you will achieve this with fighting a war on
> a maillist. I have also connection there and will do some talking when
> I meet these people.

I'm totally removed from "political" things,
I hope people will find a solution, or not...
but I heard "our project is about making a graphics extension"
so who really cares ?

> Also the final high volume tape-out could also be done by an entity
> that than conforms with the trademark rules so the chip can be marketed
> as Risc-V.

I don't know...

> This is similar to Linux, that also happened to be (mostly) API
> compatible with UNIX but was not called UNIX because of the trademark.

yup.

So do we all agree that the trademark is not a real problem ? :-)
Some are already looking at POWER... but with a dual ISA
(or "why make it simple when it can be complex ?")

If this project works, it can still be adopted by others
(while being shunned by others, of course)

> greets,
> Staf.
yg