[libre-riscv-dev] daily kan-ban update 20may2020

Cole Poirier colepoirier at gmail.com
Wed May 20 20:34:26 BST 2020

On May 20 2020, at 8:14 am, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:51 PM Cole Poirier <colepoirier at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yesterday I learned another valuable lesson on the merits of the KISS
>> philosophy.
> funny man :)
>> Today I plan on integrating the Bpermd module into the
>> logical pipeline, with tests.
> fooocuuuus :)  adding the module to Logical main_stage.py should be
> around... maximum 10 lines of code.  really.  not.  difficult.  link
> the inputs.  link the outputs.  err... that's it.
> btw as a third (incremental) step, after integrating it and putting in
> the unit test into soc.fu.logical.test/test_pipe_caller.py, you should
> actually be able to integrate the formal proof into the Logical
> pipeline as well.

Will copy this to and comment on it at https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316.

>> > * talked with Marketnext about the resource requirements for the May
>> > 30 Hackathon.
>> Is there a document about this on the wiki?
> there isn't.  there should be.  however it is up to Marketnext.  the
> issue is that i am not sure if they understand quite how high the
> resource requirements are, and consequently how long it will take
> people in India (and other places across the world) to install the
> development environment.

Ah that's an interesting constraint. Would it be possible (or even
desirable) to provide them with a compressed archive of all the
necessary repos, tools, etc in a frozen state?

>> If not would you mind
>> briefly explaining what the parameters and the objectives of the
>> hackathon are?
> to introduce over 15 different groups / teams / individuals to
> Libre-SOC development.

That's pretty darn cool!

>> > * received a message from these guys, they would like to do a review
>> > https://radicallyopensecurity.com/
>> Just took a quick perusal of their website, they look like they share
>> our philosophy about digital rights, as well as having a
>> 'social-benefit-esque' organizational model. I think their doing a
>> review of our processor's security would be welcome help. Your thoughts?
> their review is a mandatory requirement as part of the NLNet funding.
> i did point out to them that asking to have a private conversation
> about their role is not exactly very transparent :)
> l.

Oh, very happy that this turns out to be a mandatory NLNet funding
requirement. I agree that their request for private conversation is odd
given the context.


More information about the libre-riscv-dev mailing list