INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID: <3al*ezTRz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> ea710e0a
REPLY: f3104978
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> It’s a slightly odd device, isn’t it?
>
> If you wanted to explore RISC-V then there’s more flexible options. If
> you just wanted a microcontroller for something and didn’t care too much
> about CPU architecture then the dual-architecture thing is wasted. Two
> entire CPU cores that you don’t get to use.
Microcontroller RISC-V cores are so small that I presume it's just thrown on
there as a test to see how things pan out. You can do a basic RV32 in a few
hundred lines of SystemVerilog and, if it doesn't have its own on-chip
memory, it takes pretty minimal area. It's the area for on-chip RAM, on-chip
flash, registers, caches and TLBs that costs.
It sounds like one of their devs had a hobby core on his github and they put
it on the chip just because they could. What I'm more interested in is what
QA they did on it and what tools they used. It's easy to write a core but
embarassing if it doesn't do what you think it does[1]. Perhaps the
'enabling/disabling' mechanism is a chicken bit to wall it off in case
something bad is discovered in it.
Theo
[1] https://ghostwriteattack.com/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 129/305 134/100
SEEN-BY: 153/135 143 148 151 757 7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930
SEEN-BY: 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17 30 100 227/114 229/110 111 114
SEEN-BY: 229/200 206 300 317 400 426 428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120
SEEN-BY: 266/512 267/800 282/1038 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31
SEEN-BY: 320/219 322/757 335/364 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280
SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042
SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 153/757 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426
|
