8 ms·

Google partners with SkyWater to enable open source manufacturing of ASICs

198 points by lawrenceyan 6y ago

jsnell 6y ago
Original discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755693
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  Thanks for this!
octoberfranklin 6y ago
I've been following this closely and put a fair bit of time into porting a CAD tool to this new process. I won't be submitting a design at this time. The Google sponsorship comes with a lot of strings attached. That's okay, "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Unfortunately unlike MOSIS and IMEC there is no option to pay your own way in order to drop the strings. Based on MPW charges for other foundries through MOSIS+IMEC the Google subsidy is worth around $5k-$10k per submission [1]. But there isn't any option to pay that amount yourself. One of the most problematic "strings" is the fact that you do NOT get a reserved booking. This is a big issue because for anything more serious than an undergrad-level "hey I threw a pile of verilog at the place+route tool" the designer time invested will be worth a lot more than $5k-$10k. But they expect you to invest this with zero guarantee of getting it fabbed, which means that investment can easily get dumped in the trash bin. Project selection is "random" which is sort of just another way of saying "unaccountable". The other problematic "string" is the Management Engine Padframe [2] they wrap around your design. You can't touch it or change any part of it, and it sits beteween your design and every single pad that faces the outside world. This sort of Management Engine garbage is exactly what we need open silicon in order to avoid. Yet here Google and Skywater and eFabless are sticking it back into the mix. Oh, by the way, this makes "OpenMPW" totally unusable for any RF work, or any design that needs an analog input. Kinda miffed about all this, especially that they sprung the "Management Padframe" on us two weeks before the tapeout deadline. That screams to me "this is not for serious designs, please undergrads only thanks". [1] https://europractice-ic.com/schedules-prices/ https://europractice-ic.com/schedules-prices/ [2] https://github.com/efabless/caravel https://github.com/efabless/caravel PS, It's also intensely irritating that you're forced to create a LinkedIn account and must use your LinkedIn account to log in to the MPW upload site. That is some amateur-grade personal data harvesting there. Serious MPW providers, like MOSIS who have been doing this for 25 years, give you their PGP key for you to encrypt the GDS with and don't put you at the mercy of deplatforming by LinkedIn for whatever lame reason LinkedIn cooked up this week.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
  I agree there has got to be a better way to select projects than random. I find it hard to think of an objective and fair critera, but something involving a mix of effort, research quality, and value to the community would be good. The requirement to use caravel I don't think is overly malicious, but all I heard was "we want to see how people use it". I don't know the reason it's not optional this shuttle run, but I figure it could become optional on future runs. (can't say for sure though.) Also, normally beggars can't be choosers and that's a reasonable take -- but this is kind of different... Preparing your project for submission is a ton of work and users are not being told what to expect very clearly.
  - octoberfranklin 6y ago
    > I agree there has got to be a better way to select projects than random. Provably random? It really seems like "random" is just a way of saying "we're not going to discuss our decision process". > The requirement to use caravel ... but all I heard was "we want to see how people use it". That makes no sense. I'll give them credit for one thing: the way they're doing the WLCSP packaging far-backend run is very slick and cool. Ordinarily WLCSP packaging costs a fortune, and you have to run your own boat of wafers from the MPW to get it. By forcing everybody to use WLCSP with the same pinout EVERYBODY gets this cool option at a reasonable price. But they could very easily have simply said "your UBM layer must be identical to the Caravel padframe's UBM layer" (UBM is the layer that says where the top level of chip metal interfaces with the Under Bump Metallization of the WLCSP package). Basically just say you pins have to be in the same place as Caravel but you don't need to use the rest of it.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      WLCSP may not be the best option for everything of course
    - ohazi 6y ago
      > Ordinarily WLCSP packaging costs a fortune Compared to what, a bare die? WLCSP is usually cheaper than plastic packages... Edit: Maybe that's only true in volume? I guess throwing a handful of dies on a wirebonder is easy compared with designing and fabbing the interposer, and who cares if the plastic costs a few cents more.
etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
The original deadline was two days ago, but it seems to be extended indefinitely. The reason is that all parts of the stack, caravel, openlane, openroad, and the submission process itself are under heavy development that is only just finishing. Much frustration and hand wringing has been had in their slack group in recent days.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  It is also offensive how hard they push slack. For something this complex and new a chat interface is totally inappropriate. You're going to have hundreds of people asking the same question -- you need a searchable mailing list so people can see if their question was already asked.
  - etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
    Nah, the worst is putting important information only in video form.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Putting data that should be public behind signupwalls with abusive TOSes (Slack, LinkedIn, Discord, Facebook) is becoming quite the trend these days, even in places you wouldn't expect it. Thanks for speaking up about it.
  - swiley 6y ago
    Setting up a mailing list wouldn't get someone a promotion though.
ramboldio 6y ago
"Commoditize your Complement" It's surprising, how consistently this law applies (and that it's still widely unknown outside the tech bubble).
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  Pulling a Google Fiber on the chip fabs might not be a bad thing right now -- TSMC is way, way too powerful at the moment. Even Google isn't the driving factor behind a likely military invasion. Actually there's one other possibility: that this is an audition before Google acqui-hires eFabless. Can't say I blame them. Running MPW shuttles is an incredibly tough business; of the three leading shuttle providers (MOSIS, IMEC, CMP) two are non-profits affiliated with universities and the third used to be. There isn't a lot of profit in it. And I can't really blame Google either... Tim Edwards is easily worth the entire company's payroll so they'll be getting a great deal as long as they can keep him interested.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > Google Fiber Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Google do not have the commitment, focus, or skillset to compete in ASICs. Certainly not to compete with TSMC themselves. Apple have the design experience now to deliver the M1 - 12 years after acquiring PA Semi. And it's manufactured by .. TSMC. This has every hallmark of a VP who wants to play with semiconductors, not a serious attempt to deliver something specific.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      > Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Not entirely. I'm not sure if they're still introducing Google Fiber to new cities, but they're definitely still expanding to new neighborhoods in existing cities.
      - 6y ago
phendrenad2 6y ago
It'll be interesting to see what this is used for. Probably mostly university EE projects. Thats a good thing: More chip designers coming out of college fully-formed.

198 points by lawrenceyan 6y ago

jsnell 6y ago

Original discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755693

bergstromm466 6y ago
Thanks for this!

octoberfranklin 6y ago

I've been following this closely and put a fair bit of time into porting a CAD tool to this new process. I won't be submitting a design at this time. The Google sponsorship comes with a lot of strings attached. That's okay, "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Unfortunately unlike MOSIS and IMEC there is no option to pay your own way in order to drop the strings. Based on MPW charges for other foundries through MOSIS+IMEC the Google subsidy is worth around $5k-$10k per submission [1]. But there isn't any option to pay that amount yourself. One of the most problematic "strings" is the fact that you do NOT get a reserved booking. This is a big issue because for anything more serious than an undergrad-level "hey I threw a pile of verilog at the place+route tool" the designer time invested will be worth a lot more than $5k-$10k. But they expect you to invest this with zero guarantee of getting it fabbed, which means that investment can easily get dumped in the trash bin. Project selection is "random" which is sort of just another way of saying "unaccountable". The other problematic "string" is the Management Engine Padframe [2] they wrap around your design. You can't touch it or change any part of it, and it sits beteween your design and every single pad that faces the outside world. This sort of Management Engine garbage is exactly what we need open silicon in order to avoid. Yet here Google and Skywater and eFabless are sticking it back into the mix. Oh, by the way, this makes "OpenMPW" totally unusable for any RF work, or any design that needs an analog input. Kinda miffed about all this, especially that they sprung the "Management Padframe" on us two weeks before the tapeout deadline. That screams to me "this is not for serious designs, please undergrads only thanks". [1] https://europractice-ic.com/schedules-prices/ https://europractice-ic.com/schedules-prices/ [2] https://github.com/efabless/caravel https://github.com/efabless/caravel PS, It's also intensely irritating that you're forced to create a LinkedIn account and must use your LinkedIn account to log in to the MPW upload site. That is some amateur-grade personal data harvesting there. Serious MPW providers, like MOSIS who have been doing this for 25 years, give you their PGP key for you to encrypt the GDS with and don't put you at the mercy of deplatforming by LinkedIn for whatever lame reason LinkedIn cooked up this week.

etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
I agree there has got to be a better way to select projects than random. I find it hard to think of an objective and fair critera, but something involving a mix of effort, research quality, and value to the community would be good. The requirement to use caravel I don't think is overly malicious, but all I heard was "we want to see how people use it". I don't know the reason it's not optional this shuttle run, but I figure it could become optional on future runs. (can't say for sure though.) Also, normally beggars can't be choosers and that's a reasonable take -- but this is kind of different... Preparing your project for submission is a ton of work and users are not being told what to expect very clearly.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  > I agree there has got to be a better way to select projects than random. Provably random? It really seems like "random" is just a way of saying "we're not going to discuss our decision process". > The requirement to use caravel ... but all I heard was "we want to see how people use it". That makes no sense. I'll give them credit for one thing: the way they're doing the WLCSP packaging far-backend run is very slick and cool. Ordinarily WLCSP packaging costs a fortune, and you have to run your own boat of wafers from the MPW to get it. By forcing everybody to use WLCSP with the same pinout EVERYBODY gets this cool option at a reasonable price. But they could very easily have simply said "your UBM layer must be identical to the Caravel padframe's UBM layer" (UBM is the layer that says where the top level of chip metal interfaces with the Under Bump Metallization of the WLCSP package). Basically just say you pins have to be in the same place as Caravel but you don't need to use the rest of it.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    WLCSP may not be the best option for everything of course
  - ohazi 6y ago
    > Ordinarily WLCSP packaging costs a fortune Compared to what, a bare die? WLCSP is usually cheaper than plastic packages... Edit: Maybe that's only true in volume? I guess throwing a handful of dies on a wirebonder is easy compared with designing and fabbing the interposer, and who cares if the plastic costs a few cents more.

etaioinshrdlu 6y ago

The original deadline was two days ago, but it seems to be extended indefinitely. The reason is that all parts of the stack, caravel, openlane, openroad, and the submission process itself are under heavy development that is only just finishing. Much frustration and hand wringing has been had in their slack group in recent days.

octoberfranklin 6y ago
It is also offensive how hard they push slack. For something this complex and new a chat interface is totally inappropriate. You're going to have hundreds of people asking the same question -- you need a searchable mailing list so people can see if their question was already asked.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
  Nah, the worst is putting important information only in video form.
- sneak 6y ago
  Putting data that should be public behind signupwalls with abusive TOSes (Slack, LinkedIn, Discord, Facebook) is becoming quite the trend these days, even in places you wouldn't expect it. Thanks for speaking up about it.
- swiley 6y ago
  Setting up a mailing list wouldn't get someone a promotion though.

ramboldio 6y ago

"Commoditize your Complement" It's surprising, how consistently this law applies (and that it's still widely unknown outside the tech bubble).

octoberfranklin 6y ago
Pulling a Google Fiber on the chip fabs might not be a bad thing right now -- TSMC is way, way too powerful at the moment. Even Google isn't the driving factor behind a likely military invasion. Actually there's one other possibility: that this is an audition before Google acqui-hires eFabless. Can't say I blame them. Running MPW shuttles is an incredibly tough business; of the three leading shuttle providers (MOSIS, IMEC, CMP) two are non-profits affiliated with universities and the third used to be. There isn't a lot of profit in it. And I can't really blame Google either... Tim Edwards is easily worth the entire company's payroll so they'll be getting a great deal as long as they can keep him interested.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 6y ago
  > Google Fiber Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Google do not have the commitment, focus, or skillset to compete in ASICs. Certainly not to compete with TSMC themselves. Apple have the design experience now to deliver the M1 - 12 years after acquiring PA Semi. And it's manufactured by .. TSMC. This has every hallmark of a VP who wants to play with semiconductors, not a serious attempt to deliver something specific.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Not entirely. I'm not sure if they're still introducing Google Fiber to new cities, but they're definitely still expanding to new neighborhoods in existing cities.
    - 6y ago

phendrenad2 6y ago

It'll be interesting to see what this is used for. Probably mostly university EE projects. Thats a good thing: More chip designers coming out of college fully-formed.