4 ms·

Ahh, that’s a shame. Blobs would kill the whole thing dead for a large proportion of their customer base. Let’s hope they find a way to resolve it.

by mnd999 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago
There seems to only be two blobs in POWER10. The memory controller and something about I/O. The question is what to do about it. Maybe an open source firmware rewrite can happen. Or maybe IBM needs to make a cheaper desktop version first with a more open DDR4/5 controller? That advanced RAM module isn't needed for desktop level workloads anyway. Either way, 2022 is out. Maybe 2023 will have thing line up better?
- aww_dang 5y ago
  In an ideal world, IBM would help cultivate the ecosystem Raptor is creating.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I'd say that releasing all the other firmware of POWER10 as open source is a big deal still. They didn't reach Raptor's high-standard of open firmware, but POWER10 is probably one of the most open CPUs out there in the modern marketplace.
- classichasclass 5y ago
  The OMI issue is probably solvable with an open controller. Not a trivial undertaking but OMI, at least, is documented. The on-chip PPE I/O controller is a bigger problem. I suspect, but don't know, that it's the PCIe interface. If so, I can't think of an easy way of getting around it.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > Or maybe IBM needs to make a cheaper desktop version first I doubt that will happen. For that to happen, there would need to be a market for low-end POWER servers. Low-end means low-margin and competition from x86 boxes. There may be space for a low-spec IBM machine (a POWER-based descendant of the AS/400), and I imagine the IBM i subsidizes a lot of the development of the AIX-based POWER boxes (because they are the same hardware). I really think IBM should spend some money on entry-level boxes for their exclusive platforms (P, I and Z). I don't see I or Z going anywhere - they are good enough and too expensive/risky to migrate away from, but P and AIX are too close to generic x86 hardware running Linux for them to feel too comfortable. Right now, it's hard to justify even suggesting a green field project using anything that's not a commodity platform. Being less expensive doesn't help when the minimum sticker price is more than 100K. Chances are development would start on generic boxes or cloud and stay there. IBM is the only company that can make POWER competitive with x86 at an entry-level and a single-core SMT8 part would probably be a justifiable expense for many R&D departments. > with a more open DDR4/5 controller? My impression is that the Power Axon interface would be able to control DDR4/5 memory.
- p_l 5y ago
  There is only one blob that can't be recreated from source that is needed for a working system, and that's OMI-DDR4 interface. There's talk of reversing it, but nobody has the time or resources. So long as said chip is the only source for making a motherboard that doesn't require OMI memory modules (which have the same chip anyway), there's a problem. EDIT: Hah, I missed the PPE discussion recently. There's now some ppl looking towards reversing that too, but again, not RCS itself AFAIK nobody has seen non-OMI POWER10 cpu on the road map.
- ksec 5y ago
  What is the intended usage for that? As in used in Consumer PC ? Would microWatts [1] fit that purpose? Not only do you have an Open ISA as in OpenPower, you also have an Open implementation of that ISA. AFAIK RISC-V doesn't have anything similar, only open source design in embedded usage. Otherwise a low cost POWER10 ( or now Power10 without the capital... and I hate it ) wont make much sense. You are talking about ~30mm2+ per core design. It is huge. [1] https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Same usage as the current Talos II: an expensive, but high-performance, open source computer system. 18-core POWER9 was competitive with AMD Zen1's Threadripper. Zen3 Threadripper is getting quite a bit faster now, so an upgrade to POWER10 would once again be cost-competitive at the $5000 price-point.

Ahh, that’s a shame. Blobs would kill the whole thing dead for a large proportion of their customer base. Let’s hope they find a way to resolve it.

by mnd999 5y ago

Ahh, that’s a shame. Blobs would kill the whole thing dead for a large proportion of their customer base. Let’s hope they find a way to resolve it.

dragontamer 5y ago

There seems to only be two blobs in POWER10. The memory controller and something about I/O. The question is what to do about it. Maybe an open source firmware rewrite can happen. Or maybe IBM needs to make a cheaper desktop version first with a more open DDR4/5 controller? That advanced RAM module isn't needed for desktop level workloads anyway. Either way, 2022 is out. Maybe 2023 will have thing line up better?

aww_dang 5y ago
In an ideal world, IBM would help cultivate the ecosystem Raptor is creating.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  I'd say that releasing all the other firmware of POWER10 as open source is a big deal still. They didn't reach Raptor's high-standard of open firmware, but POWER10 is probably one of the most open CPUs out there in the modern marketplace.
classichasclass 5y ago
The OMI issue is probably solvable with an open controller. Not a trivial undertaking but OMI, at least, is documented. The on-chip PPE I/O controller is a bigger problem. I suspect, but don't know, that it's the PCIe interface. If so, I can't think of an easy way of getting around it.
rbanffy 5y ago
> Or maybe IBM needs to make a cheaper desktop version first I doubt that will happen. For that to happen, there would need to be a market for low-end POWER servers. Low-end means low-margin and competition from x86 boxes. There may be space for a low-spec IBM machine (a POWER-based descendant of the AS/400), and I imagine the IBM i subsidizes a lot of the development of the AIX-based POWER boxes (because they are the same hardware). I really think IBM should spend some money on entry-level boxes for their exclusive platforms (P, I and Z). I don't see I or Z going anywhere - they are good enough and too expensive/risky to migrate away from, but P and AIX are too close to generic x86 hardware running Linux for them to feel too comfortable. Right now, it's hard to justify even suggesting a green field project using anything that's not a commodity platform. Being less expensive doesn't help when the minimum sticker price is more than 100K. Chances are development would start on generic boxes or cloud and stay there. IBM is the only company that can make POWER competitive with x86 at an entry-level and a single-core SMT8 part would probably be a justifiable expense for many R&D departments. > with a more open DDR4/5 controller? My impression is that the Power Axon interface would be able to control DDR4/5 memory.
p_l 5y ago
There is only one blob that can't be recreated from source that is needed for a working system, and that's OMI-DDR4 interface. There's talk of reversing it, but nobody has the time or resources. So long as said chip is the only source for making a motherboard that doesn't require OMI memory modules (which have the same chip anyway), there's a problem. EDIT: Hah, I missed the PPE discussion recently. There's now some ppl looking towards reversing that too, but again, not RCS itself AFAIK nobody has seen non-OMI POWER10 cpu on the road map.
ksec 5y ago
What is the intended usage for that? As in used in Consumer PC ? Would microWatts [1] fit that purpose? Not only do you have an Open ISA as in OpenPower, you also have an Open implementation of that ISA. AFAIK RISC-V doesn't have anything similar, only open source design in embedded usage. Otherwise a low cost POWER10 ( or now Power10 without the capital... and I hate it ) wont make much sense. You are talking about ~30mm2+ per core design. It is huge. [1] https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Same usage as the current Talos II: an expensive, but high-performance, open source computer system. 18-core POWER9 was competitive with AMD Zen1's Threadripper. Zen3 Threadripper is getting quite a bit faster now, so an upgrade to POWER10 would once again be cost-competitive at the $5000 price-point.