3 ms·
Yes, it's very limited. Personally, I backed for two reasons: 1. It will add a nice open-source reference design for a (small) FPGA that is compatible with the
by krasin 5y ago
Yes, it's very limited. Personally, I backed for two reasons:
1. It will add a nice open-source reference design for a (small) FPGA that is compatible with the open-source SkyWater PDK. I am sure someone will take it and improve upon.
2. I am curious to try building a small batch of my own chips on this process (for a hobby project), but while I am somewhat comfortable with designing digital logic, I am less confident in my ability to take a chip and be able to communicate with it. By paying ~$80, I will be getting half of the experience (which would cost ~$10k otherwise)
- throwaway81523 5y agoIt's pretty bogus for them to even call such a thing an fpga. Why did they design it that way?
- krasin 5y agoFor the first point, I think they are fine: FPGA stands for field-programmable gate array. This is exactly what they make, even though the array is very small. As for the question, I don't know. But they have a comment section, maybe it's worth asking them directly?