6 ms·

RV needs an ecosystem to survive. Google can afford the hockey-stick dev costs, but 95% of the rest of OEMs cannot. Hopefully Google makes their tooling open so

RV needs an ecosystem to survive. Google can afford the hockey-stick dev costs, but 95% of the rest of OEMs cannot. Hopefully Google makes their tooling open source, that would really help shave years of RV adoption.

snvzz 3y ago
RISC-V is rapidly building the strongest ecosystem.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Yet it’s extremely weak compared to ARM and x86 atm
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Roughly a decade ago, that's what people said about ARM too: "A licensed RISC ISA? Why use that when MIPS and PowerPC and x86 exist?" For the most part, all it took to put ARM on the board was to get it's core designs on newer silicon. RISC-V will likely be the same, with the added advantage that most software projects already support RISC arches through ARM.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      I don't think you realize that we WANT RiscV to succeed. Stop being so defensive. It really doesn't have a solid ecosystem yet and the ISA is still in its infancy. Debug is awful and security is still in rev0.x stage. If you want it to be real, stop playing the internet "i win the argument" game, understand where RISCV is deficient, and use your energy to actually help.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        I wanted ARM to succeed too. I have the original Rev2 RasPi board sitting 10 feet away from me, for all the good an ARMv6 SOC does me in 2023. Even back at release it was little more than a glorified embedded SOC that could boot Linux for giggles. I'm willing to acknowledge goofy trash for what it is. RISC-V feels like it's coming around to the same track. Much like how Broadcom had to shoulder the software support of the Raspberry Pi, Qualcomm et. al are going to have to do roughly the same thing now. If the support on top of those cores is good enough, it won't really matter who makes the chip (a-la ARM's ecosystem). The current cores are certainly on the simple side, but that's the name of the RISC game. Simply having a capable microcontroller spec is enough to dent ARM's market share.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > have the original Rev2 RasPi board sitting 10 feet away from me, ARM was already a magnitude or two more successful than RISC-V before the first Raspberry Pi even came out.
        snvzz 3y ago
        It looks unlikely[0]. But if you are still going to make that claim about ARM success in 2000 vs RISC-V now, then better source the data to support it. 0. https://riscv.org/news/2022/07/europe-steps-up-as-risc-v-ships-10bn-cores-nick-flaherty-ee-news-europe/ https://riscv.org/news/2022/07/europe-steps-up-as-risc-v-shi...
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      ARM was the default and pretty much the only option for mobile devices for 20+ years. It was probably in a better position ~2000 than RISC-V is now yet look how long it took for it to become (somewhat) competitive in the PC and server markets.
      - snvzz 3y ago
        >It was probably in a better position ~2000 than RISC-V is now The subject was software ecosystem, and there was not much of an ecosystem for ARM until Raspberry Pi happened and the community jumped on it. RISC-V ecosystem might not have ARM parity yet, but it is way further along than ARM was at the time Raspberry Pi launched. I would argue RISC-V ecosystem is where ARM was barely 5 years ago, and catching up fast. My prediction? ARM's software ecosystem will be in the rear mirror within 2 years.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        If you only consider desktop/server software to be actual “software” then yes. Otherwise I don’t think that’s accurate > My prediction? ARM's software ecosystem will be in the rear mirror within 2 years. Why? To be honest I find the somewhat religious level fanaticism related to RISC-v somewhat baffling
        snvzz 3y ago
        >If you only consider desktop/server software to be actual “software” then yes. Otherwise I don’t think that’s accurate I was replying to: >yet look how long it took for it to become (somewhat) competitive in the PC and server markets. As for: >Why? To be honest I find the somewhat religious level fanaticism related to RISC-v somewhat baffling I won't entertain the question, due to the loaded tail.
phh 3y ago
Issue is not dev cost, it's existing ecosystem. To drive a smartwatch ("smart" as in running a smartphone OS giving it 2 days battery life tops)[0], you need a full already existing ecosystem, so either iOS or Google/Android. Only Google can get Google to support RISC-V in Google/Android. [0] there might alteady be less smart watches that are already running RISC-V but we can't know since they are closed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- freeone3000 3y ago
  It’s a supported dev target in the simulator, for what it’s worth.

snvzz 3y ago

RISC-V is rapidly building the strongest ecosystem.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
Yet it’s extremely weak compared to ARM and x86 atm
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Roughly a decade ago, that's what people said about ARM too: "A licensed RISC ISA? Why use that when MIPS and PowerPC and x86 exist?" For the most part, all it took to put ARM on the board was to get it's core designs on newer silicon. RISC-V will likely be the same, with the added advantage that most software projects already support RISC arches through ARM.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    I don't think you realize that we WANT RiscV to succeed. Stop being so defensive. It really doesn't have a solid ecosystem yet and the ISA is still in its infancy. Debug is awful and security is still in rev0.x stage. If you want it to be real, stop playing the internet "i win the argument" game, understand where RISCV is deficient, and use your energy to actually help.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      I wanted ARM to succeed too. I have the original Rev2 RasPi board sitting 10 feet away from me, for all the good an ARMv6 SOC does me in 2023. Even back at release it was little more than a glorified embedded SOC that could boot Linux for giggles. I'm willing to acknowledge goofy trash for what it is. RISC-V feels like it's coming around to the same track. Much like how Broadcom had to shoulder the software support of the Raspberry Pi, Qualcomm et. al are going to have to do roughly the same thing now. If the support on top of those cores is good enough, it won't really matter who makes the chip (a-la ARM's ecosystem). The current cores are certainly on the simple side, but that's the name of the RISC game. Simply having a capable microcontroller spec is enough to dent ARM's market share.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > have the original Rev2 RasPi board sitting 10 feet away from me, ARM was already a magnitude or two more successful than RISC-V before the first Raspberry Pi even came out.
        snvzz 3y ago
        It looks unlikely[0]. But if you are still going to make that claim about ARM success in 2000 vs RISC-V now, then better source the data to support it. 0. https://riscv.org/news/2022/07/europe-steps-up-as-risc-v-ships-10bn-cores-nick-flaherty-ee-news-europe/ https://riscv.org/news/2022/07/europe-steps-up-as-risc-v-shi...
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    ARM was the default and pretty much the only option for mobile devices for 20+ years. It was probably in a better position ~2000 than RISC-V is now yet look how long it took for it to become (somewhat) competitive in the PC and server markets.
    - snvzz 3y ago
      >It was probably in a better position ~2000 than RISC-V is now The subject was software ecosystem, and there was not much of an ecosystem for ARM until Raspberry Pi happened and the community jumped on it. RISC-V ecosystem might not have ARM parity yet, but it is way further along than ARM was at the time Raspberry Pi launched. I would argue RISC-V ecosystem is where ARM was barely 5 years ago, and catching up fast. My prediction? ARM's software ecosystem will be in the rear mirror within 2 years.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        If you only consider desktop/server software to be actual “software” then yes. Otherwise I don’t think that’s accurate > My prediction? ARM's software ecosystem will be in the rear mirror within 2 years. Why? To be honest I find the somewhat religious level fanaticism related to RISC-v somewhat baffling
        snvzz 3y ago
        >If you only consider desktop/server software to be actual “software” then yes. Otherwise I don’t think that’s accurate I was replying to: >yet look how long it took for it to become (somewhat) competitive in the PC and server markets. As for: >Why? To be honest I find the somewhat religious level fanaticism related to RISC-v somewhat baffling I won't entertain the question, due to the loaded tail.

phh 3y ago

Issue is not dev cost, it's existing ecosystem. To drive a smartwatch ("smart" as in running a smartphone OS giving it 2 days battery life tops)[0], you need a full already existing ecosystem, so either iOS or Google/Android. Only Google can get Google to support RISC-V in Google/Android. [0] there might alteady be less smart watches that are already running RISC-V but we can't know since they are closed.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
freeone3000 3y ago
It’s a supported dev target in the simulator, for what it’s worth.