3 ms·
There are baseline profiles, like RV23A, that standardize a set of extensions for a class of hardware. Problem right now is that Qualcomm and Si-Five disagree o
by tadfisher 3y ago
There are baseline profiles, like RV23A, that standardize a set of extensions for a class of hardware. Problem right now is that Qualcomm and Si-Five disagree on what extensions should be supported, and there is hardware shipping or in development with two different definitions.
- panick21_ 3y agoLiterally everybody agrees except Qualcomm who want to basically no participate, come in on the side and make it quasi propitiatory.
- GeorgeTirebiter 3y agoCouldn't Google (who after all does Android) simply declare that the 'official' RV64 is IMAFD (aka 'G') CJQTVPBHLNSUX ? (or whatever makes sense, given the android roadmap). https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/risc-v/standard_extensions https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/risc-v/standard_extensions And if they did this, this would prove why Android's parent company is called Alphabet!
- panick21_ 3y agoThere is a standard profile called 'RVA22' and 'RVA23' after that. If you watch the presentations from google on this, they will almost certainty target one of those two standards, very likely RVA23, specially if its now delayed. Android could also define its own profile, but there probably wont be a reason for why they would need to do this.