5 ms·
Yes, it has an arm core. The manufacturer pays the royalty to arm. Very different ball game in my opinion to proprietary codecs. There are no non-arm derivative
by askvictor 2y ago
Yes, it has an arm core. The manufacturer pays the royalty to arm. Very different ball game in my opinion to proprietary codecs. There are no non-arm derivatives. The closest non-arm MCU you'll find is the esp32 but that's completely different, and lacking probably the most useful thing about the rp2040: the PIO.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sylware 2y agoI guess I will avoid that chip and favor those without an ARM block then. Luckily there are many. But indeed, would be good if those ARM free SOC would also be free-ed from HDMI and MPEG blocks. Getting rid of ARM cores is only the middle of the journey for better hardware freedom, HDMI and MPEG codecs must be a target too.
- tssva 2y agoWhy do you think ARM shouldn’t get paid for the work they did?
- sylware 2y agoI said to favor chips without ARM ISA cores, for instance with RISC-V ISA cores instead.
- ta988 2y agothere is unfortunately absolutely nothing that get nearly close to the rp2040 price/performance/features...
- sylware 2y agoFortunately, we have many RISC-V SOC alternative without ARM cores able to do a more than good enough job?
- guenthert 2y agoName one which offers something similar to the RP2040 state machines (PIO) which I can actually buy (not to speak of the RP2040's very competitive prizing) outside of China?
- sylware 2y agoYou mean there is zero RISC-V SOC able to do a good enough job, and that without ARM cores?
- 3np 2y agoYou're asking them to prove non-existence? Come on, just drop some references already. From your GP: > I guess I will avoid that chip and favor those without an ARM block then. Luckily there are many. What would your personal top picks be for a use-case like the OP?
- jononor 2y agoESP32-C3 and ESP32-C6 are pretty close. Many products could be made with either. The RMT unit is not as flexible as PIO, but will handle basic I/O cases at least.
- inhumantsar 2y agoI suspect it's not that ARM shouldn't get paid, it's that companies producing open source hardware should get paid instead.
- sylware 2y agoIf you do all the real work of implementing ARM ISA, you will have to pay royalties anyway (where those are legal though). That's why it is critical to favor worldwide royalty free ISA like RISC-V. This is not a silver bullet but does a good enough job.
- ngcc_hk 2y agoNot to favour but to have an alternative. And the geopolitical issue of totalitarianism may bite one day by open source nuclear arm design. It depends. May be paying ok. Not that apple cannot enjoy fruitful result even if somehow it must pay a bit on some core.
- numpad0 2y agoEveryone knows what GP is getting at, those opposing GP knows it leads to fragmentation and vendor lock-in, not standardization and open sourcing.
- sylware 2y agoThat was my assumption, indeed.
- tenebrisalietum 2y agoWork once, get paid once is the model that most drives efficiency and innovation. If an entity is getting paid without working or innovating (work once, get paid forever), they have no reason to further work or innovate. This hampers the progress of science and the useful arts instead of furthering it.
- colejohnson66 2y agoARM continues to innovate (“work”). They release new core IPs every year. It’s gotten to the point that companies stopped making their own implementations and just license ARM’s versions.
- auxym 2y agoCan you expand on why you are so much against ARM?
- sylware 2y agoIf I am a chip designer, I don't want to implement an ISA which requires to pay royalties (where those are legal), I would prefer to be free and go RISC-V which does a more than good enough job.