3 ms·

3b. Eventually, should ARM increase their prices, be able to produce a chip that only has the RISC-V cores but is otherwise 100% compatible with the RP2350. And

by irdc 2y ago

3b. Eventually, should ARM increase their prices, be able to produce a chip that only has the RISC-V cores but is otherwise 100% compatible with the RP2350. And thereby giving their clients the option of porting their software to RISC-V and shipping a single firmware image that runs on both older devices with the (now expensive) RP2350 and new devices with the (still cheap) RISC-V-only chip.

jsheard 2y ago
The RP2350 already has an OTP bit which permanently disables the ARM cores when set, so they wouldn't even have to sacrifice their economies of scale in order to make that play. A RISC-V-only variant could be exactly the same hardware, just with the OTP pre-set at the factory.
- irdc 2y ago
  Exactly. And should RISC-V turn out to have been a hype (which I don’t think, but I do recognise that convincing the various MBA types that think they make the world go ‘round is not a given) they can do the opposite. Which is nice for a chip they plan to make up to the 2040’s.
  - gary_0 2y ago
    > And should RISC-V turn out to have been a hype Over 10 billion RISC-V devices have shipped, including microcontrollers in millions of Western Digital storage devices, nVidia GPUs, etc. They have no reason to go back to ARM; in many cases it's not even possible as ARM is very restrictive about extensions to the ISA. RISC-V is here to stay. What remains to be seen is if RISC-V makes it to the CPU big leagues and ends up powering smartphones and such.
- nadius 2y ago
  im fascinated with the idea of using the same photomask for different "kind" of ICs
  - jsheard 2y ago
    Basically everyone does it, the economy of silicon design means it is very often cheaper to make one or just a handful of masks and then artificially disable features to create granular variants inbetween the actual hardware variants. It's also used to salvage defective dies, if the defect is in an optional part of the chip then they can disable that part and sell it anyway.
klelatti 2y ago
This makes it sound as though 1. Arm can increase royalty rates on existing already shipping designs. 2. That increases in royalty rates would be material to the price paid by the end user - making the device ‘expensive’ for the end user. Neither of these reflect the actual nature of licenses in practice.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  If you're buying a large quantity of them for a product the license fees can certainly be relevant (As can, e.g. the number of pins on the package). I suspect it's there for that kind of customer.
  - klelatti 2y ago
    Sure and what is possible is that some users develop RISC-V based applications and RPi can offer a slightly cheaper version for those really price sensitive customers. The comment I replied to was unduly alarmist though in suggesting Arm could make the Pico ‘expensive’ vs ‘cheap’ now with a royalty increase on an existing license.

by irdc 2y ago

jsheard 2y ago

The RP2350 already has an OTP bit which permanently disables the ARM cores when set, so they wouldn't even have to sacrifice their economies of scale in order to make that play. A RISC-V-only variant could be exactly the same hardware, just with the OTP pre-set at the factory.

irdc 2y ago
Exactly. And should RISC-V turn out to have been a hype (which I don’t think, but I do recognise that convincing the various MBA types that think they make the world go ‘round is not a given) they can do the opposite. Which is nice for a chip they plan to make up to the 2040’s.
- gary_0 2y ago
  > And should RISC-V turn out to have been a hype Over 10 billion RISC-V devices have shipped, including microcontrollers in millions of Western Digital storage devices, nVidia GPUs, etc. They have no reason to go back to ARM; in many cases it's not even possible as ARM is very restrictive about extensions to the ISA. RISC-V is here to stay. What remains to be seen is if RISC-V makes it to the CPU big leagues and ends up powering smartphones and such.
nadius 2y ago
im fascinated with the idea of using the same photomask for different "kind" of ICs
- jsheard 2y ago
  Basically everyone does it, the economy of silicon design means it is very often cheaper to make one or just a handful of masks and then artificially disable features to create granular variants inbetween the actual hardware variants. It's also used to salvage defective dies, if the defect is in an optional part of the chip then they can disable that part and sell it anyway.

klelatti 2y ago

This makes it sound as though 1. Arm can increase royalty rates on existing already shipping designs. 2. That increases in royalty rates would be material to the price paid by the end user - making the device ‘expensive’ for the end user. Neither of these reflect the actual nature of licenses in practice.

rcxdude 2y ago
If you're buying a large quantity of them for a product the license fees can certainly be relevant (As can, e.g. the number of pins on the package). I suspect it's there for that kind of customer.
- klelatti 2y ago
  Sure and what is possible is that some users develop RISC-V based applications and RPi can offer a slightly cheaper version for those really price sensitive customers. The comment I replied to was unduly alarmist though in suggesting Arm could make the Pico ‘expensive’ vs ‘cheap’ now with a royalty increase on an existing license.