7 ms·

What's the same: Broadcom is still the non-datasheet-releasing, our-chips-implementing-standard-phy-spec functionality are subject to manhattan-project secrecy,

What's the same: Broadcom is still the non-datasheet-releasing, our-chips-implementing-standard-phy-spec functionality are subject to manhattan-project secrecy, assholes.

jacquesm 12y ago
Why are they required to release those datasheets?
- seba_dos1 12y ago
  They're not required, but (thankfully) we're not required to use hardware from vendors that don't do that.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    There might come a point where essentially nothing on the market is open anyway, however. Meaning we are required.
- greyfade 12y ago
  They're not, but it's been common practice in their industry for decades, and it's generally seen as beneficial to OEMs and users to have access to datasheets before purchase. This is why it's also commonplace for most chip manufacturers to offer free samples, even of chips upwards of $20 list price. Most of them even publish enough information to develop hardware and software to interact with these chips even without one on hand. That Broadcom doesn't do this is very atypical.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Ok. I find it rather rude to call a company 'assholes' for doing something that is 100% within their rights. They're releasing a chip that powers a relatively cheap fairly powerful computer, have supported the effort in as many ways as they could without giving up their competitive edge (when you're in a leadship position it is sometimes quite risky to open up too far), nobody forces anybody to buy the product and lastly you can of course always fire up the disassembler and do it the hard way.
    - gaadd33 12y ago
      You are 100% within your rights to not tip at restaurants in the US and yet I believe most people would consider you an asshole. If someone does something that benefits themselves at the expense of others when it's socially assumed to act in another way, many would call a person an 'asshole'. Seems like a similar situation if it is normal practice in the industry.
    - throwaway000002 12y ago
      I think aswanson is simply expressing his feelings. Broadcom has garnered goodwill from being involved with the Raspberry Pi foundation. Goodwill, I must add, from a broad swath of people who are not too technically inclined. Yes, the computer (or device if you're lacking generosity) is a god-send for those without the capacity to buy an Intel/AMD-based PC, but let's not kid ourselves: the device is less open than a PC was even 20 years ago. Which begs the question, in what capacity is the foundation moving computing forward? That's where I lose goodwill even for the foundation. Sure, they did something special, that really made compute affordable. But that was years ago. Now they need to make it open, so anyone, not just students, can answer probing questions about how the device works, and in so doing be able to make a Raspberry Pi device, or something totally different, for a whole new generation. All this said, if you want cheap and software open, go with the Odroid C1 (China really is the future, and in this case a Korean firm is acting as the intermediary to Chinese silicon.) And if you want fully open, TI's Beaglebone. Good, solid, open, American.
      - wolfgke 12y ago
        > All this said, if you want cheap and software open, go with the Odroid C1 According to http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php the Odroid C1 uses a Mali-450 MP2 GPU. This is at least as closed as the VideoCore IV used in the Raspberry Pi.
      - userbinator 12y ago
        The Odroid C1 uses an SoC from Amlogic, which is also American.
  - quadrature 12y ago
    I can see how you might think that seeing as how a lot of manufacturers in the low cost and hobby markets are quite liberal with their datasheets . but it is not uncommon in regards to the higher end soc companies like marvel,qualcom or in this case broadcom.
    - stephen_g 12y ago
      "Low cost and hobby market" companies like Intel, TI, NXP etc..?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gcb0 12y ago
  they aren't required, but without it, the few hobbyist trying to make Linux work on it will have to devote 10x hours instead of x. that is all fine for broadcom. but you're doing a disservice to those developers and to you by supporting and popularizing this board, because if you supported a open one you would now have 10 chips with Linux support instead. or some other feature you are waiting or something so cool and futuristic that you can't even imagine will never happen because those folks were doing the tedious task of supporting a closed platform that unfortunately became popular.
MegaDeKay 12y ago
Except that Broadcom released "full documentation for the VideoCore IV graphics core, and a complete source release of the graphics stack under a 3-clause BSD license" [1], enough to enable a blob-free graphics driver. Code has already been committed to Mesa [2]. That is a lot more than you can say about the PowerVR core in the Beaglebone advocated by another response to this post. [1] http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/ http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_device_driver#Broadcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_d...
- throwaway000002 12y ago
  Of course you're referring to me. Arguing the whole openness of the video driver is a dead end [1]. If you want an open video driver use Intel, or AMD and be done with it. Give me a hand-cranked universal Turing machine and I've basically got the same device as a RPi. The only difference, it's cheap, and I don't have to get a workout hand-cranking it. Video is just a (semi-)fixed functional unit. Sure, it'd be nice to have open drivers, but so would having the RTL of the processor, and the netlist and gerber of the board. Then they could actually talk about teaching kids something they actually couldn't learn with just having access to a hand-cranked universal Turing machine. The fact that the foundation and Broadcom get their free goodwill from their claim of "for-the-sake-of-the-children" is the real source of my ire. Look at how many references to "industry" the article quotes from representatives of the foundation. Like the embedded SOM has anything at all to do with education, or the continuance of production of older models. Please... [1] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eZd0IYJ7J40 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eZd0IYJ7J40
  - jvdh 12y ago
    Do you think it is feasible to release a similarly priced, similarly capable device with completely open hardware? The RPi has sold immensely to home users, but also in education. The foundation is also open to criticism and has shown in the past that they are willing to change their production when given the opportunity. They have moved most of their production to the UK for example, whereas the first boards were all manufactured off shore.
chisleu 12y ago
Open or not... I want a working DSI or I'll go with something else with eDP.
AlyssaRowan 12y ago
They may be changing a little bit, slowly. They're not used to this sort of thing, at all. This is actually a big step: this wasn't just SoC repurposed for the Pi, this SoC was created for the Pi2. There are a lot of details missing about the VC4, that's true. They could still publish a lot more of those than they have. We should be given enough to start the ARMs, warm the caches, talk to the devices and manage, start a kernel, even without video. The architecture means that the GPU plays the host role, however, so Linux is pretty much postboxing things to it asking it to do things when it comes to the devices - this complicates things, because that means the GPU firmware is probably going to have to be a bit more than a simple shim to get by. They can't just open-source all their side of the firmware either - it's based on a commercial RTOS, ThreadX. That's why they hired a guy to do a rewrite. Arguably still better than NVIDIA. <g> Also better than MediaTek and the like - the usual way you get anything out of them is someone steals it (back).

What's the same: Broadcom is still the non-datasheet-releasing, our-chips-implementing-standard-phy-spec functionality are subject to manhattan-project secrecy, assholes.

jacquesm 12y ago

Why are they required to release those datasheets?

seba_dos1 12y ago
They're not required, but (thankfully) we're not required to use hardware from vendors that don't do that.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  There might come a point where essentially nothing on the market is open anyway, however. Meaning we are required.
greyfade 12y ago
They're not, but it's been common practice in their industry for decades, and it's generally seen as beneficial to OEMs and users to have access to datasheets before purchase. This is why it's also commonplace for most chip manufacturers to offer free samples, even of chips upwards of $20 list price. Most of them even publish enough information to develop hardware and software to interact with these chips even without one on hand. That Broadcom doesn't do this is very atypical.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Ok. I find it rather rude to call a company 'assholes' for doing something that is 100% within their rights. They're releasing a chip that powers a relatively cheap fairly powerful computer, have supported the effort in as many ways as they could without giving up their competitive edge (when you're in a leadship position it is sometimes quite risky to open up too far), nobody forces anybody to buy the product and lastly you can of course always fire up the disassembler and do it the hard way.
  - gaadd33 12y ago
    You are 100% within your rights to not tip at restaurants in the US and yet I believe most people would consider you an asshole. If someone does something that benefits themselves at the expense of others when it's socially assumed to act in another way, many would call a person an 'asshole'. Seems like a similar situation if it is normal practice in the industry.
  - throwaway000002 12y ago
    I think aswanson is simply expressing his feelings. Broadcom has garnered goodwill from being involved with the Raspberry Pi foundation. Goodwill, I must add, from a broad swath of people who are not too technically inclined. Yes, the computer (or device if you're lacking generosity) is a god-send for those without the capacity to buy an Intel/AMD-based PC, but let's not kid ourselves: the device is less open than a PC was even 20 years ago. Which begs the question, in what capacity is the foundation moving computing forward? That's where I lose goodwill even for the foundation. Sure, they did something special, that really made compute affordable. But that was years ago. Now they need to make it open, so anyone, not just students, can answer probing questions about how the device works, and in so doing be able to make a Raspberry Pi device, or something totally different, for a whole new generation. All this said, if you want cheap and software open, go with the Odroid C1 (China really is the future, and in this case a Korean firm is acting as the intermediary to Chinese silicon.) And if you want fully open, TI's Beaglebone. Good, solid, open, American.
    - wolfgke 12y ago
      > All this said, if you want cheap and software open, go with the Odroid C1 According to http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php the Odroid C1 uses a Mali-450 MP2 GPU. This is at least as closed as the VideoCore IV used in the Raspberry Pi.
    - userbinator 12y ago
      The Odroid C1 uses an SoC from Amlogic, which is also American.
- quadrature 12y ago
  I can see how you might think that seeing as how a lot of manufacturers in the low cost and hobby markets are quite liberal with their datasheets . but it is not uncommon in regards to the higher end soc companies like marvel,qualcom or in this case broadcom.
  - stephen_g 12y ago
    "Low cost and hobby market" companies like Intel, TI, NXP etc..?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
gcb0 12y ago
they aren't required, but without it, the few hobbyist trying to make Linux work on it will have to devote 10x hours instead of x. that is all fine for broadcom. but you're doing a disservice to those developers and to you by supporting and popularizing this board, because if you supported a open one you would now have 10 chips with Linux support instead. or some other feature you are waiting or something so cool and futuristic that you can't even imagine will never happen because those folks were doing the tedious task of supporting a closed platform that unfortunately became popular.

MegaDeKay 12y ago

Except that Broadcom released "full documentation for the VideoCore IV graphics core, and a complete source release of the graphics stack under a 3-clause BSD license" [1], enough to enable a blob-free graphics driver. Code has already been committed to Mesa [2]. That is a lot more than you can say about the PowerVR core in the Beaglebone advocated by another response to this post. [1] http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/ http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_device_driver#Broadcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_d...

throwaway000002 12y ago
Of course you're referring to me. Arguing the whole openness of the video driver is a dead end [1]. If you want an open video driver use Intel, or AMD and be done with it. Give me a hand-cranked universal Turing machine and I've basically got the same device as a RPi. The only difference, it's cheap, and I don't have to get a workout hand-cranking it. Video is just a (semi-)fixed functional unit. Sure, it'd be nice to have open drivers, but so would having the RTL of the processor, and the netlist and gerber of the board. Then they could actually talk about teaching kids something they actually couldn't learn with just having access to a hand-cranked universal Turing machine. The fact that the foundation and Broadcom get their free goodwill from their claim of "for-the-sake-of-the-children" is the real source of my ire. Look at how many references to "industry" the article quotes from representatives of the foundation. Like the embedded SOM has anything at all to do with education, or the continuance of production of older models. Please... [1] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eZd0IYJ7J40 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eZd0IYJ7J40
- jvdh 12y ago
  Do you think it is feasible to release a similarly priced, similarly capable device with completely open hardware? The RPi has sold immensely to home users, but also in education. The foundation is also open to criticism and has shown in the past that they are willing to change their production when given the opportunity. They have moved most of their production to the UK for example, whereas the first boards were all manufactured off shore.

chisleu 12y ago

Open or not... I want a working DSI or I'll go with something else with eDP.

AlyssaRowan 12y ago

They may be changing a little bit, slowly. They're not used to this sort of thing, at all. This is actually a big step: this wasn't just SoC repurposed for the Pi, this SoC was created for the Pi2. There are a lot of details missing about the VC4, that's true. They could still publish a lot more of those than they have. We should be given enough to start the ARMs, warm the caches, talk to the devices and manage, start a kernel, even without video. The architecture means that the GPU plays the host role, however, so Linux is pretty much postboxing things to it asking it to do things when it comes to the devices - this complicates things, because that means the GPU firmware is probably going to have to be a bit more than a simple shim to get by. They can't just open-source all their side of the firmware either - it's based on a commercial RTOS, ThreadX. That's why they hired a guy to do a rewrite. Arguably still better than NVIDIA. <g> Also better than MediaTek and the like - the usual way you get anything out of them is someone steals it (back).