CPLD fusemap data - why the secrecy?

I have been using the Coolruner for some time now. I use tools which I have written so I needed the programming data; back then, Philips gave me some of it (and what they did not give me - the ZIA multiplexing truth tables - I reverse engineered myself). When Xilinx took over, I tried to get such data for their newer parts, only to be told that I have to buy a $9 million worth parts per 3 months to be entitled to ask about these data. I did not bother asking after exactly which 3 months (the first or perhaps the tenth) I would be allowed to ask for the data again.

Here comes the question to the group: has anyone ever been successful getting fusemap data from Xilinx? (under NDA or whatever). Another (less vital, more out of curiousity) question: Why is the secrecy? Can anyone suggest some other plausible reason for it except the obvious (control of their customers)?

Please save the "why do you need it" and "they offer free tools" kinds of answers, I am aware of all this.

Regards,

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------- Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

-------------------------------------------------------

Reply to
dp
Loading thread data ...

I don't write synthesis tools so I would have no use for such data.

Sure. Not having to publish, verify, update and explain a formal external document for every rev of every part.

Customers have too many options to be controlled in any case.

-- Mike Treseler

Reply to
Mike Treseler

It costs time and money to provide this documentation in an end-user consumable form, and there would be little if any commercial benefit to them in doing it.

If they had a policy of publishing a spec then it would make it harder for them to make changes to the silicon as the changes would need to be documented as well. If they have a limited number of people who need to know the details, then it's much easier (i.e. cheaper) to make sure everyone is up to date.

Documentation may reveal details of the architecture etc. that they regard as trade secrets. It may also reveal possible patent infringements.

So the bottom line is that it's just easier and cheaper for them not to publically document the internal details that the vast majority of customers have no need to know about.

Reply to
Mike Harrison

Actually they have to document it properly either way. Many people work on such projects, how can you write all the software it takes without documentation. The question is, why is it kept secret. I am not asking for any explanations/support, I can make my way through the data.

That's their public version, I know. Have you ever seen such data which does reveal any "trade secrets"? Nothing of the kind in the data I have been using so far.

Dimiter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instrumets

formatting link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to
dp

That's not always the case. Internal specs can be much more informal than external ones. I have done NDAs involving only sketchy text documents and indirect email Q and A. Technical guys actually doing the work are spread pretty thin.

-- Mike Treseler

Reply to
Mike Treseler

Well I would be happy with these informal data as well - under NDA or whatever. I never asked for more.

Notice that this still does not explain the secrecy.

They wanted me to make a $9 million quarterly revenue so I would be eligible to sign an NDA for these data (and they never said they did not have them).

Dimiter

------------------------------=AD------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------=AD------------------------------------------

Reply to
dp

Why these endless arguments? Dimitr, just read the postings in this thread, slowly and carefully. Documenting and maintaining documentation in publicly usable form is expensive. And the avarage user has no need to know the things you ask for, and would not even know what to do with the information. Those are two overwhelming reasons not to make the data public. PLD companies try to make money, and avoid waste. Now, if you are such a good customer that you sepnd $ 9M in a quesrter, we will be extra nice to you...

Why is this difficult to understand? Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke

Peter Alfke,

are you sure you read my postings?

Like I explained, I would be happy with the data as they are - under NDA or whatever. I made this clear from the very start and I did get the data from Philips, only Xilinx are secretive.

How often do average users ask for fusemap data under NDA and are denied it? How many of your average users do successfully use their internally written software to program Coolrunners based on what they could achieve before Xilinx took over and blocked it all?

Which of them do you think applies to my postings so far?

Dimiter

------------------------------=AD=AD-----------------------------=AD-------=

------

Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------=AD=AD-----------------------------=AD-------=

------

Reply to
dp

So we know Philips Xilinx.

Probably both ? [ and more -> what happens, if you believe the Data fuse ?

- support bandwidth is needed ]

Perhaps you should explain WHY their present tool flow is not good enough for your task, and how your flow is much better ?

This is a serious point - you may well have soemthing Xilinx have not thought of, that could benefit everyone.

There ARE intermediate formats, that enable you to get very close to the iron, and you then work only with their fitter portion of the tools.

Last time I checked, the coolrunner flows were happy with TT2 and BLIF files. Have you looked at that ?

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

Xilinx is still in the (C)PLD business. Philips isn't. Maybe that's because Philips didn't make the right decisions on things like this.

Even though you may not need any support, it's hard to determine that ahead of time. If they give you the info and you can't understand it or it's buggy or ..., then you will be even more pissed off at them than you are now.

If they give you the info, then the next guy who isn't so smart will expect to get it too.

Somebody at Xilinx thinks that support or whatever would be too expensive for the amount of money they will get in return.

How many $ do you spend on their chips? Do you have any alternatives? How much more $ will they get from you if they give you the info you want? ... Is it even worth it for them to think about the problem?

I'm not sure what you want to do. As Jim Granville suggested, my guess is your best approach is to make your tools feed the back end of Xilinx's tool set.

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Hal Murray

I asked in my first mesage to save the mainstream sort of answers like "why do you need this" , "they offer it for free" etc.

I am doing it again now.

My question was not why I needed the data, it was why Xilinx did not provide them - while I have been declaring all the time that I needed no support, _nothing_ except the data they _already_have_.

I use no mainstream PCs or software in my design process. There are no tools for my platforms other than those I have written. I am not planning to begin planting potatos rather than continue to support and develop my OS, my systems, and my tools in favour of someone elses - not as long as I can make a living as the small tech company I am now anyway. I am not planning to offer my internally developed tools on the market so I'll skip the explanations why I prefer them to other tools which I did not write.

They invest more into writing appnotes explaining through which hoops to jump in order your file to make it to the chip via JTAG if you want it done "in system" than it would cost them to have it all documented (which I am pretty sure they have anyway).

And yes, I am quite sure I can reverse engineer all their stuff if I invest a month or so in programming various tools to do that. I had to do it partly for the Philips parts as well, like I explained in my first message - but it took less work, I did it in a week or so. I'll do it again if I have to, of course. It takes way more than a cpld manufacturer to switch me into potato planting mode...

Finaly a reminder: my main question was whether anyone has ever been successful getting fusemap data from Xilinx?

Dimiter

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD----------------------------=AD-=AD-=

------------

Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD----------------------------=AD-=AD-=

------------

Reply to
dp
27 years ago, I joined Zilog, and I found all those undocumented Z80 instruction codes, some of them quite useful. Being a good applications engineer, I started documenting them. But I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a bad thing to do, for it would commit Zilog (ad infinitum) to maintain the present peculiar decoding structure. "Don't unnecessarily limit our ability to make changes and improvements!"

If it is documented to outsiders, it MUST be maintained and supported, no matter what kind of sweet promises the outsider makes. The moment we make even a small change, he will hate us, whether we kept him informed or not. If a user has an urgent need to know, and can convince us that it is meaningful to divulge data, we ususally are quite reasonable. But just: "I want to know" or "but Philips gave it to me" is not good enough. Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke
27 years ago, I joined Zilog, and I found all those undocumented Z80 instruction codes, some of them quite useful. Being a good applications engineer, I started documenting them. But I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a bad thing to do, for it would commit Zilog (ad infinitum) to maintain the present peculiar decoding structure. "Don't unnecessarily limit our ability to make changes and improvements!"

If it is documented to outsiders, it MUST be maintained and supported, no matter what kind of sweet promises the outsider makes. The moment we make even a small change, he will hate us, whether we kept him informed or not. If a user has an urgent need to know, and can convince us that it is meaningful to divulge data, we ususally are quite reasonable. But just: "I want to know" or "but Philips gave it to me" is not good enough. Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke

If that is all you needed to know, you already have the answer : Why?: Because they can chose not to.

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

Well, whatever you say.

So I won't use their products - just as I won't use them without the data. The only difference is in the case where I can use the data if they provide them. I am not asking them to advertise the data to all customers, I would sign an NDA and get the data perhaps only on paper etc. - trust me, I have thought of all these mainstream kind of arguments before asking.

And if he cannot use it so what? For I don't know which time repeated, I never asked for anything more but the data. If I cannot use it it is all my fault, just hand me the data they have used to write their tools.

Less than the $9M/quarter they want to consider giving me the data. Obviously they know that the less hoops I have to jump through, the more of the designs I do for my and other companies would contain CPLDs. I am fairly resourseful as a design house, you know; and this can be seen on the web so they know that, too.

Dimiter

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD----------------------------=AD-=AD-=

------------

Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD----------------------------=AD-=AD-=

------------

Reply to
dp

Well, rightly so. Remember, my posting was addressed to the group, not to Xilinx, simply because Xilinx refused to consider me for information before I made $9M quarterly revenue for them. I did explain why I needed the data then, here I go again - I use my own systems, my own design tools, my own JTAG access hardware, my own OS runing here etc., there is no mainstream PC involved in my design process. When I asked initially, I expected a reasonable answer like the one you just gave me

- but I guess I had bad luck and landed perhaps not on the best place in your support department. The Philips support people were also cautious as I would expect them to be and I had to convince them I knew what I was doing, unfortunately this was not the case with the Xilinx support people.

Dimiter

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD=AD---------------------------=AD-= =AD-=AD-------------

Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD=AD---------------------------=AD-= =AD-=AD-------------

Reply to
dp

Dimiter, I checked your website, and now I understand why you want the data, You post:

"All our software is written and tested using our own tools under DPS (our OS) on computers which are our development; and all the hardware and PCB design are done using our own CAD tools. Our products range from computer hardware and highly sophisticated software to precision, wide bandwidth analog instruments."

I personally do not think it is a good idea to do everything "homebrew". In this country, the successful companies buy every required tool that can be bought, and only develop the hardware and software that is unique to their success. That way we take advantage of the fast-paced competitive innovation of other companies, and we concentrate our efforts and our capital on what we do best, and what nobody can do for us. Bulgaria may have been a different environment in the past, but is'n it similar now?

Anyhow, now that I know your motivation (even though I disagree with it), I will try to eliminate some obstacle within Xilinx. No promises! Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke

It is just where I reside. I invest a significant amount of effort so that my work is not influenced by the immediate environment, and apart from some everyday life inconveniencies I manage to do that. Regarding the "all in one house" approach, I am not a fan of it, either. I just feel I have software resources which are worth being maintained and preserved for battles to come so I don't want to drop them in favour of others, that's all. It does cost me more effort sometimes, but overall it is a good deal since I manage to survive on what I have in house and there is not much else I could do... So as long as I can I'll keep MS out of my design process.

Thanks for promising to try!

Dimiter

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD=AD---------------------------=AD-= =AD-=AD-------------- Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------=AD=AD=AD=AD---------------------------=AD-= =AD-=AD--------------

Reply to
dp

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.