Open PowerPC Core?

Does such an animal exist? I have looked around but as of yet Ive not seen one. Saw reference to a couple of non-open ones.

A x86 core would be nice too, but i doubt ill find one of them due to IP rights...

I know performance would be dismal, but this is just for some experimentation i want to do. ( and no, im not up to 'rolling my own' version of something that complex )

Reply to
Ziggy
Loading thread data ...

There's probably a lot less problem with IP rights on the x86 than on the PowerPC. The x86 has been around long enough for the patents to expire. (Maybe not on things like MMX and SSE, but you didn't indicate that you needed those.)

Reply to
Eric Smith

I hadnt thought about the patents expiring on the older X86 stuff, which would suit the bill fine. A reproduction of a 486 or base Pentium would be plenty for what i want to do.

I also thought that PPC was more like ARM and SPARC, and the specs were available openly, just that it would cost to be 'certified' ( which in my case doesnt matter ). But ive been wrong before ;)

Reply to
Ziggy

I doubt it's a matter of patents, but more a matter of licening. The two are very different beasts. Having said that, what you do in your own home for your own amusement is your business... :)

--
 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Reply to
Tobias Weingartner

But if there isn't a patent on an architecture, you don't need a license to implement it. The purpose of the license is to grant you a right that was taken away from the patent. If there's no patent, you haven't been denied the right.

Reply to
Eric Smith

Since this topic has come up, maybe someone could answer this for me:

I've seen publicly available (often open source) cores for other processors, such as the AVR. Are these sort of cores legal to make, distribute and use? Supposing I made (from scratch) an msp430 compatible core for an FPGA - any ideas whether that would be legal or not? I'm guessing that using the name "msp430" would be a trademark and/or copyright violation, but if there are no patents involved it should be okay? Does it make any difference whether it is just used by the developer, released as an inaccessible part of a closed design, or whether it is released for free use by others?

mvh.,

David

Reply to
David

two

that

its done full soc based on MSP430 compatible core :)

formatting link

Reply to
Antti Lukats

Not being a top authority on soft core I'll still observeve that:

  1. Implementing a CISC CPU is much more resource consuming than implementing a RISC core.
  2. x86 is way crazy because of the need to maintain compatibility with the
8086's real mode.

In late 80's Intel made a special version of 386 (385 if I remember right) that was basically a 368 without the real mode. It was much cheaper than a 386 but there were no takers: x86 is used so much only because of the huge volume of written code, not because it is a good architecture. If I had to go the CISC way, I'd much rather clone a 68000. Just as much software written and a considerably better instruction set.

--
-Alex.
Reply to
Alex Freed

I'd have been surprised if it hadn't been done, given that the msp430 core is a solid 16-bit core with a good gcc port and a (relatively) clean instruction set and programming model. I was, however, more interested in knowing where such a core stands legally (although I will also have a look at the core sometime for curiosity - and the site you gave has a few other interesting links).

Reply to
David

implementing

the

right)

much

something is at opencores not sure how useabe it is

antti

Reply to
Antti Lukats

But in todays world, does anything actually use the 'real mode' on an x86 chip?

Though i do agree that the 68k is a much better chip, the x86 has a larger 'generic' software base.

I think the 68k has been done however.. I just dont remember where i saw that at.

Reply to
Ziggy

And the msp430 is a simplified version of the pdp-11. Unlicensed?

Reply to
Tim

I think you saw the 6800 core.. i dont think there is a 68000 core unless i missed something, which is always possible.

Reply to
Ziggy

much

formatting link

68K but as said I have not evaluated it, so not sure how useable it is

antti

Reply to
Antti Lukats

Wonder how i missed it.. tks

Reply to
Ziggy

No, you are wrong. I do not need a patent on my IP in order for me to license it to you. It's called copyright.

--
 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Reply to
Tobias Weingartner

["from the patent" was supposed to read "by the patent"]

Tobias We> No, you are wrong. I do not need a patent on my IP in order for me to

You can't copyright an idea. You can only copyright a specific expression of an idea.

If you invent a new processor architecture, and publish the architecture specifications, copyright does not prevent me from designing my own processor compatible with your specifications. This is a very well- established principle of US copyright law, and AFAIK the copyright laws of most other countries work similarly.

If you published Verilog code for your core, that could be copyrighted, and I wouldn't be able to use your Verilog code without a license, though I could still write my own.

On the other hand, patents *do* protect ideas. If you patent a feature of your processor architecture, I can't use it without a license. If you have a patent that doesn't apply to the architecture, but only to a feature of your implementation (e.g., your Verilog design), I could either license that patent or try to figure out a different way to implement the architecture that didn't infringe your patent. For instance, if your processor architecture had an (unpatented) multiply-by-37 instruction, but you have a very clever patented multiply-by-37 circuit, and I didn't want to license your patent, I could still design my own processor compatible with your architecture by using a different (probably less clever) multiply-by-37 circuit.

Reply to
Eric Smith

Careful with those quotes/attributions! Eric Smith didn't say any such thing!

Reply to
Eric Smith

so precicely what do you claim is copyrightable in an ISA? instruction names? thats not even handled by the implementation.

--
	Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Reply to
Sander Vesik

I wonder whether an x86 type replacement could be done in a different way - instead of implementing an x86, implement a simpler RISC type architecture, and translate the code off line in software. At least some of the x86 family used microcode AFAIK, so this could be feasible.

If the code is well written (no self modifying code), this might actually do what a x86 soft-core would actually want to do.

Mind you, still a lot of functionality where that wouldn't work, but from a purely instruction set point of view, this could maybe work.

Just an idea.

Jeremy

Reply to
Jeremy Stringer

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.