Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2009-11-20 by Tim Mitchell
----Original Message----
From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of enkitec@gmail.com Sent: 20 November 2009 12:21 To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: [AVR-Chat] AVR8 virtual processor on FPGA - Hack a Day > http://hackaday.com/2009/11/19/avr8-virtual-processor-on-fpga/ > Interesting, I wonder what Atmel think about that. -- Tim Mitchell
2009-11-20 by Luke Whitmore
This is pretty interesting. I suppose intellectual property law is bound to rear it's ugly head when FPGAs are considered. I wonder if there's an open-source movement producing designs in the commons for FPGA devices? AFAIK, Atmel have always been very good to the open-source community - how can they adapt once FPGA use becomes more ubiquitous?
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:28 +0000, Tim Mitchell wrote: > > ----Original Message---- > From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of > enkitec@gmail.com Sent: 20 November 2009 12:21 To: > undisclosed-recipients Subject: [AVR-Chat] AVR8 virtual > processor on FPGA - Hack a Day > > > http://hackaday.com/2009/11/19/avr8-virtual-processor-on-fpga/ > > > > Interesting, I wonder what Atmel think about that. > > -- > Tim Mitchell > > > >
2009-11-20 by Leon
--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Luke Whitmore <lwhitmore@...> wrote: > > This is pretty interesting. I suppose intellectual property law is > bound to rear it's ugly head when FPGAs are considered. I wonder if > there's an open-source movement producing designs in the commons for > FPGA devices? AFAIK, Atmel have always been very good to the > open-source community - how can they adapt once FPGA use becomes more > ubiquitous? > What if a very fast processor like an XMOS chip is used to emulate an AVR, say. With 400 MIPS and eight concurrent 100/50 MIPS hardware threads available on a $7.50 chip, it should run AVR code much faster than the real thing. I can't see any legality problems doing that, it'c conceptually the same as emulating an AVR on a PC. Leon
2009-11-20 by David Kelly
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:58:37PM +0000, Luke Whitmore wrote: > This is pretty interesting. I suppose intellectual property law is > bound to rear it's ugly head when FPGAs are considered. Why do you sound so negative? Has long been established that a CPU instruction set, registers, and memory map are all outside of patent law. One can patent implementations, such as instruction pipelines and instruction overlapping. Probably the biggest risk of IP violation would be if one instructed customers to use Atmel documentation for non-Atmel product. > I wonder if there's an open-source movement producing designs in the > commons for FPGA devices? AFAIK, Atmel have always been very good to > the open-source community - how can they adapt once FPGA use becomes > more ubiquitous? FPGA costs more. It takes a fairly big FPGA to host a CPU. I suspect Atmel has AVR cores available for licensing, other companies do the same for their product. While FPGA's are relatively expensive, for some applications they are dirt cheap. If you need a rad-hard space qualified CPU about your only option is an IP core in an FPGA. Unlike a mask-made CPU, each and every cell of an FPGA can be verified after manufacture. That each cell is a clone of the others increases confidence. Much NRI can be spent designing the cell for durability and radiation hardness. It can be tested with identical cells surrounding it to ensure the others do not affect it. In a hardwired CPU most every gate has a unique combination of gates surrounding it. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
2009-11-20 by ecros_technology
--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Luke Whitmore <lwhitmore@...> wrote: > ... If something takes a certain > amount of time to create, the > author should be paid for the > service rendered - not for coming > up with the idea first. That's completely wrong-headed, but since it's way, way off-topic, I invite you to do a bit of research yourself to figure out why every country in the world offers strong incentives for people and corporations to come up with new products and processes. Graham.
2009-11-20 by Luke Whitmore
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 09:15 -0600, David Kelly wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:58:37PM +0000, Luke Whitmore wrote: > > This is pretty interesting. I suppose intellectual property law is > > bound to rear it's ugly head when FPGAs are considered. > > Why do you sound so negative? Has long been established that a CPU > instruction set, registers, and memory map are all outside of patent > law. > One can patent implementations, such as instruction pipelines and > instruction overlapping. Probably the biggest risk of IP violation > would > be if one instructed customers to use Atmel documentation for > non-Atmel > product. That's good to know. After hearing about certain companies trying to patent UI components under international IP law, my cynicism kicks in well before knowing the facts sometimes :) > > I wonder if there's an open-source movement producing designs in the > > commons for FPGA devices? AFAIK, Atmel have always been very good to > > the open-source community - how can they adapt once FPGA use becomes > > more ubiquitous? > > FPGA costs more. It takes a fairly big FPGA to host a CPU. > > I suspect Atmel has AVR cores available for licensing, other companies > do the same for their product. In that case it sounds like there'll be a need for traditional ICs for some time then. Atmel probably aren't panicking just yet. > While FPGA's are relatively expensive, for some applications they are > dirt cheap. If you need a rad-hard space qualified CPU about your only > option is an IP core in an FPGA. Unlike a mask-made CPU, each and > every > cell of an FPGA can be verified after manufacture. That each cell is a > clone of the others increases confidence. Much NRI can be spent > designing the cell for durability and radiation hardness. It can be > tested with identical cells surrounding it to ensure the others do not > affect it. In a hardwired CPU most every gate has a unique combination > of gates surrounding it. I'd like to learn more about FPGA's .. there's something very appealing about the flexibility and the fact that an FPGA can be seen as a blank canvas. Brings out the scifi geek in me. I read about his a while back. Looks like it could be a good project, but I think it might be a bit too advanced for a beginner.. what do you think? Do you have any recommendations? http://www.fpga4fun.com/digitalscope.html
> > -- > David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net > ======================================================================== > Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. > > > >
2009-11-20 by Luke Whitmore
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 16:05 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Luke Whitmore <lwhitmore@...> wrote:
> >
> > This is pretty interesting. I suppose intellectual property law is
> > bound to rear it's ugly head when FPGAs are considered. I wonder if
> > there's an open-source movement producing designs in the commons for
> > FPGA devices? AFAIK, Atmel have always been very good to the
> > open-source community - how can they adapt once FPGA use becomes
> more
> > ubiquitous?
> >
> What if a very fast processor like an XMOS chip is used to emulate an
> AVR, say. With 400 MIPS and eight concurrent 100/50 MIPS hardware
> threads available on a $7.50 chip, it should run AVR code much faster
> than the real thing. I can't see any legality problems doing that,
> it'c conceptually the same as emulating an AVR on a PC.
This is very true, but once lawyers become involved common sense is
sometimes thrown out of the window.
eg. What if I could copy my current favourite CD and send it to
you electronically, instead of lending it to you like I usually
do... conceptually it's the same :)
Although, from David Kelly's reply it sounds like some basic freedoms
have already been established in terms of microprocessor design.
<rant>
As the constraints of physical material erode (and technologies fully
converge) in just about every case, I suppose what we're left with is
IP. The problem I have is with the property part. If something takes a
certain amount of time to create, the author should be paid for the
service rendered - not for coming up with the idea first.
I'm rambling a little, and I'm going off point - but I hope that society
learns a fair and just way to make money from IP, because otherwise
we'll end up living in a pretty grim reality.
</rant>> Leon > > > > >
2009-11-20 by Luke Whitmore
The way that Atmel might feel about their CPU being used in an FPGA device does relate to IP; so I think 'way, way off-topic' might be overstating your case. My personal opinion is that making money from royalties is problematic. I appreciate that this view might upset people who earn their living this way. As the open-source software model proves, it is possible to make money from the creation of a free product - where people offer and market their services (i.e. their time) to earn a living. I'm sure this model can - and will - be adapted for other markets. If you'd like to continue this discussion without polluting the board, feel free to email me privately. Luke
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 16:57 +0000, ecros_technology wrote: > > --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Luke Whitmore <lwhitmore@...> wrote: > > > ... If something takes a certain > > amount of time to create, the > > author should be paid for the > > service rendered - not for coming > > up with the idea first. > > That's completely wrong-headed, but since it's way, way off-topic, I > invite you to do a bit of research yourself to figure out why every > country in the world offers strong incentives for people and > corporations to come up with new products and processes. > > Graham. > > > > >
2009-11-22 by Philippe Habib
I'm taking an FPGA class right now and as a project, I'm working on an application that's now done with discrete logic. The logic needs to measure pulses with 10ns resolution. You can't do that with a micro so its being done in a combination of hardware and the micro. Putting the timer on FPGA makes sense. With a micro core in the FPGA, you could do it all on one part.
On Nov 20, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Luke Whitmore wrote: > This is pretty interesting. I suppose intellectual property law is > bound to rear it's ugly head when FPGAs are considered. I wonder if > there's an open-source movement producing designs in the commons for > FPGA devices? AFAIK, Atmel have always been very good to the > open-source community - how can they adapt once FPGA use becomes more > ubiquitous? > > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:28 +0000, Tim Mitchell wrote: >> >> ----Original Message---- >> From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of >> enkitec@gmail.com Sent: 20 November 2009 12:21 To: >> undisclosed-recipients Subject: [AVR-Chat] AVR8 virtual >> processor on FPGA - Hack a Day >> >>> http://hackaday.com/2009/11/19/avr8-virtual-processor-on-fpga/ >>> >> >> Interesting, I wonder what Atmel think about that. >> >> -- >> Tim Mitchell >> >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
2009-11-22 by leon Heller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Habib" <phabib@well.com> To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] AVR8 virtual processor on FPGA - Hack a Day > I'm taking an FPGA class right now and as a project, I'm working on an > application that's now done with discrete logic. The logic needs to > measure pulses with 10ns resolution. You can't do that with a micro > so its being done in a combination of hardware and the micro. Putting > the timer on FPGA makes sense. With a micro core in the FPGA, you > could do it all on one part. XMOS chips will do that: http://www.xmos.com No need for an FPGA. Leon
2009-11-22 by Bob Paddock
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Philippe Habib <phabib@well.com> wrote: > > > I'm taking an FPGA class right now and as a project, I'm working on an > application that's now done with discrete logic. The logic needs to > measure pulses with 10ns resolution. You can't do that with a micro > It can be done in the analog domain a lot easier. Not all solutions are best solved in the digital domain, for example see Figure #25: http://www.linear-tech .co.jp/pc/downloadDocument.do?navId=H0,C1,C1155,C1001,C1158,P1442,D1594 That circuit has a few problems, it is also based on ten+ year old parts. Make a current source out of a current feed back op-amp that has a high slew rate for charging the cap, feeding a fast track&hold. The A/D itself does not have to be all that fast, as long as there is little drupe before the sampling cap starts to discharge. Also check out: "High-Speed Time-Domain Measurements�Practical Tips for Improvement" http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/41-03/time_domain.html -- http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/ http://www.softwaresafety.net/ http://www.designer-iii.com/ http://www.unusualresearch.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]