(Top posting because unmangling Evan's message is hard.) For serious applications, the openness RISC-V helps but doesn't make everything you need open and free. Or even available. You actually need chip designs -- what SiFive sells. You also need a lot of other modules for things like USB, PCIe, Power Management, ... ARM has a vibrant ecosystem with all these things available for licensing. And ARM doesn't seem to be too greedy. Even so, it has taken a long time to get ARM processors that match x86 at the high end. So: if you want a short time to delivery, ARM is way ahead. If you think more strategically, RISC-V has some advantages. The US used a foot-gun on Huawei by banning ARM from dealing with Huawei. The largest damage is to ARM: China can no longer think of ARM as a reliable partner. So China will switch to RISC-V (there really isn't a better choice). RISC V International is in Switzerland to try to evade US games. Space stuff has long term horizons. That's another area that has shown RISC-V interest. But that's not a business that uses a large number of processors. Space designs rarely feed back into the mainstream. China is wary of buying from a US company like SiFive. Chinese companies are developing their own expertise and products. So SiFive is surely suffering from the above-mentioned foot-gun blast. As a software guy, I don't actually have a horse in this race. Linux runs on all these platforms. I like "open" and RISC but my desktop is going to be x86 for some time. There are RISC-V Single Board Computers in the Raspberry Pi space but they are inferior to the the Raspberry Pi line and other ARM-based SBCs. Mostly based on the open Alibaba processor designs <https://www.cnx-software.com/2021/10/20/alibaba-open-source-risc-v-cores-xuantie-e902-e906-c906-and-c910/> Seagate disks have RISC V processors but the consumer would never know. ESP32-Cx chips/modules/boards have RISC-V processors. Not powerful enough for Linux. | From: Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | | Interesting. | | Of course it is always useful to read beyond the cheery predictions. | Buried under all the positive upward chart lines is the news (from the same | publication) that a major RISC-V "pioneer" has just undergone layoffs (20% | of engineering) and restructuring | <https://www.eetimes.eu/risc-v-pioneer-sifive-takes-stock-realigns-moves-forward/> | . | | - Evan | | On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 11:23 AM Ivan Avery Frey via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | wrote: | | > https://www.eetimes.eu/navigating-the-risc-v-revolution-in-europe/

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 at 16:53, Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

If the RISC-V design is open source, what is SiFive selling?

RISC-V is an Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) - the binary code that an assembler or compiler creates and is loaded and executed on a CPU. The hardware design of the CPU that actually executes those instructions can remain proprietary. -- Scott

| From: Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 11:38 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote: |   | For serious applications, the openness RISC-V helps but doesn't make everything you | need open and free.  Or even available.  You actually need chip designs -- what SiFive | sells. | | | If the RISC-V design is open source, what is SiFive selling? Something easily copyable? Support | and documentation? Scott has answered this, but I will expand on it. All important processor architectures are well documented: so we know what the processor is supposed to do. To implement it (in a chip, for example) and sell it, you need to have the right to do so. For commercially important architectures, these rights cost real money or are unavailable. ARM is the only one that sells rights at a price that is worth paying. RISC-V is becoming commercially important and those rights are free. Once you have the right to implement it, you then have the hard work of actually designing and producing a system (including a processor) that will actually run programs for that architecture. You've seen photomicrographs of processor chips. All those blobs are not random: they are the product of a lot of work. Not unlike writing a program. And to make such a design that meets performance goals multiplies the work and experience necessary. There are not many teams with that experience. All that work needs eventually to be paid for by a sufficiently promising market, one that doesn't exist now. Chicken-and-egg. So a successful process involves a step-by-step development of capabilities and markets. We depend on something like venture capitalists or governments to prime that pump. | ARM has a vibrant ecosystem with all these things available for licensing.  And ARM | doesn't seem to be too greedy.  Even so, it has taken a long time to get ARM | processors that match x86 at the high end. | | | Assuming that ARM's time to implement was not a matter of laziness, doesn't its experience suggest | that RISC-V will take similarly long -- or longer -- to evolve from low-level SBCs to high-end | computing? | | So: if you want a short time to delivery, ARM is way ahead. | | | Plus, ARM has clients such as Qualcomm and Samsung and Apple that have decades of experience in | implementation of the architecture and lots of high-quality fabs. Not really. High-end processor fabrication is now a specialized business. Only Samsung, TSMC, and Intel have the capability as far as I know. There are stories out of China suggesting that they are trying really hard to get there (SMIC, for example). Most ARM processor designs are done by ARM in-house and are licensed at rates that seem to be good enough for the market. Interestingly, ARM charges considerably more for you to use their architecture without using one of their designs. The few companies with that second license include Apple (who got their license by being a fo-founder of ARM as we know it) and Qualcomm (I think). This second license requires conviction that your processor design team can do better than an off-the-shelf design for your application. A few companies have tried and failed (eg. AMD). Of the shelf ARM designs have not been good enough to break into the datacentre but a couple of non-ARM designs are doing OK (Amazon's Graviton, for example). Note: users of the second license could just use RISC-V instead, for free. In my opinion, the software support for RISC-V is mature. Linux supports it as a first class architecture and that's all I need. Android supports it or soon will (I don't remember which). Microsoft does not support it, as far as I know. | So the definition of "short" here could be an understatement. Yes. ARM has taken a lot longer than I expected. The NetWinder was a credible machine for desktop or server Linux something like 25 years ago. It failed for several reasons but one was that there was no ARM implementation that got near x86 performance. Remember: that same fact killed off all the RISC desktops (HP, MIPS, SPARC, Power) and 68k, NS32032, etc. | If you think more strategically, RISC-V has some advantages. | | | Not sure I gather this conclusion from the rationale. |   | The US used a foot-gun on Huawei by banning ARM from dealing with Huawei. The largest | damage is to ARM: China can no longer think of ARM as a reliable partner.  So China | will switch to RISC-V (there really isn't | a better choice). | | | Sure, this means that Chinese R&D will focus on RISC-V. As will that of its military clients and | other lesser-aligned countries such as Pakistan, Russia and Brazil. OTOH, US allies won't be | sinking much into RISC-V for fear of running afoul of the same embargoes and sanctions that have | hit AMD, TSMC etc. As a result you have Western R&D entrenching around ARM, such as the recent | move by Nvidia to start making PC-speed ARM designs. | | China is wary of buying from a US company like SiFive. NVidia is hamstrung selling to PRC. Long term, this will likely hurt the US. NVidia tried to buy ARM. That would have even further aided RISC-V because NVidia competitors would be a bit wary of buying ARM designs. | That wariness cuts both ways, given that China's ARM subsidiary unilaterally declared | "independence" from its parent in what I would call a blatant act of IP theft. Why would anyone | want to invest into an environment in which even the threat of that exists? So now we have | websites whose single purpose is to track the "re-shoring" of chip production to US and | US-friendly countries. Right. The ARM China thing was crazy (we don't understand the importance of corporate seals in China). It has been resolved (that's an old article). RISC-V can be used by both sides of this divide. ARM cannot. China rightly views the capability of access to fast processor as strategically important. You can be sure that they have more money than venture capitalists. They will make it happen. The US is trying to block PRC and they have somewhat clumsy defence in depth. They block AMSL from shipping recent lithographic systems to PRC. They block ARM. They are blocking chemicals for lithography from Japanese companies. This buys time but it won't work long-term. This will prime the RISC-V pump. But there are rumblings in the US of kind of black-listing RISC V which is really sad. | So, yeah, geopolitics have intervened to retard the progress of perhaps the best-ever shot at | major open hardware goodness. Shame. Actually, it cuts both ways.

The ARM China thing was crazy (we don't understand the importance of corporate seals in China). It has been resolved (that's an old article).

You missed the point. That was a close-to-home example but just one of many that, together with China's new and vague anti-espionage laws, basically shuts the door on new investment. And any statistics or analysis that one can see bear that out. RISC-V can be used by both sides of this divide. ARM cannot.

That sounds like a distinct advantage to the side with access to both, no?

China rightly views the capability of access to fast processor as strategically important. You can be sure that they have more money than venture capitalists. They will make it happen.

I hold such optimism to be utterly unsupported by current reality and I am sure of no such thing. Consider the inability of state government to bail out the domestic housing industry which is so critical to consumer confidence. In just the last domino to drop here, Evergrande was forced into liquidation last week after years of defaults and deflections. While that action will take more years to play out, it will further tank both Chinese and Hong Kong stock markets and erode any interest of investment in all sectors. While the military may compensate for that marketplace, its own track record is also less-than-stellar on large projects such as aircraft carriers. (Apologies if it's behind a paywall but this article, less than a week old, is informative reading: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/02/01/chinas-leaders-ar... if not that, many alternative analyses exist, none of them bullish except for state-supported media) As I've said before, China will continue to dominate in low-end IoT and embedded systems -- where Microsoft support is irrelevant -- and RISC-V will no doubt bolster that position. But the high end? Nope. Will SMIC improve? Sure, but so will TSMC and Intel etc; that gap will not narrow. I'm happy to make a friendly bet on whether China can indeed "make it happen" at the highest end unless sanctions drop. - Evan