On Mar 6, 2:31 pm, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173190734.522830.23610@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In terms of a company duplicating the ARM ISA, I think it may well be
> > cheaper to do that than to license the core.  By copying you avoid all
> > the costs of inventing the ISA, working with tool vendors (or even
> > paying them) for tool development and all the other costs that ARM
> > has.  But you can only get this advantage if you copy the ISA of an
> > existing MCU like the ARM.
>
> I can't see how it could be cheaper. An average ARM license is around
> $2.5m, ARM7 should be below $1m. Could you clone an ARM for less?

An ARM was cloned for nearly nothing once.  One of the open source
firmware initiatives had cloned the ARM7 and got shut down by ARM
because of the patent violation.  How hard can it be if a college kid
has done it?

On Mar 6, 6:48 pm, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173189801.332045.223270@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 6, 5:16 am, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> > And while you work on your marketing plan someone else applies for the
> > same patent (which is not unusual) you are left out in the cold.  I
> > believe it is pretty universal advice to apply early for patents.
>
> That is always a risk. On the other hand, if you file early then a lot of
> details will change and by the time you are ready to go to market
> a few years down the line, the patent is published and competitors
> can try to work around it. In my experience most patents are filed
> when a project goes to market.

If you have improvements to a filed patent, that patent application
can be ammended or a new one submitted for the "new" inventions.  It
is a fools game to delay patent applications.


> >> Yes, without patents the IP would be unprotected. I think you agree...
>
> > Just the opposite.  Most IP can not be protected by patents.  Only
> > inventions can be patented.  That is why all the IP companies use
> > encrypted libraries and licences to protect their IP.
>
> IP includes things like ISA and micro architecture, which are made
> public. ARM is effectively selling the ISA and so needs to protect it.

ISA can not be directly protected by patents or copyright, only trade
secret.  Since it must be made public other means must be used to
protect a feature that is required by the ISA. In this case patent is
the only practical means of protection.


> >> Indeed. My guess of what would happen is that everybody creates
> >> incompatible extensions and there is less incentive to invest into
> >> innovative designs as they are easily cloned. We'd still use ARM2's...
>
> > Yes, that is likely true, except that I don't see that the ARM2 was so
> > wildly successful.  I would say it was the ARM7/9 that gave ARM the
> > big boost that is making the ARM a commodity device.
>
> The ARM2 was popular in the UK in personal computers in the early
> 90's and its performance advantage over 68000 and 80(2)86 was what
> caught Apple's attention. ARM2 volumes were never great. But would
> ARM Ltd have been created if Apple could have cloned the ARM2?

You tell me, my crystal ball is broken.


> > Yes, they say it and they do it!  Atmel has some half dozen new ARM
> > chips coming out this quarter. Philips is introducing new ARM chips
> > continuously.  ST Micro has a whole new family of ARM7 chips this
> > quarter.  The list goes on....
>
> ARM7 may still be a popular choice as an MCU, but the fact is that
> ARM7 licensing has slowed down significantly in the last few years.
> Licensing revenue for ARM7 is about $24m in 2002 vs $6m in 2006.
> There are already 217 ARM9 licenses vs 145 ARM7 licenses.
> In terms of the 2.5b shipments in 2006, 60% was ARM7, 40% ARM9.
> In 2007 ARM9 is likely to overtake ARM7 in volume.
>
> Yes, with 1.5 billion shipments last year ARM7 is still the most popular
> CPU on earth. But for how much longer?

Again, is your crystal ball working better than mine?

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1173189801.332045.223270@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 5:16 am, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:

> And while you work on your marketing plan someone else applies for the
> same patent (which is not unusual) you are left out in the cold.  I
> believe it is pretty universal advice to apply early for patents.

That is always a risk. On the other hand, if you file early then a lot of
details will change and by the time you are ready to go to market
a few years down the line, the patent is published and competitors
can try to work around it. In my experience most patents are filed
when a project goes to market.

>> Yes, without patents the IP would be unprotected. I think you agree...
>
> Just the opposite.  Most IP can not be protected by patents.  Only
> inventions can be patented.  That is why all the IP companies use
> encrypted libraries and licences to protect their IP.

IP includes things like ISA and micro architecture, which are made
public. ARM is effectively selling the ISA and so needs to protect it.

>> Indeed. My guess of what would happen is that everybody creates
>> incompatible extensions and there is less incentive to invest into
>> innovative designs as they are easily cloned. We'd still use ARM2's...
>
> Yes, that is likely true, except that I don't see that the ARM2 was so
> wildly successful.  I would say it was the ARM7/9 that gave ARM the
> big boost that is making the ARM a commodity device.

The ARM2 was popular in the UK in personal computers in the early
90's and its performance advantage over 68000 and 80(2)86 was what
caught Apple's attention. ARM2 volumes were never great. But would
ARM Ltd have been created if Apple could have cloned the ARM2?

> Yes, they say it and they do it!  Atmel has some half dozen new ARM
> chips coming out this quarter. Philips is introducing new ARM chips
> continuously.  ST Micro has a whole new family of ARM7 chips this
> quarter.  The list goes on....

ARM7 may still be a popular choice as an MCU, but the fact is that
ARM7 licensing has slowed down significantly in the last few years.
Licensing revenue for ARM7 is about $24m in 2002 vs $6m in 2006.
There are already 217 ARM9 licenses vs 145 ARM7 licenses.
In terms of the 2.5b shipments in 2006, 60% was ARM7, 40% ARM9.
In 2007 ARM9 is likely to overtake ARM7 in volume.

Yes, with 1.5 billion shipments last year ARM7 is still the most popular
CPU on earth. But for how much longer?

Wilco

On 2007-03-06, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:

>> We're going to a one-chip solution instead of a 2-4 chip
>> solution.  
>
> I can see the motivation, but is it really a one chip solution ?

I meant that 1 chip is replacing 2-4 other chips that provided
CPU+peripherals.  There are still external SDRAM, flash, and
some other parts that are pretty much the same in both the old
and new designs.

> Most FPGA designs are 3 chips : FPGA device, Loader Memory,
> and Code memory. Yes, Loader memory is often small, and in the
> newest Xilinx devices it's in the package, but the code memory
> is more of an issue, as that's wider.

Code memory is still required.  Both old/new designs have 8MB
of external SDRAM and 4MB of external flash.  Going to an FPGA
merely allowed us to incorporate a couple previously external
ASICs.

>> Spending NRE to reduce RE.  The ARM7 part was also being
>> discontinued, so we were going to have to change anyway. We've
>> since been told by the ARM7 vendor that they've changed their
>> mind and are not disconinuing the part.
>
> Who was the ARM vendor ?

Samsung.

> I've seen that flip-flop before, but usually the continued
> part also moves into 'maint pricing' columns.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I'm in direct contact
                                  at               with many advanced fun
                               visi.com            CONCEPTS.

Grant Edwards wrote:
> We're going to a one-chip solution instead of a 2-4 chip
> solution.  

I can see the motivation, but is it really a one chip solution ?
Most FPGA designs are 3 chips :
FPGA device, Loader Memory, and Code memory.
Yes, Loader memory is often small, and in
the newest Xilinx devices it's in the package, but
the code memory is more of an issue, as that's wider.

Or did you mean 'One complex chip', or 'one chip to learn' ?
- as one could say the support memory devices are largely invisible
from a devlopment viewpoint.

> Spending NRE to reduce RE.  The ARM7 part was also
> being discontinued, so we were going to have to change anyway.
> We've since been told by the ARM7 vendor that they've changed
> their mind and are not disconinuing the part.

Who was the ARM vendor ?

I've seen that flip-flop before, but usually the continued part also 
moves into 'maint pricing' columns.

-jg

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1173190734.522830.23610@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

> In terms of a company duplicating the ARM ISA, I think it may well be
> cheaper to do that than to license the core.  By copying you avoid all
> the costs of inventing the ISA, working with tool vendors (or even
> paying them) for tool development and all the other costs that ARM
> has.  But you can only get this advantage if you copy the ISA of an
> existing MCU like the ARM.

I can't see how it could be cheaper. An average ARM license is around
$2.5m, ARM7 should be below $1m. Could you clone an ARM for less?

Wilco

 Its impossible to patent what no one needs .

 CPU's are fast to change , even faster

 is software .   Software change forces

 even better , more competitive H/W .

  CPU's have been highly regulated , thus

 evolution was slow , thank to Intel crony .

 But now the consumer is getting better ,

 for the wide competition of ARM cpu .

  There are no shortages of RAM ,ROM

 and inspite of C/C++ and linux and M$

 those who need good software are using

 it now . Dont expect them to advert' it ,

nor try to sell it to the public , it would

 work against their interest .

   Hardware makers are hoping their software

 will "lock" the consumer into buying the

 pdt .  If the software runs on another

 box , they may only sell one box , softwa

 is carried to their competitors box ,

 and they go bankrupt .

   As competition gets stronger , ppl give

 away free software ...

  Patents and copyrights become a joke .

 M$ only had a copyright as long as Intel

 had control on CPU's ..

  Linux will be history soon ..

   I am the worlds fastest systems programmer .
 I will "borrow" Nintendo DS  BIOS and then
 rewrite it and slim it down and put a perfectly
 structured OpSys on top of that and ..

   Give it free .

 Because it nix's all the difficulties of programming ,
 it will be used by all .
  No files nor folders , kernel organizes everything
 for you , and to boot has total control over
 every thread and object , thus impossible to
  virus , worm ...

On 2007-03-06, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:45 pm, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-03-06, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> I'm working on a product line that just migrated from ARM7 to
>> NIOS2.  Nobody cares about the CPU core.  We're using the same
>> OS and same compiler.  Changing CPU cores was trivial -- and it
>> even involved going from big-endian to little-endian.
>>
>> Changing Ethernet controllers and various other peripherals was
>> the painful part. ;)
>>
>> It's the peripherals where all the work is -- the CPU just
>> doesn't matter.
>
> I'm not trying to sound stupid (but we all do what we do best), but if
> the core "does not matter" then why did you change?  I guess the
> answer is you are moving to an FPGA or possibly even an ASIC?

An FPGA into which we can shovel the core as well as
peripherals that used to be off-chip in a fairly large ASIC.

> I think your statement is a bit overbroad.  Of course the CPU
> core does matter.  But the requirements on the core are thinks
> like speed, support, etc., that many CPUs will meet.  Then the
> choice becomes about selection in the other areas to narrow it
> down to a chip.  At the top of this list are the peripherals
> which is what you are saying is the main consideration.
> Certainly it depends on your application. You just said you
> were changing the core in spite of the fact that you now have
> to change all your peripherals!

We're going to a one-chip solution instead of a 2-4 chip
solution.  Spending NRE to reduce RE.  The ARM7 part was also
being discontinued, so we were going to have to change anyway.
We've since been told by the ARM7 vendor that they've changed
their mind and are not disconinuing the part.

> I am pretty sure I have seen 8051 chips with Ethernet.  But I
> doubt that you considered them as useful devices in your
> initial design. You wanted the higher MIPS of the ARM and the
> greater flexibility in finding parts from multiple vendors
> with a wide selection of peripherals.

Actually the fact that it was ARM didn't matter.  We were
looking for a peripheral set.  Pretty much any 32-bit processor
running at 20-50 MHz would be fine (ARM, PPC, SPARC, etc.).

> BTW, when you say you are using the same OS and compiler, do
> you mean the exact same tools or new tools from the same
> vendors? I don't know of any tool providers that bundle NIOS2
> and ARM in the same package. Just curious, which tools are you
> using?

GCC and eCos.  GCC and eCos will build for at least a dozen
target architectures.  eCos for both targets is built from the
same source tree.  Right now we've got two different gcc source
trees, but that's just because the ARM toolchain is a couple
years old and the NIOS one is a little newer.

Once the device drivers for the peripherals were working, it
took about two days to intially port the apps. It'll probably
another week or two of testing and fixing minor problems).

> Am I missing the point?

I don't think so.  In my experience, what matters is the
peripheral set and the availability of development tools. Given
an appropriate peripheral set and OS/toolchain, we could just
as easily be using any of four or five other 32-bit CPU cores.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  These PRESERVES
                                  at               should be FORCE-FED to
                               visi.com            PENTAGON OFFICIALS!!

On Mar 6, 7:30 am, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> A StrongARM equivalent would be a lot more interesting, but it has
> to avoid the more recent MMU and cache patents. Even so, a
> 64MByte address space is pretty limiting for a $100 laptop...

Sounds like a Bill Gates statement...  "Nobody needs more than 640KB
of memory". <G>

> Also it's not obvious to me that designing your own ARM would be
> cheaper than licensing (the development cost of a core is spread
> over many licensees). It only makes sense for very high volumes as
> you avoid the royalties. I don't rule it out entirely - I can see it done
> as a free FPGA core for example.

The cost of the license is not connected to the cost of the
development other than providing enough money to keep the company
afloat.  The will charge as much as the market will bear which means
they can extract a significant percentage of the development cost from
each licensee.  In the end they get many more times their costs back
in fees.

In terms of a company duplicating the ARM ISA, I think it may well be
cheaper to do that than to license the core.  By copying you avoid all
the costs of inventing the ISA, working with tool vendors (or even
paying them) for tool development and all the other costs that ARM
has.  But you can only get this advantage if you copy the ISA of an
existing MCU like the ARM.

Of course you could go with an open source CPU like the one from
Lattice.  No license fees, no royalties and you have to do all the
real work yourself!