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.
New microprocessor architecture
Started by ●March 3, 2007
Reply by ●March 6, 20072007-03-06
Reply by ●March 6, 20072007-03-06
"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
Reply by ●March 14, 20072007-03-14
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?
Reply by ●March 14, 20072007-03-14
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?
