Comments on: RISC-V Pros And Cons

By: Ann Steffora Mutschler

Ann Steffora Mutschler — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 13:09:00 +0000

Karl, my guess is that money will talk. When the OEMs decide RISC-V will provide benefit to the bottom line, the ecosystem will quickly emerge. As far as the value, it does seem like there is some momentum, and time will tell.

By: Karl Stevens

Karl Stevens — Wed, 31 May 2017 13:32:00 +0000

Is it worth the time, cost, and effort to establish an ecosystem? Is there real value or wishful thinking?

By: Karl Stevens

Karl Stevens — Wed, 31 May 2017 13:29:00 +0000

Kent, right on. I spent my career in computers/systems so I know how computers work.
The basic difference among RISC ISAs is the load instruction addressing because data has to be loaded first before being used.
Therefore the key is access to memory, then data can be used in computation using the simple add, subtract, multiply, divide, and, or, xor instructions.
RISC came about because compiler writers could not figure out how to use more complex instructions(IBM 801, circa 1980). NOT because it was better, just REDUCED instruction set.
Of course x86 has been used in a few CPUs recently.
ISA is a minor factor, but most talked about.

By: Ann Steffora Mutschler

Ann Steffora Mutschler — Wed, 31 May 2017 01:57:00 +0000

I agree that much work needs to be done in order to establish an ecosystem, so we will be watching for development in that area, and then adoption.

By: Kent Dahlgren

Kent Dahlgren — Tue, 30 May 2017 18:27:00 +0000

The biggest issue in getting traction will be the hardware ecosystem around the core. The AMBA SoC interconnect specs are the defacto standard for this and I expect to see ARM using these as a weapon.