Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?t [...] s_nf/23584
 
  Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <d8bc87ef.0404012215.22c56c56@posting.google.com>,
news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com (Black Jack) writes:
|> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
|> manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
|>  
|> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?t [...] s_nf/23584
 
No, but IBM have done that since the start of PowerPC, as did
SGI with MIPS and Sun with SPARC (the last even more so).  It
is an encouragement to design and build supporting chips and
systems using the PowerPC.
 
As far as I know, there has been no major change in policy since
the very first PowerPC designs, and this is merely yet another
twitch of the publicity machine.
 
Note that nowhere above did I say "for free" :-)
 
 
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Black Jack wrote:
 
> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
 
Ars Technica's take:
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
wrote:
>Black Jack wrote:
>
>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
>
>Ars Technica's take:
>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
 
My take on it?  Mostly a lot of hot air.  I call this one 99%
marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
 
IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
and most of the IP.
 
Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
 
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
<b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
 
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
>wrote:
>>Black Jack wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
>>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
>>
>>Ars Technica's take:
>>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
>
>My take on it?  Mostly a lot of hot air.  I call this one 99%
>marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
>
>IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
>it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
>IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
>and most of the IP.
>
>Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
>Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
>of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
>They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
>cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
>
There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported back'
to silicon.
Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
JP

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4k39g$t05$1@news.wplus.net...
> On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
>
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
> >wrote:
> >>Black Jack wrote:
> >>
> >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
> >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
> >>
> >>Ars Technica's take:
> >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
> >
> >My take on it?  Mostly a lot of hot air.  I call this one 99%
> >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
> >
> >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
> >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
> >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
> >and most of the IP.
> >
> >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
> >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
> >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
> >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
> >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
> >
> There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
> In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
> Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported back'
> to silicon.
> Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
> JP
 
You all can check out http://www-1.ibm.com/technology/power/ where there is
some kind of "design kit" that is downloadable to play with.  I also looked
at the licensing page, and they have a synthesizable 440 core that it says
can be taken anywhere.  Also that they are porting the hard core to other
foundries.
 
So yes indeed it would seem from the web site that one could take the soft
core, modify it, and synthesize to the foundry process of your choice using
the library vendor of your choice.  Synopsis and Cadence are mentioned.
 
It would be my belief that there probably is some exchange of money involved
in this licencing but you should check for yourself.
 
Looks like all sorts of merriment could ensue.  And if you need help, don't
forget Engineering and Technology Services  :-)
 
Del Cecchi (personal opinions only)

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <c4j3ok$pq9$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <d8bc87ef.0404012215.22c56c56@posting.google.com>,
>news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com (Black Jack) writes:
>|> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
>|> manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
>|>
>|> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?t [...] s_nf/23584
>
>No, but IBM have done that since the start of PowerPC, as did
>SGI with MIPS and Sun with SPARC (the last even more so).  It
>is an encouragement to design and build supporting chips and
>systems using the PowerPC.
 
    Not sure where "even more so" comes from? There are many more MIPS
licensees, products, and shipments than for SPARC, though SPARC has a
larger installed base of workstations & servers.
    Jon
    __@/

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>,  
hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
> wrote:
> >Black Jack wrote:
> >
> >> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
> >> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
> >
> >Ars Technica's take:
> >http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
>  
> My take on it?  Mostly a lot of hot air.  I call this one 99%
> marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
 
Could be.  It's been done before.
>  
> IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
> it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
> IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
> and most of the IP.
 
You think IBM is giving hardware away?  Come on Tony!  They're  
looking for *business* opportunities.  It's really that simple.
 
> Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
> Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
> of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
 
Wrong.  The Nintendo Gekko is a 750(FX, IIRC - can't keep the  
chips/marketing straight).  It is most certainly not derived from  
the PPC4xx series.
 
> They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
> cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
 
Business is business.  What I get out of this is the tools will  
become more freely available.  IBM released its compilers for  
PPC970 (for Apple) some time back, I see this as more of the  
same.  Think of it this way;  some one has figured out that if  
you give the tools away, someone might just build a house with  
your lumber.  
 
--  
  Keith

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <c4k39g$t05$1@news.wplus.net>,  
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com says...
> On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
>  
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
> >wrote:
> >>Black Jack wrote:
> >>
> >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
> >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
> >>
> >>Ars Technica's take:
> >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
> >
> >My take on it?  Mostly a lot of hot air.  I call this one 99%
> >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
> >
> >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
> >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
> >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
> >and most of the IP.
> >
> >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
> >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
> >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
> >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
> >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
> >
> There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
> In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
 
Sure, as long as you haven't a care about performance.  ...or  
cost.
 
> Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported  
> back' to silicon.
 
Hard PPC4xx's are already available in the Xilinx Virtex-3 parts  
(and several PPCs in the larger parts).  Certainly if you want to  
do an ASIC the PPC4xx core has been available for some years.
 
> Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
 
*that*???
 
There are many more than one.
 
--  
  Keith

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <c4l3oa$bdtn1$1@fido.engr.sgi.com>,
Jon Leech <nospam@oddhack.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <c4j3ok$pq9$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>In article <d8bc87ef.0404012215.22c56c56@posting.google.com>,
>>news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com (Black Jack) writes:
>>|> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
>>|> manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
>>|>
>>|> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?t [...] s_nf/23584
>>
>>No, but IBM have done that since the start of PowerPC, as did
>>SGI with MIPS and Sun with SPARC (the last even more so).  It
>>is an encouragement to design and build supporting chips and
>>systems using the PowerPC.
>
>    Not sure where "even more so" comes from? There are many more MIPS
>licensees, products, and shipments than for SPARC, though SPARC has a
>larger installed base of workstations & servers.
 
Sun made the SPARC architecture explicitly free to all users; IBM
and SGI did not do quite that with PowerPC and MIPS, and it was and
is legally unclear whether you can build clones (at that level) with
no form of licence.  I believe that the answer is "yes", but only in
most jurisdictions.
 
The Intel x86 scenario was and is very different, and vastly more
confused.
 
 
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On a sunny day (Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:16:01 -0500) it happened KR Williams
<krw@att.biz> wrote in <MPG.1ad7e8688f7260729896ee@news1.news.adelphia.net>:
 
>In article <c4k39g$t05$1@news.wplus.net>,  
>pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com says...
>> On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
>> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
>> <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
>>  
>> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >>Black Jack wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
>> >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
>> >>
>> >>Ars Technica's take:
>> >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
>> >
>> >My take on it?  Mostly a lot of hot air.  I call this one 99%
>> >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
>> >
>> >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
>> >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
>> >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
>> >and most of the IP.
>> >
>> >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
>> >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
>> >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
>> >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
>> >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
>> >
>> There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
>> In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
>
>Sure, as long as you haven't a care about performance.  ...or  
>cost.
>
>> Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported  
>> back' to silicon.
>
>Hard PPC4xx's are already available in the Xilinx Virtex-3 parts  
>(and several PPCs in the larger parts).  Certainly if you want to  
>do an ASIC the PPC4xx core has been available for some years.
>
>> Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
>
>*that*???
>
>There are many more than one.
>
I went to that IBM site (other reply in thread), and found
PPC_QRG_2-22-04.pdf.
Now that is nice stuff, look at the low power it consumes.
I really did not know that.

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> So yes indeed it would seem from the web site that one could take the soft
> core,  
 
What the toolkit seems to offer is a simulation model. No RTL.
 
modify it, and synthesize to the foundry process of your choice using
> the library vendor of your choice.  Synopsis and Cadence are mentioned.
>
> It would be my belief that there probably is some exchange of money involved
> in this licencing but you should check for yourself.
 
Of course there is. What makes this any more "Open" than ARM/ARC/Tensilica?  
 
The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".
 
Cheers,
JonB

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Jon Beniston wrote:
> The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".
 
Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
licenses isn't "open".    I can see some merit in that argument, but
I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.
 
mfc

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In comp.arch Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Jon Beniston wrote:
> > The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".
>  
> Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
> licenses isn't "open".    I can see some merit in that argument, but
> I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.
 
I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials  
and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.
 
The page doesn't even say 'free of cost and no patent crosslicencing  
deals imposed' or similar. It does not really appear different from  
SCSL that Sun released some of its past processors under some years
ago.
 
>  
> mfc
>  
 
--  
 Sander
 
+++ Out of cheese error +++

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Jon Beniston" <jon@beniston.com> wrote in message  
news:e87b9ce8.0404070145.aee622e@posting.google.com...
 
> The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".
 
    You pretty much have to license everything. Without a license  
requirement, it's very difficult to disclaim liability. Even if you put in  
liability disclaimers, you can't stop others from removing the disclaimers  
and redistributing.
 
    It's one thing to guarantee that what you developed worked as it is.  
It's quite another thing to be sure it won't have bugs (or things others can  
claim are bugs) that will show up when it's modified. You can then be sued.  
The only way you can say you took reasonable steps to be sure anyone who  
received the code/design/whatever was warned about the need to test its  
suitability for a particular purpose is to put that in a license.
 
    DS

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Sander Vesik wrote:
> In comp.arch Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Jon Beniston wrote:
>>> The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't
>>> "Open".
>>
>> Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
>> licenses isn't "open".    I can see some merit in that argument, but
>> I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.
>
> I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials
> and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
> gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.
 
Not sure I follow; there's no need for an open source project
to send out its license with the materials (that's a GPL quirk,
which mostly seems to keep lawyers employed :-)).
 
> The page doesn't even say 'free of cost..'
 
> Nor does the typical open source license (though GPL
> armwaves about patents, allowing patents which are free
> to all users, but not necessarily without cost).
 
mfc

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>> I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials
>> and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
>> gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.
>  
> Not sure I follow; there's no need for an open source project
> to send out its license with the materials (that's a GPL quirk,
 
Actually, there _is_ a need for some sort of licencing
statement otherwise it isn't Open Source nor Free Software.
Copyrighted materials cannot be used without some sort of
permission or licence.  Usually, you will see something like
"Licence granted under GPL 2.0" near the copyright notice.
Including a copy of the GPL is recommended but not required.
 
> which mostly seems to keep lawyers employed :-)).
 
Hardly.  AFAIK, the GPL has not been litigated, and doesn't
occupy much lawyers time.  Particularly this -- including by
reference is hardly controversial.
 
Sander's point remains valid -- the GPL is a unilaterial
licence in that unknown persons can use the software without
needing separate permission, notice or other from the author
so long as they abide by the GPL terms.  They aren't required
to follow the GPL, but then nothing else gives them any right
to use the software.
 
I don't think this is true of Microsoft's latest licences which
require you submit certain information (perhaps automated)
before the product is fully licenced and functional.
 
-- Robert