Hi Julius, If the target application for OR2K is deeply-embedded systems, then in addition to code size, power consumption should also be considered while designing the ISA, not only during implementation.
Regards, Iztok Jeras On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Julius Baxter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Luís Vitório Cargnini > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Julius, > > > > Please, which is the current state of the OR2K ? > > > > I would like to be more involved since I would like to use it to my > research > > in my workplace. > > Hi Luis > > The current state of OR2k is that it's still vaporware. To be honest > it would be great if we could get someone to kick start the process on > this. I really think the OpenRISC project would be helped by > developing a newer architecture with a more dense instruction set, and > more suitable for deeply embedded use. It's a lot of work, though, and > my time is very limited at the moment, so I've not been involved at > all, however I'm excited by the prospect of the effort getting under > way. > > However, if you're in a position to look at doing some work on it in > any capacity, it'd be useful. Probably the initial steps are to figure > out exactly what we're looking for. We'd need to think about what it > is we're aiming for. Probably something which derives from OR1K would > be nice, but not necessary? > > Probably it's something along the lines of what we have now, in that > it's a configurable architecture which is capable of being stripped > bare, in terms of features, to run small bare metal apps and RTOSes, > and fully featured to run more complex operating systems such as those > based on the Linux kernel. Things like the floating point and SIMD > instructions are nice, but on FPGAs, of little use. Probably we should > focus on a tight, neat control-based instruction set, to begin with > anyway. > > I think it might be worth revisiting this topic on the mailing lists, > so I'll CC them to see if anyone has any information or opinions. > > In my opinion, something which is a lot like OR1K at the moment (a lot > of optional features such as caches, MMUs, parts of the instruction > set) but with better code density, and a better system of doing > conditional operations (branching, optional execution). Security is > probably also a concern. Some people have mentioned things about > virtualisation but I'm not too familiar with this, nor do I know if > it's of any use in deeply-embedded applications, which is where I > think OR2K could have its greatest potential. > > So I look forward to reviving this topic a little, and seeing what > people come up with. As I say, I think if there's a proposal for an > ISA which doesn't preclude people from being able to scratch their > itch, add what they need and contribute it to the community (atomic > operations are a good, recent example of this) then that'd be a good > start. > > Cheers > > Julius > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Luis Vitorio Cargnini > _______________________________________________ > Openrisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opencores.org/listinfo/openrisc >
_______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
