Subscribe to EDN

Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs

October 7, 2009

Why has the embedded RISC market in FPGAs been limited to ARM cores? That question occupied me for several hours after hearing about Altera’s licensing of the MIPS core Oct. 6. After all, embedded RISC instruction sets have maintained a diversity over close to 20 years in the ASSP and standalone-processor sectors of the embedded market.

Yes, there have been notable dropouts in embedded systems. Sparc, with a few exceptions, never hit it big there. But PowerPC, ColdFire, and MIPS cores have kept up a strong front, despite the overarching presence of ARM in most vertical sectors.

In the past, ARM had a few legitimate points to make about code compactness and efficiency of gate utilization. But as we move to multicore versions of Cortex, that argument carries less weight. And FPGA architectures have gotten large enough to allow for more experimentation in control-plane architectures.

Let’s make a core assumption to begin with: Dylan McGrath of EE Times raised the question of whether Altera was developing its own core based on the MIPS ISA. What other purpose would the licensing deal have? Altera almost certainly would not enter the standalone CPU business. A hard macro remains a possibility, but the licensing pact virtually implied soft core development.

While many choices of RISC cores are made for arbitrary reasons that have little do with thread efficiency or compactness of code, there is a definite school of thought that says MIPS offers a more register-rich architecture that is preferable for applications with bigger limitations in memory bandwidth, while ARM offers a clever use of arithmetic instructions that could prove better in array and vector problems. Merely by making this observation, I have no doubt offended some advocates of either camp, but it’s interesting to note that ARM-based FPGAs have been displacing some DSP designs of late. Perhaps the addition of MIPS will aid Altera in certain fast datapath designs for networked storage, mobile devices, and the like.

Maybe this was just an accident of timing, but it’s interesting to note that ARM announced a deal with GlobalFoundries, a day after the MIPS-Altera announcement, giving ARM access to 28-nm processes. Oh boy, the race is on.

In any event, the licensing decision means diversity of instruction sets. It might behoove FPGA companies to examine ColdFire and PPC as well, though a portfolio that is too broad could be as vexing as an ARM-only world.

Posted by Loring Wirbel on October 7, 2009 | Comments (8)

April 16, 2010
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
Buy Cialis commented:

incomplete pasting promotions rental heavily trashcan quantify isanta evil ikyu pasa


October 9, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
desert rat commented:

Yea, I remember the i960, and the i860 too. Nobody liked them but the Military guys, so Intel dropped both. Now the whole MIL spectrum is DSP oriented (with DSP cores in FPGAs, with TI chips and with the Altavec PPC machines). If you look at macro/fempto/pico cells in telecom, those are ALL DSP-based machines these days. Some day, Intel may actually "get it", and do a processor that meets more than 20% of the embedded market's needs. For now, that is being done nicely by cores and FPGAs.....Ray


October 8, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
Loring commented:

DR: Remember the little architecture that could, down Chandler way, called i960? Neither does anyone else. Intel's death squads are effective. AC: That's right, just some instruction sequence issues, registers, etc.


October 8, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
Anonymous Coward commented:

If you take a close look at the Nios II architecture, you'll notice that it is almost identical to MIPS. This is not as big a change technically as it is from a marketing standpoint.


October 8, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
desert rat commented:

Yo, Loring... After a brief but professionally conducted search, here's the deal on core licenses... -ARM: 200 licenses to semi makers for about 580 different ARM technology designs -MIPS: 100 licenses to semi companies -Power Architecture: 7 Semi companies have licenses -Intel Atom: I only know of one, and that was to TSMC to make SOCs. Intel has ignored the embedded and consumer markets for so long, no one will every trust them again in those segments. And since Intel has been fined $1.6 Billion by the EU folks for nefarious and illegal competitive behavior, and they are also charged with anti-trust violations in both the US and Korea, no one in their right mind would deal with them, license the Atom, or get involved in their schemes. Doing business with Intel right now will get you a trip to Wash, DC and a meeting with the good folks at USFTC and the USDOJ.


October 8, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
Loring Wirbel commented:

DR, Atom will have some legs now that it is being licensed to TSMC, but remember, Intel (like other big corporations) lives in its own Bizarro universe with a reality-distortion field around it, so it can blithely ignore all those RISC core optimization issues. Andy, seems to be we can declare the death of the home-grown, home-coded embedded core, and as you said about MIPS-NIOSII, what possible advantage could be argued for designing a new one?


October 7, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
Andy T commented:

NIOS II was Altera's processor of choice, they dumped a fair bit of cash into it and its nifty SOC builder, and I think that the politics associated in justifying its continued existence far outweighed the logic of including the most popular embedded processor on the planet as a soft macro. With Vince Hu now at the marketing helm, I suspect it could have been as simple as him cutting through the political crap, self-justification, job-security, and posturing, by the NIOS zealots and he may have simply approved the inclusion of an IP capability that he might think will expand his embedded market presence. After all, how many MIPS programmers are there out there vs NIOS II?


October 7, 2009
In response to: Open ARM-wrestling in FPGAs
desert rat commented:

What you have here, Loring, is the ABI strategy (Anybody But Intel). Nobody in the FPGA realm wants to have anything to do with the Atom. Doing business with Intel says you lose control and they will nail you at some point. So, the FPGA guys want to deal with those core and IP people who are easier to work with and are more ethical partners. There also seems to be a similar strategy taking place in the software segment: ABM. Just look at all the non-Microsoft options for cellphone OS's and apps out there...

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows