Need some help with some technical claims...

Austin Franklin wrote:

> I need some help with something.  Someone made some technical claims
> that I am questioning are correct or not ;-), and would like to see
> what you guys think about these claims:

Homework?

Austin Franklin wrote:
> One more claim from our "candidate":
> 
> "And none of the professionals I've talked to referred to ASICs being
> hardware. You can't buy an ASIC, you have to design it, which makes
> 
> its function software."
> 
> And being a professional EE for over 25 years, having designed a few dozen
> ASICs, and worked with hundreds of ASIC designers, I've never heard anyone
> refere to ASICs as anything but hardware.  So, I can't imagine what
> professionals he is referring to that would think an ASIC was software!

  Until it is sitting there, gleaming at you on the wafer, it is 100%
software.
  Once it is designed, and you want your second million, then it is
very much hardware.
  So it is one of those semantics arguments, that depends on where you
are in the design life cycle.

-jg

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message
news:s791d.3289$mZ2.305623@news02.tsnz.net...
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> > One more claim from our "candidate":
> >
> > "And none of the professionals I've talked to referred to ASICs being
> > hardware. You can't buy an ASIC, you have to design it, which makes
> >
> > its function software."
> >
> > And being a professional EE for over 25 years, having designed a few
dozen
> > ASICs, and worked with hundreds of ASIC designers, I've never heard
anyone
> > refere to ASICs as anything but hardware.  So, I can't imagine what
> > professionals he is referring to that would think an ASIC was software!
>
>   Until it is sitting there, gleaming at you on the wafer, it is 100%
> software.

By your understanding, any design, what so ever, is software?  Even a
schematic?  So, a board level schematic is software as well?  VHDL and
Verilog code is software?

> So it is one of those semantics arguments, that depends on where you
> are in the design life cycle.

I very much disagree that it is a semantics argument.  It is an argument of
understanding or not understanding concepts IMO.

Regards,

Austin

"Mark McDougall" <markm@vl.com.au> wrote in message
news:41451b41$0$22790$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > I need some help with something.  Someone made some technical claims
> > that I am questioning are correct or not ;-), and would like to see
> > what you guys think about these claims:
>
> Homework?

Not really.

Austin Franklin wrote:

> I need some help with something.  Someone made some technical
 > claims that I am questioning are correct or not ;-),
 > and would like to see what you guys think about these claims:

> #1> Programming FPGAs doesn't actually change or rewire those logic gates
> #1> in the silicon wafer. It changes bits of non-volatile memory that is
> #1> used as inputs to these gates. (These are not the gates you see when
> #1> you write the FPGA code, those are emulated by a combination of
> #1> hardwired gates and your code.)

Well, the LUT's do emulate logic gates.  The interconnect, though,
is programmable rewiring, at least traditionally done with pass
transistors, though now maybe more often with multiplexers.
Close enough to rewiring for me.

> #2>Software is defined as the part of a digital circuit that can be
> #2>changed without mechanical modifications, as opposed to hardware,
> #2>which is HARDwired. So FPGA code is software

So?   Where is the question?

Is verilog code for an ASIC software or hardware?

> #3> OTP EPROM data ... has always been regarded as software.

Well, OTP EPROM is already a contradiction.  Most people call
it firmware, though.

> #4> A LUT is not a device soldered onto the circuit board. It's not even
> #4> implemented in silicon (at least during the development stages). It's
> #4> programmed into an FPGA or suchlike and therefore software because you
> #4> can change it without any mechanical changes on the board.

An SRAM chip can be soldered into a board, and is usually implemented
in Silicon, though SiGe, or GaAs could also be used, does that matter?

Is this supposed to change the argument that FPGA code
is or isn't software?

> #5> Using a sufficiently parallelized, a LUT done in a
 > #5> DSP can be just as efficient as using an FPGA or ASIC.

Look up tables have been part of software design for as far
back as I know it.   Sometimes an address will be loaded from
a table as a branch targer, which makes the table darn close to
executable code.   In others, a table of branch instructions is
used as a target of an indexed branch, which definitely makes the
table executable.

Much software is table driven, where the code in the table is
interpreted in some way by directly executable code.

Many machines are microprogrammed, so that what you think of
as hardware is really software.

Trying to make fine distinctions between hardware and software
is a losing proposition.  Don't do it.

-- glen

Austin Franklin wrote:

> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:s791d.3289$mZ2.305623@news02.tsnz.net...
> 
>>Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>>>One more claim from our "candidate":
>>>
>>>"And none of the professionals I've talked to referred to ASICs being
>>>hardware. You can't buy an ASIC, you have to design it, which makes
>>>
>>>its function software."
>>>
>>>And being a professional EE for over 25 years, having designed a few
> 
> dozen
> 
>>>ASICs, and worked with hundreds of ASIC designers, I've never heard
> 
> anyone
> 
>>>refere to ASICs as anything but hardware.  So, I can't imagine what
>>>professionals he is referring to that would think an ASIC was software!
>>
>>  Until it is sitting there, gleaming at you on the wafer, it is 100%
>>software.
> 
> 
> By your understanding, any design, what so ever, is software?  

Until it is constructed, and thus gets the 'Hard' in hardware, yes.

> Even a schematic?  So, a board level schematic is software as well?  
Yes.

 > VHDL and Verilog code is software?

As Hardware Description language, yes.
Software has two portions, the Data or your idea itself, and the 
programs you buy, that Compile/Change that data.

If one argues that Software is only commercial compilers, then
one must introduce a third category - Dataware/Ideaware ?


> 
>>So it is one of those semantics arguments, that depends on where you
>>are in the design life cycle.
> 
> 
> I very much disagree that it is a semantics argument.  It is an argument of
> understanding or not understanding concepts IMO.

Consider where the 'Hard' in hardware comes from ?
If you can hit it with a hammer, it is hardware, if it is an idea,
in whatever form, and does not need power, it is software.
( ie can you save it onto a CD ROM ? - then it is not hardware )

This can get even more semantic content, if one argues that a Printed 
Schematic is tangible, can be burnt, uses ink, and is thus hardware.
Or that the physical storage on a CD Rom uses physical phase change,
so that too is physical/hard in nature.... :)

-jg

Jim Granville wrote:

(snip)

> Consider where the 'Hard' in hardware comes from ?
> If you can hit it with a hammer, it is hardware, if it is an idea,
> in whatever form, and does not need power, it is software.
> ( ie can you save it onto a CD ROM ? - then it is not hardware )

It is that you can save "it" on the CDROM.  Being able to save
an image of something, say a picture of a computer, doesn't count.

> This can get even more semantic content, if one argues that a Printed 
> Schematic is tangible, can be burnt, uses ink, and is thus hardware.
> Or that the physical storage on a CD Rom uses physical phase change,
> so that too is physical/hard in nature.... :)

A printed source listing or hex dump?

Anyway, the word firmware has been used, usually for microcode
that is changable but normally doesn't change in everyday use.

It is then often used for ROMs in microprocessor controlled
devices, again it is not changed in ordinary use, even though
it might be EPROM, EEPROM, or Flash RAM, or even battery
backed SRAM.

Now, how about the wiring plugboards that used to control
many IBM machines in the pre-computer days?  The wire itself
is hardware, but the positioning of the wires is software.
(It could be stored in netlist form, for example.)

-- glen

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Trying to make fine distinctions between hardware and software is a
> losing proposition.  Don't do it.

Isn't that why they coined the term 'firmware'? ;)


-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|         <http://to be announced>           |   with less resistance!"

Hi Austin,
As I shake my head in wonderment reading your post, I think to myself
(and not for the first time :-)

"Self, isn't it great that all the really crazy clients end up in
 Austin's bucket"


On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:00:29 -0400, "Austin Franklin" <austin@dark99room.com> wrote:
>I need some help with something.  Someone made some technical claims that I
>am questioning are correct or not ;-), and would like to see what you guys
>think about these claims:
>
>#1> Programming FPGAs doesn't actually change or rewire those logic gates
>#1> in the silicon wafer. It changes bits of non-volatile memory that is
>#1> used as inputs to these gates. (These are not the gates you see when
>#1> you write the FPGA code, those are emulated by a combination of
>#1> hardwired gates and your code.)

Depending on vendor, the memory that is changed may be volatile or non-volatile.
By far, the volatile memory devices are the dominant products in use. A & X.

Since the devices are volatile, and infinitely re-programmable, just like
a CPU, no physical modification of the internal wires occurs.

But, for the non-volatile devices that use anti-fuse, the interconnect
intersections are physically changed, and I think you might describe it
as "wiring" ,  not "rewiring" since the initial state is nothing conected
to nothing.

>#2>Software is defined as the part of a digital circuit that can be
>#2>changed without mechanical modifications, as opposed to hardware,
>#2>which is HARDwired. So FPGA code is software

Absolute B.S.

Hardware:
	Case, PSU, PCB, ALL components on the PCB, disk drives, terminals
	resistors, caps, diodes, transistors, wires, connectors, switches,
	CPU chips, modems, FPGAs, CPLDs, etc, etc, etc.

Software:
	Fortran, COBOL, Assembler, BASIC (All forms), C, C++, Python,
	Perl, TCL/TK, ......
	The compiled or interpreted version of the above list when
	loaded into memory (typically volatile) on a processor.

Firmware:
	Software that is loaded into non-volatile memory.

Specifications:
	(in your head, in a file on disk, printed on paper, punched on
	 punch cards, punched on paper tape, On magnetic tape........)
	Any description of the hardware, including:
	Schematics, VHDL, Verilog, PAL eqn, AHDL, CUPL, .....
	Any description of the software that is not the actual software

>#3> OTP EPROM data ... has always been regarded as software.

B.S.

	i.e. character map for a CRT.

>#4> A LUT is not a device soldered onto the circuit board. It's not even
>#4> implemented in silicon (at least during the development stages).

Last time I designed an FPGA (and I do mean "designed", not "designed with")
it sure had a lot of real LUTS being implemented in silicon.

>#4> It's programmed into an FPGA or suchlike and therefore software because you
>#4> can change it without any mechanical changes on the board.

Total B.S.

What if the FPGA config stream is in a ROM. If I need to make a change,
out comes the soldering iron.

What if I am insane and chose to use an anti fuse part. Need a soldering
iron to make changes here too.

>#5> Using a sufficiently parallelized, a LUT done in a DSP can be just as
>#5> efficient as using an FPGA or ASIC.

B.S.

Todays FPGA LUTs are sub 1.0 ns. A DSP needs to fetch an instruction, decode
it, figure out it is indexing memory, go fetch, etc, etc, etc.

>"And none of the professionals I've talked to referred to ASICs being
>hardware. You can't buy an ASIC, you have to design it, which makes
>its function software."

He couldn't have looked very far, since he hasn't talked to me about
reality. Please do not give him my name. You should handle this.

>Any input appreciated ;-)

Enjoy your argument  :-)

Philip




Philip Freidin

For the US news media, there is nothing so important
or relevant, that it can't be ignored in favor of
some new, bright and shiny irrelevancy.

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:ci521a$va$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > I need some help with something.  Someone made some technical
>  > claims that I am questioning are correct or not ;-),
>  > and would like to see what you guys think about these claims:
>
A while back I was deposed for a patent infringement law suit.  The
oppositions
lawyer were trying to prove that my "hardware search engine"  built in an
FPGA
was really a "software search engine"  because anything in an FPGA was
really
software.  Don't know how that one turned out as I'm no longer with that
company,
but:  Lawyers - ya gotta love em!