Open-Source MicroBlaze IP-Core working in FPGA :)

http://uclinux.openchip.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4

here is proof :)

the opensource version as available from opencores is not yet good enough to
run uCLinux - well lets see if that will change,
I think there is a wish to have an open-souce multi-vendor FPGA softcare
capable to run uCLinux inside many people :)

Antti

Antti Lukats wrote:
> http://uclinux.openchip.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
> 
> here is proof :)
> 
> the opensource version as available from opencores is not yet good enough to
> run uCLinux - well lets see if that will change,
> I think there is a wish to have an open-souce multi-vendor FPGA softcare
> capable to run uCLinux inside many people :)

And this is what irks me...if you "need" a "free" FPGA cpu core, there
are already several to choose from (www.opencores.org.)  One of them
even has a full GNU-tool chain.  So what makes the Microblaze so
special?  Is it because it has some industry recognition, better
performance/functionality, or is it simply because more people have
already used it, and want to continue use what they're familiar with?

Maybe it's because Xilinx poured in a lot of R&D into Microblaze,
proved the design, and are committed to future support of it.
Enough customers haved used the design that people in the industry
collectively 'know' its strengths/weaknesses.

Sorry I went off on a rant...I'm struggling to understand why
OpenRISC 1k, despite being 'proven' for more than a year, isn't really
showing up anywhere.

For ASICS, the answer is obvious -- just the mask-order (for 0.18u
standard cell) is $300,000USD -- big enough that no sane engineer will
'sign-off' on a free design with no proven track record.  For FPGAs,
well there's the Xilinx Microblaze at $500 USD (and the Altera Nios for
similar cost) -- an insignificant fraction of a US engineer's salary.

I suppose the upside is that old engineering saying: "copying is the
highest form of flattery." :)

Antti Lukats wrote:
> 
> http://uclinux.openchip.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
> 
> here is proof :)
> 
> the opensource version as available from opencores is not yet good enough to
> run uCLinux - well lets see if that will change,
> I think there is a wish to have an open-souce multi-vendor FPGA softcare
> capable to run uCLinux inside many people :)

I could be wrong, but I thought open source cores that run uCLinux were
already available for FPGAs.  The only difference is that this one is
code compatible with uBlaze.  Am I wrong about this? 

-- 

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX

what is the use/future of dsprocessors in vls

--
thevlsiguruwww.totallychips.com  - VHDL, Verilog & General Hardware Design discussion Foru

"Antti Lukats" <antti@case2000.com> wrote in message news:<cjlt48$uvo$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > Antti Lukats wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I thought open source cores that run uCLinux were
> > already available for FPGAs.  The only difference is that this one is
> > code compatible with uBlaze.  Am I wrong about this?
> 
> Yes, if there would be similar reference platform for OR1100, but it is not
> available. LEON is real nice system, but the ref system hardly fits into
> XCV2000 !! 
LEON is an implementation that is focused on a radiaton hard operation
of an architecture (SPARC) that was designed for ASICs.
Whereas MB is an architecture that was optimized from the beginning
for a small FPGA implementation. There will never be a SPARC
implementation that will get the same performance per LUT as MB does.
AFAIK the OR1k architecture also is not optimzed for FPGA
implementation and is therefore rather large.

So I think it is great to see an open source implementation of MB.
Can you comment on how many LUTs your implementation requires? 
Also: You mention on your web site that some instructions are not
impleneted. Which instruection are these?

Kolja Sulimma

> LEON is an implementation that is focused on a radiaton hard operation
> of an architecture (SPARC) that was designed for ASICs.

It is designed for radiation hard per se? Isn't it just an open source
SPARC.
Do you knwo how to design for radiation hard applications, especially in
an FPGA?
Redundant structures and hoping that the synthesizer does not detect them
and optimize it away...

Martin

"whatisasics" <whatisasics@none.net> wrote in message
news:A5p7d.5328$nj.3186@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Antti Lukats wrote:
> > http://uclinux.openchip.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
> >
> > here is proof :)
> >
> > the opensource version as available from opencores is not yet good
enough to
> > run uCLinux - well lets see if that will change,
> > I think there is a wish to have an open-souce multi-vendor FPGA softcare
> > capable to run uCLinux inside many people :)
>
> And this is what irks me...if you "need" a "free" FPGA cpu core, there
> are already several to choose from (www.opencores.org.)  One of them

I dont know what the "irks" means, but - if it really irks you then please
please:

1) goto to opencores,
2) download any of the several cores you mentioned
3) port the uCLinux reference desing for that core to the FPGA board you use
4) boot uCLinux to the shell prompt on your FPGA board

I would really like to hear your comments after you have managed 1..4 from
above!
And please post with your real name not using anon email address!

Antti
PS porting MicroBlaze-uCLinux reference design (mbvanilla) to new FPGA board
takes usually less than 5 hours

"rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:415E3A81.329A38AB@yahoo.com...
> Antti Lukats wrote:
> >
> > http://uclinux.openchip.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
> >
> > here is proof :)
> >
> > the opensource version as available from opencores is not yet good
enough to
> > run uCLinux - well lets see if that will change,
> > I think there is a wish to have an open-souce multi-vendor FPGA softcare
> > capable to run uCLinux inside many people :)
>
> I could be wrong, but I thought open source cores that run uCLinux were
> already available for FPGAs.  The only difference is that this one is
> code compatible with uBlaze.  Am I wrong about this?

Hi Rick,

Yes, OR1K is uCLinux capable, I guess also M68K and LEON and maybe
Aquarius/SH-3 could be.

The thing is that
MicroBlaze-uCLinux reference design (mbvanilla) requires
1) any FPGA starting from XC2S200
2) 4MB SRAM/SDRAM/DDR
3) interrupt/timer/uart
4) porting of the mbvanilla to new board can be done withing few hours

ASFAIK there is nothing to compete with that -
OR1K reference design doesnt pass even synthesis out of box, just tried out
of curiosity.

MicroBlaze is small and minimal MicroBlaze-uCLinux is small as well,
actually there is almost no overhead to make MicroBlaze system uCLinux
reference design compatible.

Yes, if there would be similar reference platform for OR1100, but it is not
available. LEON is real nice system, but the ref system hardly fits into
XCV2000 !! M68K is not complete i think and SH3, not sure if there is
uCLinux available for it all.

So you are not wrong per se, but I dont envy you if you try to use some
existing open ip core for the uCLinux bringup.

antti

Antti Lukats wrote:

> so as for the moment the open-MB is the smallest free-open IP-core with
> "proven" gnu toolchain support I would say, or does some better alternative
> exist ??

What happened to all this implementations of the DLX ?
There was the whole GNU chain available at one time,
and a lot of people used them for their diploma work etc...

> Ha, I see Martin has also already responded, for I just offered to
donate my
> acex jopcore PCB to the MB designer, so it goes for good cause at last!
>
Hi Antti,

that's really nice (and funny) how much used this single board gets ;-)
And a MB on an Altera FPGA, that's the end of the world.
BTW: I have some more ACEX boards. I could donate them (or a small fee..)
for projects that can convince me...

Martin