[HN Gopher] Allwinner D1s/F133 RISC-V Processor Integrates 64MB ...
___________________________________________________________________
Allwinner D1s/F133 RISC-V Processor Integrates 64MB DDR2
Author : thedday
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-10-26 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnx-software.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnx-software.com)
| monocasa wrote:
| The HDMI and DSP lines are crossed out. Does anyone know of they
| aren't supported on this chip vs the regular D1?
| Jhsto wrote:
| The second paragraph says:
|
| > Besides the built-in RAM, Allwinner D1s comes with many of
| the same features as D1 RISC-V SoC, but loses HDMI output and
| the HiFi 4 audio DSP, and Allwinner made some tweaks to the IOs
| with one less I2S audio interface, and general-purpose ADC.
| simfree wrote:
| Were the HDMI output and audio DSP licensed IP blocks from
| another company? On other Allwinner chips, the HDMI phy is
| from a different company than Allwinner.
|
| Guess this is a super budget respin of this chip, where most
| licensed IP blocks have been removed.
| monocasa wrote:
| Or even just that the chip was designed to fuse these
| blocks off for the low price options. It's not uncommon for
| those license agreements to allow disabled blocks without
| the licensing fees.
| brucehoult wrote:
| It saves millions of dollars to not have to do a
| different mask set, so quite likely. The downside is
| wasted silicon area and thus per-unit cost, but you've
| got to make a _lot_ before that bites.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Likely a mistake in the spec list copied from the earlier intro
| article published in March. The chip has no DSP, HDMI or DVI
| blocks listed so it makes sense.
| wmf wrote:
| This chip looks similar to the F1C100s that was used in the $3
| Linux business card:
| https://www.thirtythreeforty.net/posts/2019/12/my-business-c...
|
| By switching to RISC-V I guess Allwinner can save a few cents of
| Arm license fees.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Might be that they care about open computers.
| belval wrote:
| Maybe but from the way they violate the GPL license and keep
| distributing binary blobs for their hardware I'd go out on a
| limb and say the money angle is more likely.
| naraic0o wrote:
| Allwinner? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. They're one of the
| worst offenders when it comes to releasing sources.[0]
|
| [0] https://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations
| simosx wrote:
| Allwinner wants to sell as many SoCs as possible. Being
| open and having good Linux support is good business. The
| serve the low-end sector, which means they may not spend a
| lot of money for Linux support. But Linux support is good
| for business.
|
| About a decade ago, Allwinner was providing an "SDK" to
| vendors to customize the Linux kernel for their devices.
| This "SDK" was a tarball of the compiled Linux kernel. In
| it, there were object files for drivers by third-parties
| for devices in the SoC that Allwinner sourced from other
| companies. Allwinner had the source code but obviously
| could not release it. They did not think better, and
| included those object files because it helps device
| integrators (mainly Android) to get the job done.
|
| How do you deal with this issue with this blatant GPL
| violation? Obviously, you do not alienate the company. They
| f _cked up but it 's not the end of the world. They cannot
| release the source code of parts they do not own. You build
| a relationship and get them through to the right path.
|
| But what happened in reality? A colossal f_ck-up. An
| attempt to "blackmail" the company to release the full
| source code and enforce the GPL. Listen to this, an attempt
| to enforce the GPL to a company "located in China". Not
| even on vendors that sell products in Europe or the US.
|
| This alienated any attempts to get Allwinner's upper
| management to work with Linux. Allwinner made an effort and
| released some stuff (https://github.com/allwinner-zh)
| including the bootloader source and documentation (2015).
| The damage was done.
|
| In 2016, Linus and other kernel developers posted their
| position on enforcing the GPL
| (https://lwn.net/Articles/698452/). Very pragmatic and
| should have been followed with Allwinner.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| >Allwinner was providing an "SDK" to vendors to customize
| the Linux kernel for their devices
|
| I tried contacting them to get the SDK for a tablet I had
| and they just asked me how many SOCs I am planning to
| buy.
| alexmcc81 wrote:
| I doubt it. They have been found to be in violation of the
| GPL for years, ranging from media codecs to bootloaders.
| Their response, even after joining the Linux foundation, was
| to obfuscate the code to make GPL violations hard to find.
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| That's not much DRAM, but consider that the Funkey S
| (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/squonk/funkey-s-the-wor...)
| uses the Allwinner V3s (32b ARMv7-a) with 64MB DDR2 DRAM.
| brucehoult wrote:
| If you want more DRAM there's the "<$20" Sipeed board with a
| 512 MB version of the same SoC, the "Lichee RV" module,
| available within the next month.
|
| https://www.hackster.io/news/sipeed-teases-linux-capable-64-...
|
| Or of course the Nezha with 1 GB RAM and a full set of
| interfaces for ~$100.
|
| I expect there will be plenty more boards with this basic SoC
| in future.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Looks like it's stuck at July 2020.
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| The kickstarter may have ended, but they've entered general
| production and can be purchased today here: https://funkey-
| project.myshopify.com/products/funkey-s.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-26 23:00 UTC)