nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn

   1 # Questions
   2
   3 you applied to the 2022-08 open call from NLnet. We have some questions regarding your project proposal Libre-SOC OpenPOWER ISA WG, but obviously we are incurring some delays due to the deluge of payment requests ;)
   4
   5 **
   6     You requested a neat round sum of 100000 euro.
   7     Can you provide some more detail on how you arrived at this amount?
   8     Could you provide a breakdown of the main tasks, and the
   9     associated effort? What rates did you use?
  10 **
  11
  12 last question first: we've learned (painfully, by losing opportunities
  13 and team members) that the prior rates which were around EUR 1500 per
  14 person are inadequate to attract the quality we need, and had to double
  15 it.  I (personally) used to be ok when working out of Taiwan for 3 years
  16 on EUR 1200-1500, and Jacob was in student-subsidised accommodation.
  17
  18 bottom line: 3 people, at EUR 3,000, is actually only 11 months duration.
  19 if we include binutils part-time as 0.25 people it's only 10 months.
  20
  21 these are the tasks:
  22
  23 * ongoing communication with OPF ISA WG: over 12-18 months,
  24   it takes appx 1-2 hours per day of communication time to
  25   prepare and answer questions.
  26 * preparation (and revision) of RFCs: although they are templatable
  27   and partial cut/paste from the wiki the revisions are not, needing
  28   ongoing feedback.  plus, we will need approximately 20-25 RFCs.
  29 * Compliance Test Suites: there are already thousands of unit tests,
  30   these need to be expanded for the 8/16/32-bit work (thousands, in
  31   each bit-width).  Again: several months of work
  32 * Example algorithms: strncpy, quicksort, insertionsort, UTF-8
  33   validation and conversion to UTF-16; more Audio/Video examples - all of
  34   these are critically important showcases. Each example chosen
  35   can average around 1-2 weeks work.  They all help with the
  36   critical "justification" which is already underway as part of
  37   https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/ which already has
  38   some of the examples from unit tests.
  39 * Developing and improving the Simulator itself, to confirm correct
  40   functionality: again, several months (this is always ongoing)
  41 * The Test API: this will be a simpler self-contained task to make
  42   it auto-generate Makefiles (and cover other systems), and
  43   also by this time we will have cavatools in the mix: approx 8 weeks
  44 * binutils needs ongoing updates, an estimated budget covering
  45   10-14 weeks would be good.
  46
  47 **
  48     Is there meanwhile news on the requirements of IBM and the ISA WG?
  49 **
  50
  51 somewhat.  the page is now open - https://openpower.foundation/isarfc/ -
  52 and they have prepared a process/procedure document (legally required
  53 to be followed, under the OPF's ByLaws), which is adapting as we're
  54 literally the first people to use it.
  55
  56 **
  57     A request for 100k is very large, and the timelines are
  58     pretty long too.
  59 **
  60
  61 yes and no. if we assume 3 people (one junior editor, two and a half
  62 programmers: simulator, unit tests, binutils) it actually doesn't go far.
  63
  64 **
  65    Can we not take it step by step?
  66 **
  67
  68 EUR 50,000 assuming 3.5 people at EUR 3,000 is actually only 5 months.
  69 realistically that would mean we would actually need to begin the
  70 submission process on the very next cycle! (2022-10E - 2022-12E would
  71 be more likely but cutting it fine)
  72
  73 **
  74    It would be better for us to achieve this incrementally, as in:
  75    start with a smaller amount for meeting submission criteria for
  76    the block of instructions, deliver initial code, tests,
  77    documentation - and when more budget is needed, a new chunk is added.
  78 **
  79
  80 I don't have a problem with that, if you are fine with the extra admin
  81 work :)  i appreciate it does mean not needing a special EU Auditor,
  82 and also an opportunity to review, half-way through.
  83
  84     What would work on the legal compliance for the development look
  85     like? Who would be doing that?
  86
  87 IBM - or more to the point the OPF ISA WG - requesting that all
  88 contributors sign an "Inbound Patent License Agreement".  in our
  89 case there *aren't* any patents, but we still have to sign an
  90 agreement that there aren't any, and, also, that if we *do* create
  91 any patents that those will be assigned to the OPF immediately.
  92 Perhaps a budget for some legal assistance in reviewing that agreement
  93 might be a good idea?  NLnet has funded this work under its
  94 "Works for the Public Good" mandate: we don't want to be caught out
  95 here.
  96
  97 **
  98     How would you manage such a large amount of RFCs, which must
  99     be perceived as a denial of service at the WG?
 100 **
 101
 102 carefully!  we have been warning them consistently and persistently
 103 for 24 months.  each RFC when it gets to the "Presentation as
 104 actual Changes" stage, will be passed through to compiler and
 105 hardware experts for their consideration.  IBM has had many many
 106 RFCs in-house over the years: this isn't something that's new to
 107 them.
 108
 109 ultimately, though, by comparison with RISC-V having *seventy*
 110 unique Technical Working Groups, realistically it is simply
 111 the Power ISA that has a lot of catching up to do.  we will be
 112 the catalyst that drives that... carefully :)
 113
 114 **
 115     Is there infrastructure in place to manage the lifecycle of each RFC?
 116 **
 117
 118 yes.  the bugtracker, wiki, and mailing list, and the RFCs themselves
 119 are in the git repository that's behind the wiki.  full cross-referencing
 120 in each has been found over a 4 year period of managing this project.
 121
 122 then there is also the "main" page tracking *all* RFCs (which will
 123 get its own bugreport at some point)
 124
 125 * https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/
 126
 127 Example of the cross-referencing so far:
 128
 129 * https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/
 130 * https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=libreriscv.git;a=history;f=openpower/sv/rfc/ls001.mdwn
 131 * https://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/2022-October/005344.html
 132 * https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=924, note the discussion
 133 * https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/discussion/
 134
 135 **
 136     How are discussions going to be linked to each RFC?
 137 **
 138
 139 As above example: by a cross-referenced URL in each one, and the
 140 standard practice of adding a "discussion" page in the wiki if
 141 necessary, although this is often subsumed by the bugtracker.
 142
 143 **
 144     What are the timelines?
 145 **
 146
 147 based on 3.5 people? realistically only around 10 months.
 148 (EUR 50,000 cuts that by half).
 149
 150