Envelope-to: publicinbox@libre-riscv.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 09 May 2020 10:12:49 +0100
Message-ID: <792ac37b0c72350337f07c758d51a24eaa9ac532.camel@fibraservi.eu>
From: Staf Verhaegen <staf@fibraservi.eu>
To: libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 11:12:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3BD26F5C-BB6D-4011-89E6-EC06215DEDEA@gatech.edu>
References: <3BD26F5C-BB6D-4011-89E6-EC06215DEDEA@gatech.edu>
Organization: FibraServi bvba
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [libre-riscv-dev] Pinout, interfaces, Rudi, and Raptor
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Libre-RISCV General Development
 <libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1441781585780467197=="
Errors-To: libre-riscv-dev-bounces@lists.libre-riscv.org
Sender: "libre-riscv-dev" <libre-riscv-dev-bounces@lists.libre-riscv.org>


--===============1441781585780467197==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-q7g7wYzd/YlocVdASqQr"


--=-q7g7wYzd/YlocVdASqQr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yehowshua schreef op vr 08-05-2020 om 10:20 [-0400]:
> Hello Luke,	So I see we have some pinout sdefine here.
> https://libre-soc.org/shakti/m_class/pinouts/ <https://libre-soc.org/shak=
ti/m_class/pinouts/>
>=20
> My suggestion is to drop the pinmux for now. We should probably update th=
at page(or create a similar page) to reflect what we=E2=80=99re targeting f=
or October.
> IIRC, we=E2=80=99re targeting QFP. I don=E2=80=99t see the dimensions or =
form factor we=E2=80=99re targeting listed there however. We should talk ab=
out that.
> Also, talked with Tim and SDR could work for the first SBC. LiteX also su=
pports SDR which is good for us as it doesn=E2=80=99t require a PHY like DD=
R making it simpler.

You refer to a first SBC preferably low-cost. The October prototype tape-ou=
t will not be cost-effective for that. It is a multi-project wafer. You can=
 order extra wafers but it does mean that the cost of that wafer is divided=
 over much less devices; meaning the cost will be around $32 per chip and s=
ome of them will not be functional; in microelectrics you never have 100% y=
ield. Also I think there is limit on only be able to get at most 1000 chips=
 this way.

If you want lower cost per unit you need to go for a full mask with a so-ca=
lled engineering lot of 12 wafers. This will have a high startup cost. A fi=
rst crude estimation is between $70000 and $75000. This give a few thousand=
 of chips; exact number depends on the size of the chip. An extra engineeri=
ng lot of 12 wafers will be around $18000.
For this it means you will need to a new tape-out so you can add extra peri=
pherals that were not on the prototype tape-out.

greets,
Staf.


--=-q7g7wYzd/YlocVdASqQr--


--===============1441781585780467197==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KbGlicmUtcmlz
Y3YtZGV2IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApsaWJyZS1yaXNjdi1kZXZAbGlzdHMubGlicmUtcmlzY3Yub3Jn
Cmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5saWJyZS1yaXNjdi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saWJyZS1yaXNj
di1kZXYK

--===============1441781585780467197==--