Hi,
We asked the OpenRISC-ASIC-donors if they wanted to handle the communication via mailinglists or webforum, and the majority voted for using a webforum. So all communication about this project should be handled in the OpenRISC-ASIC webforum. Just create new topic if you want to discuss a specific item.

One milestone was to prove the commitment of this project, so we developed a new FPGA development board that supported the basic interfaces that might get implemented in the planned OpenRISC-ASIC. We also created a "test SoC design" that can act as a "base design" for the OpenRISC-ASIC. The schematic is available on the ordb2a-board-page, and the board is sold at self cost via OpenCores webshop. The plan is to enable donors and other engineers to acquire a board and help out with the OpenRISC-ASIC design, both with RTL development, testning and defining that functions should be included. So the status right now is the many OpenCores users are buying a board and have started to test it and hopefully they will soon get back with feedback/improvements etc. So that we can continue together and define what needs to be added and how we will implement these. So feel free to pitch in and join the team.

regards,
Marcus Erlandsson

I understand, but so far there haven't been many posts about the development itself, if any. In the case of the FPGA development board it was presented when already available (about which making the design files available could help other people interested in their own openrisc-related projects, since building a PCB from scratch with the schematic pdf is far from straightforward).

Indeed people may participate now to provide their own opinion but as things are going we might as well expect an updated FPGA version on which again people outside the design team have had no real decision power since the design process is opaque. I'm afraid this approach isn't that far from a commercial one (except for the non-profit part of course!)

According to the new Newsletter, System-on-Module based on an ARM SoC and an ALTERA FPGA is being developed. Does this mean you guys have given up developing OpenRISC ASIC?

Hi,
On the contrary, OpenRISC-ASIC would fit perfectly on the module, replacing the ARM-chip. Then you would have a portfolio of developing products requiring different performance, but still use the same processor/toolchain, providing full flexibility to re-use software and move it easily between HW-platforms.
We are currently contacting different Semiconductor companies and Universities, in order to find a solution to get access to backend-tools and production at a subsidized cost.

Hello, are there any plans of releasing fabrication or project files for the boards, even if just the gerbers? It would be more of an "open" platform if one didn't have to create a full custom version from scratch when moving from the development board, and PDFs aren't that great for that purpose.

I understand after all there's a company behind all this, but as a developer I think people would be more interested in buying these products if the design effort after evaluation was lower. Most manufacturers of development boards provide those files (even though I have to admit their margins are greater and/or their business is FPGA themselves).

Thanks

Has the option of using a commercial ASIC company that is already manufacturing OpenRISC been considered?
I just noticed that eASIC offers OpenRISC 1200 as a part of their standard catalogue:

http://www.easic.com/easic-ez-ip-cores/microprocessor-peripherals-ips/openrisc-1200-processor-core/

It could be cheaper to just ask them to spin us a ASIC-chip with the core and a bunch of peripherals. They even might be willing to do so for publicity. They even could have a ready-made designs for one.

I'm interested in running Linux on a "completely open platform", and while using a commercial closed-doors ASIC vendor may be a step back, at least it would make OpenRISC a feasible target. For example, for porting Debian to OpenRISC. The 32MB RAM FPGA dev board offered by OpenCores is not really suitable for software development. 256MB is a minimum, and even then compiling larger programs is a pain.