> My point is that before anyone writes in a public forum a conclusion
> that states that someone else has lied several times, if condition
> "X" is true, should be more careful, or verify the condition before
> writing such a statement, or perhaps choose to write the statement
> in a different way without the words liar, lying, etc.

I don't think your point makes sense. Maybe you should look up the concept of conditions and what they're used for. And I stand by what I said: If Varisys was A-Eon's CPU supplier, Trevor Dickinson would have lied to us. You see how the conclusion to become true requires the premise to be true beforehand? For this statement to make I don't need to verify if the premise is true or not.

> Being labeled as a liar

Nobody labelled Dickinson a liar here.

> I understand and agree with Trevor's angry
> response to the original statement by Andreas.

I don't see anything angry in his response.

> Mathias 'Corto' Parnaudeau's statement "the Amiga X1000, designed
> by the company Varisys, former PA Semi client and holder of a stock
> of processors to be resurrected" suddenly makes more sense.

Indeed. I must say though that another statement ("we were able to secure a supply of CPUs through Varisys") is still a bit of a mystery to me. Do you have an idea what that could mean specifically and how it would fit the story as we know it by now?

> By summer we should have our first objective reviews
> of [...] the P5020 evaluation board.

Who's going to do that review? :-)

Odd news on the P5020 evaluation board. I inquired about the default SerDes configuration and got this info.

Factory SerDes configuration for the P5020DS board is 0x36:
PCIe1 x2
PCIe3 x2
SGMII EC1
SGMII EC2
SGMII EC3
SGMII EC4
Debug x2
XAUI 10GEC
SATA1
SATA2

Of course it is possible to modify the RCW to use another SerDes configuration.

So as shipped, the PCIe lanes are relatively limited. Luckily we already know that we can reconfigure for one X8 PCIe or three X4 PCIe configurations.

As usual Andreas, you don't see anything you don't agree with.

> As usual Andreas, you don't see anything you don't agree with.

And you continue failing to grasp some simple concept. Don't now if that's usual with you, though.

> Factory SerDes configuration for the P5020DS board is 0x36

Alright, so overall only 16 of 18 available lanes in use per factory default.

> Of course it is possible to modify the RCW to use another SerDes configuration.

Am I reading this right that the SerDes lanes are not fixed on the P5020DS board and can be re-assigned? So far I thought that a board designer had to decide for one of the available configurations and hardwire that one. Reconfigurability on a fabricated board would be even nicer, of course.

Quote:

That part surprised me as well, but as this board is not a commercial product but rather a form that allows evaluation of the P5020, maybe they felt the need to include this option.
I was more surprised by the lack of an X4 configured PCIe slot in the default setup.
Running a PCIe video card at X2 would be possible but painful.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/12 1:15 ]

> as this board is not a commercial product but rather
> a form that allows evaluation of the P5020, maybe they
> felt the need to include this option.

Yes, makes sense to give the evaluator the option to evaluate the different SerDes configs as well, even if he most definitely won't want to give his own customers that option on his own commercial board later on.

> I was more surprised by the lack of an X4 configured
> PCIe slot in the default setup.

I bet the P5020DS's main target audience is not developers of boards aimed at desktop computing ;-)

>I bet the P5020DS's main target audience is not developers of boards aimed at desktop computing

Yes, many will be tying this to other systems via network, serial and USB connections. The majority of system my own company sold in the 80's and 90's were terminal based.
The P5 family is aimed at communications applications.
But as they're porting Linux to the board, I've just gotten used to a GUI.
I really don't know if I'd be up to dealing with CLI as my sole interface again.
Even though our older systems used Microware OS9 for the 68K (which I just received an e-mail on a current update) and this is somewhat Unix like, learning to use a Linux system via CLI does NOT interest me.
If I can find a way to obtain one of these boards I'm immediately working on enabling an X4 PCIe connection.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/12 2:06 ]

> Luckily we already know that we can reconfigure
> for [...] three X4 PCIe configurations.

I just discovered that the only configuration providing x4 x4 x4 ('0x14') doesn't provide any lane for SATA, so that would leave us with either x8 ('0x10') or x4 x4 x1 x1 ('0x2'), which both have all two SATA controllers connected (and use only 16 lanes overall out of 18 lanes).

Thanks, with those configuration I still don't understand why X8 and X1 aren't an option, but the X4, X4, X1 configuration is not a big loss (having one X1 in place of the last x4).
Are you telling me both SATA ports are run with one PCIe lane?

> with those configuration I still don't understand why X8 and X1 aren't an option

I don't understand either the reason there's no full configurability but 29 different fixed configurations you have to select one from. But Freescale told you so, and we have to accept that as fact for now.

> the X4, X4, X1 configuration is not a big loss (having one X1 in place of the last x4).

It's one x1 more, so all four PCIe controllers used in this configuration (and moreover, it's the *only* configuration with all four controllers used).

> Are you telling me both SATA ports are run with one PCIe lane?

No, I meant to tell that both configurations '0x10' and '0x2' have two (i.e. all existing) SATA controllers connected (using 1 SerDes lane per 1 SATA controller). Just look at the configuration file you thanked me so much for linking it. It's all in there.

Thanked you so much for? Until you referenced this, I hadn't been able to get anything like it out of Freescale. I couldn't even get a count of the number of available PCIe lanes available to the controllers.
Now, between what you've dug up and what they've recently divulged we have a better idea of how the P5 processor handle SerDes configuration and what available options there are.
Considering the Freescale has not lifted the NDA on these products I think your contribution to this was pretty significant.
You have a way of ferreting out useful information like this that is remarkable.

From what Freescale has told me, the evaluation board may be ready before the NDA is lifted. they've got a conference scheduled (I think for June) during which one of the topics to be covered will be porting Linux to the P5 (so my guess is that they haven't completed this yet).

Until we hear more from APM, the e5500 looks to be the most promising PPC to be recently announced. You brought this up before many were even aware of it.
Come to think of it, both you and Varisys' staff, started pointing to the QorIQ platform at about the same time.

> Thanked you so much for?

Yes, there:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7183&forum=3&post_id=82274#82274

> Until you referenced this, I hadn't been able to get anything like it out of Freescale.

You mean they started giving you more information because they became aware that you had become aware of that link? Or was it just coincidence?

> between what you've dug up and what they've recently divulged we have
> a better idea of how the P5 processor handle SerDes configuration and what
> available options there are.

To be precise, we did know the options from the link I dug up already. The new information from Freescale was that those 29 ready-made configurations are really the only configurations available and that there's no way to create an own configuration.

> Considering the Freescale has not lifted the NDA on these products
> I think your contribution to this was pretty significant.

I think we should thank Freescale's Kumar Gala for this as he posted those information in January to a public mailing list for the whole world to read ;-)

> they've got a conference scheduled (I think for June) during which one of the
> topics to be covered will be porting Linux to the P5

Yes, the annual Freescale Technology Forum. The titles of this year's technical sessions have already been published:

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=FTF_2011_AMERICA_SESSIONS_CAT

From the 'Networking' tab:

"QorIQ P5020DS Processor: Overcome the Challenges in Porting U-Boot and Linux Operating System"

And also interesting:

"Using Freescale's AltiVec SIMD Engine for Graphics, Image Processing, Radar, Video Surveillance and Other Applications"

They didn't have sessions on AltiVec for some years. I guess this is going to be a foretaste of AltiVec-enabled QorIQ T.

> so my guess is that they haven't completed this yet

I think they may have, but they surely wouldn't antedate the FTF just because of this ;-)

> You brought this up before many were even aware of it.

Actually, I became aware of the e5500 only some hours before it was officially announced in June 2010 by Freescale, while public sources had been (unnoticed by me) mentioning it as 'e500mc64' since November 2009 at least. The P5020 was even explicitely mentioned in August 2009 already (but not revealed as being 64-bit back then).

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6313&forum=11&post_id=72666#72666
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6313&forum=11&post_id=74067#74067
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=74074#74074

So you see, I was rather late to that party ;-)

> both you and Varisys' staff, started pointing to the QorIQ platform
> at about the same time.

I don't know when Varisys started pointing to the QorIQ, but I started in January 2009:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6196&forum=11&post_id=61505#61505

And as you can see, not in a too favourable way back then ;-) February 2009 was when I began to see the suitability of QorIQ somewhat:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6196&forum=11&post_id=62074#62074

>So you see, I was rather late to that party

I missed the party completely. At least you brought it up and drew everyone's attention to it.

>Actually, I became aware of the e5500 only some hours before it was officially announced in June 2010

At the time I was focused on Powermacs, as there seemed t6o be no point to continuing to explore the MPC86XX processors. Since I wasn't paying the least bit of attention to Freescale I completely missed it.

>And as you can see, not in a too favourable way back then February 2009 was when I began to see the suitability of QorIQ somewhat:

OK, before I had contact with Varisys, and the initial negative view? Understandable considering that the e500 is a significant step down from the e600.

So, whether later than some others or borrowing references from sources you found, it was all useful news to me. Right now I've got more information on this processor than I've ever had without an NDA. And since I don't feel like going to the trouble of setting up a corporate website, I'm not asking Freescale for an NDA (at least not yet).

So, yes, THANKS.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/13 23:40 ]

> the initial negative view? Understandable considering that the e500
> is a significant step down from the e600.

Problem was that it took me some time to become aware of the e500mc. As you can read in the postings I linked to I originally mistook the faster and more suited e500mc based QorIQ chips to be e500v2 based like the slower and less suited QorIQ chips.

> since I don't feel like going to the trouble of setting up a corporate website,
> I'm not asking Freescale for an NDA (at least not yet).

So it's not just Applied Micro expecting its NDA partners to have a website, but Freescale as well? You once said you had an NDA with Freescale at some point in time (which somehow got lost because your contact at Freescale had vanished). Did you have a website back then? Or did Freescale's requirements change in that regard?

Btw, I don't know if you missed it, but could you please answer my question? (It was: You mean they started giving you more information because they became aware that you had become aware of that link? Or was it just coincidence?)

>Problem was that it took me some time to become aware of the e500mc.

I didn't look into that till you pointed it out. You'd assume that e500s would be more or less identical except for clock speed. And that assumption makes perfect sense. You actually have to go over the specs to realize its not another e500v2.

>So it's not just Applied Micro expecting its NDA partners to have a website, but Freescale as well? You once said you had an NDA with Freescale at some point in time (which somehow got lost because your contact at Freescale had vanished). Did you have a website back then? Or did Freescale's requirements change in that regard?

Yes, Freescale has adopted this policy as have a lot of other companies. Also, I get the impression that a fair number of people left the company at about the time plans for the e700 were dropped and they started to invest more in ARM technology.
The thing that surprised me is that I had a contact in the technical support department and in sales (the MPC8640Ds were actually supplied by technical support which is a little unusual). In the time between when they sent me the MPC8640D samples and when you brought up the e5500 cored processors both individuals had left the company.

I'm not sure a website is the greatest idea since I'm still discussing using a currently unused corporate name with the wife of one of my former employers (and paying for a S corp. instead of the current LLC).
To be honest with you, in the last few years the only reason I paid to maintain the last companies business license is so I could write off certain expenses and lower my tax burden.

Its easier to work for someone else than to continue to hustle looking for contracts yourself.


[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/14 1:03 ]

> You'd assume that e500s would be more or less identical except for clock speed.

Actually, both e500v2 and e500mc reach up to 1.5 GHz. It's only the QorIQ chips where e500v2 maxes out at 1.2 GHz. In the PowerQUICC III the e500v2 core reaches up to 1.5 GHz.

> You actually have to go over the specs to realize its not another e500v2.

Unfortunately, I slightly misremembered what my misconception prior to February 2009 actually was. I said that I had thought all QorIQ chips were to be based on e500v2. But that is not true. I actually knew from the start about the e500mc and which QorIQ chips were to be based on that core instead of the e500v2. What I wasn't aware of back then is that the e500mc got a proper FPU which the e500v2 misses. Instead, I believed the only advantage of the e500mc over the e500v2 to be that more than just two of them could be connected to form multicore chips (e500v2 can be used only for single or dual-core).

> at about the time plans for the e700 were dropped

You actually know when that was? I ask because I don't have a clue, and public information on that are conflicting.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6196&forum=11&post_id=72301#72301
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=74210#74210

>You actually know when that was? I ask because I don't have a clue, and public information on that are conflicting.

No you didn't get a straight answer on this from the company at all.
All mention of the e700 just disappeared.
I guess Freescale didn't see a market for it.
And like I mentioned earlier, suddenly a lot of people left the company.
The P5 surprised me because I, like a lot of people, assumed they were re-focusing on ARM.

> All mention of the e700 just disappeared.

All the more strange that a Freescale presentation as recent as June 2010 mentions the e700 (see my links).

> I guess Freescale didn't see a market for it.

Considering that the e5500 actually is what the e700 was supposed to be after Apple's Intel switch announcement (which made Freescale change the e700's base from e600 to e500) they apparently see a market for it again.

> The P5 surprised me

The information that there will be a P5 outdoing the P4 in performance was published by Freescale when they introduced the QorIQ family and announced its first (P1, P2 and P4) members in June 2008. The P5's exact nature was not revealed back then, though. What surprised me in particular with the P5 was that it's a 64-bit chip. I didn't see that coming until few hours before the official announcement.

>they apparently see a market for it again.

Yep, a different one.

An e600 offshoot might have had a better expansion slot scheme.

> Yep, a different one.

What did Freescale claim as the MPC87xx's target market after Apple's switch to Intel? I can't find any information on this.

Quote:

I'm not sure what they thought the target for the MPC86XX markets was (especially after Apple's departure). The processors were too high priced compared to the (non PPC) alternatives.

Was there ever an outline of the basic features for the e700 cored products?

> I'm not sure what they thought the target for the MPC86XX markets
> was (especially after Apple's departure).

But how can you know that now with QorIQ P5 it's a different one then? (Btw, it's 87xx, not 86xx.)

> The processors were too high priced compared to the (non PPC) alternatives.

I don't think there were ever any prices mentioned for the MPC87xx anywhere.

> Was there ever an outline of the basic features for the e700 cored products?

Yes, numerous, and some of them kept changing over time. The MPC87xx was supposed to feature (selection from various points in time):

- single-core (87xx) and dual-core (87xxD) variant
- 65 nm
- <20 Watts single-core (don't know about dual-core)
- 3.0+ GHz (later decreased to 2.5+ GHz, then further decreased to 2.4 GHz)
- 1 MiB L2 cache per core
- 1 GHz DDR2/3 memory controller per core
- two PCIe controllers
- SRIO
- four GbE controllers
- pattern matching
- TCP offloading
- L4-7 content processing

>Btw, it's 87xx, not 86xx.

I actually did mean 86XX (as they are still available after Apple's departure, but are now somewhat pointless with the introduction of the P5).

I've rarely seen the X700 cored products (what ever they would have been like) refereed to as MPC87xxs (although that is what they would have likely been called).

Were there any real details (let alone prices)?