• Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Posts: 11789 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > Nvidia have 2 options:
    > 1) Take an existing ARM core and tweak it to run faster.
    > 2) Get an Architecture license and design their own core.

    I think it has already been established from the start that nVidia is going for option #2 with "Denver". What isn't clear yet is what still to be revealed ARM ISA version they'll base the chip on.

    > Hope that answers that one.

    Depends on what (you think) the question was about, actually ;-)

    > At best they'll be able to look at Linux code

    Or even better from a legal point of view: *BSD code :-)

    > For an ARM port they can get the docs for the ARM architecture
    > by going to ARM, filling in a form and downloading them. That
    > won't give them the full docs to whatever chip they target but it's
    > better than reverse engineering.

    How is having an ARM ISA version's documentation and trying to port an OS to an ARM SoC with a core based on that ARM ISA version any better than having a Power ISA version's documentation and trying to port an OS to a machine with a discrete PPC CPU based on that Power ISA version? You won't even need to fill in a form to get whatever Power ISA version's docs you want:


    So I don't think there's much reverse engineering involved in porting MorphOS to the PPC970 CPU.

    > As for 64 bit, scroll to the bottom of this page.

    Thanks for this insightful link. To quote the relevant part for lazy bums: "Hitherto, we've decided it's not been sensible to have 64-bit programs. Extended memory addressing at 40 bits is in the latest Cortex-A15 ... but we haven't had the need for a 64-bit [arithmetic logic unit]."

    Seeing how the tenses have been used in this statement I believe it can't be ruled out that a yet to be revealed ARM ISA (which "Denver" is supposed to be based on) will be 64-bit. Any objections? Not being a native English speaker I could have interpreted the specific usage of tenses in a wrong way.
  • »13.01.11 - 00:59