By: UMsCode (Btactad23.delete@this.aol.com), August 31, 2022 9:00 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (a.delete@this.non.com) on August 31, 2022 6:50 pm wrote:
> Wes Felter (wmf.delete@this.felter.org) on August 31, 2022 4:47 pm wrote:
> > The Register adds a tidbit: "According to people familiar with the matter, Qualcomm's architectural
> > license today is limited to its mobile processors, while Nuvia's applies to datacenter chips."
>
> Odd, since Centriq was a custom implementation, thus should have required a license. Or did ARM do
> some shenanigans with needing new licenses for newer architecture versions? Perhaps Nuvia's is a V9.
Who Owns Nuvia's Underlying Micro-architectural design that's engineered to execute that Licensed ARM ISA? And I can not Imagine that ARM Claims the rights to that as that's not ARM Holdings' IP. So on Modern CPU designs there's some ISA Decoder and Micro-code Execution Engine that's designed to interpret the Assembly Language/Op Codes(ISA) and break that down to run on that specific designer's hardware implementation. I'd really love to hear Jim Keller's take on this as a Chip Designer and of AMD's Zen x86 cores and at the same time AMD's mothballed Custeom ARM K12 core design, and Keller's many other CISC and RISC ISA core designs. And there are Youtube Interviews with Jim Keller and Mark Papermaster at that time that has Jime Keller stating that K12 and Zen-1 where essentially the Same basic underlying rough design outline with different Decoder Front ends and different execution engines/Micro-Code engines in order to execute the different respective ISAs.
Apple's Custom A series ARM cores are all Apple IP save the License for that ARM ISA so I'd give anything to see that all defined in a Legal Manner as the experts are called in there to provide the definitions of all that.
> Wes Felter (wmf.delete@this.felter.org) on August 31, 2022 4:47 pm wrote:
> > The Register adds a tidbit: "According to people familiar with the matter, Qualcomm's architectural
> > license today is limited to its mobile processors, while Nuvia's applies to datacenter chips."
>
> Odd, since Centriq was a custom implementation, thus should have required a license. Or did ARM do
> some shenanigans with needing new licenses for newer architecture versions? Perhaps Nuvia's is a V9.
Who Owns Nuvia's Underlying Micro-architectural design that's engineered to execute that Licensed ARM ISA? And I can not Imagine that ARM Claims the rights to that as that's not ARM Holdings' IP. So on Modern CPU designs there's some ISA Decoder and Micro-code Execution Engine that's designed to interpret the Assembly Language/Op Codes(ISA) and break that down to run on that specific designer's hardware implementation. I'd really love to hear Jim Keller's take on this as a Chip Designer and of AMD's Zen x86 cores and at the same time AMD's mothballed Custeom ARM K12 core design, and Keller's many other CISC and RISC ISA core designs. And there are Youtube Interviews with Jim Keller and Mark Papermaster at that time that has Jime Keller stating that K12 and Zen-1 where essentially the Same basic underlying rough design outline with different Decoder Front ends and different execution engines/Micro-Code engines in order to execute the different respective ISAs.
Apple's Custom A series ARM cores are all Apple IP save the License for that ARM ISA so I'd give anything to see that all defined in a Legal Manner as the experts are called in there to provide the definitions of all that.
