Microchip Opens Early Access Program for RISC-V Enabled Low-Power PolarFire SoC

[EverydayMuffin]

Announced the other day. PolarFire FPGA with hard 64-bit quad-core processor. Seems like an interesting device architecture. ...thoughts?

https://www.microchip.com/en/pressreleasepage/microchip-unveils-PolarFire-SoC-early-access-program

[lawrence11]

Pretty insane.

[brucehoult]

At the summit they were showing off a board with both a Polarfire FPGA and an FU540 SoC as a dev system until they get the FPGAs with the FU540 actually inside them. They didn't say when or who would be able to get one, or the price.

[chickenHeadKnob]

Announced the other day. PolarFire FPGA with hard 64-bit quad-core processor. Seems like an interesting device architecture. ...thoughts?

I will wait until they announce what the development tools will cost before getting excited. It seems they are offering micro-semi's Libero software with 60 day evaluation licence, and a conditional table of supported/unsupported chips. Who needs that shit. Sell chips and give away the software already.

https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/design-resources/1711-licensing

[asmi]

I would love to play with this chip if it will be hobbyist-friendly - both physically (affordable price, reasonable ball pitch package), and from software standpoint.

[colorado.rob]

I would love to play with this chip if it will be hobbyist-friendly - both physically (affordable price, reasonable ball pitch package), and from software standpoint.

Totally with you.  Polarfire FPGAs are attractive because their SoCs typically have much better power consumption characteristics than the big vendors.  But their dev boards and software were expensive, as was their IP.

Work with the Yosys folks and let me generate a bitstream with open source tools.  Spend your development resources providing a good UI to integrate these tools.

[asmi]

Work with the Yosys folks and let me generate a bitstream with open source tools.  Spend your development resources providing a good UI to integrate these tools.

I prefer using vendor tools because they are just better than any OS stuff I've seen at the moment. My point is there has to be a free version of tools which is good enough to actually use the chip to the full extent - meaning no BS like "you can use these HW blocks, but not these ones". It's OK to have paid versions of software, similarly I have no problems with paid IP as long as these purchases are not required to fully utilize the chip.