[email protected] writes: > From: Rich Pieri <[email protected]> > > I feel the need to turn this on its head: why do you think RISC-V > *isn't* well-defined? Your arguments imply that you think RISC-V is > some kind of half-baked amateur CPU architecture with no academic or > industrial support.
I believe that RISC-V is getting to be a reasonably mature *CPU architecture*. But that's not the point that I'm talking about. My question is whether the RISC-V ecosystem is matured to the point where it can be conveniently used by multiple manufacturers in typical desktop/laptop systems. Everyone who has spoken to that point, and the web pages I've read, have said that sort of "system I/O architecture" hasn't been solidified for RISC-V. Of course, that doesn't matter for embedded systems -- the builders are going to be working with the details of the hardware interfaces anyway. And embedded systems are the bulk of the computers shipped. But my question is about the whitebox PC shop around the corner, not the makers of widgets with embedded computers. Of course, that latter is the bulk of industrial use of computers, but again, I'm not interested in that. Dale _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
