On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:00:47PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
> On 9/5/05, Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
> > I like the thinking in this thread a _lot_. I think the letter
> > combination OGA will suggest the right concepts to the intended audience.
> > The fully written-out phrase is even better. How about:
> >
> > OGA means Open Graphics Architecture.
> > Any ASIC that implements an OGA is an OGA IC.
> > Any board containing an OGA implementation is an OGA Card.
>
> I'm diggin' this.
>
> >
> > Those would become generic trade names for a broad class of
> > products, rather than names for specific products. Now, if we do it that
> > way, do we still need product names, or is it enough to give each product a
> > unique part number that identifies its exact features within the category
> > "OGA Card"? Traversal board part numbers might begin OGA- or OGA1-.
> > (Since there may be more than one OGA spec over time, we might want
> > to start right off calling the first architecture implemented in ASIC
> > OGA1. The alternative is to call the first one OGA and any successors OGA2,
> > OGA3, etc., but I think that's more likely to invite confusion.)
>
> I'm cool with OGA1, OGA2, etc. for spec names, although I think we
> should use a decimalized version number. We'll have OGA1.1 at some
> point, and the chip will be called the OGA1.1 IC. You won't have a
> chip without a corresponding spec, and if there's a deviation (like
> there's an update to the spec that doesn't require an IC change), we
> can use names like OGA1.3.1. This general 1-to-1 correspondence
> between spec and IC should alleviate confusion.
Several different concepts are getting mixed together. Let me try
to pull them apart.
The architecture might end up being described in a suite of spec
documents and standards. Also, it's entirely possible that some spec
documents might be used in the definition and development of successor chip
designs and graphics architectures. So we should not assume a one-to-one
correspondence between ASICs and spec documents, or construct a nomenclature
system that requires that. I suggest we keep them in separate name/number
universes.
OVERALL ARCHITECTURE NAME
Working from earlier suggestions in this thread, I suggested that
OGA be the generic name for the entire graphics architecture being developed
for the ASIC and its board products. It would not be the name of any single
product, it would be the umbrella trade name for the whole architecture and
all the products that use it.
Thus, once the customers become aware of the meaning of OGA, they'd
know the compatibility offered in any OGA product.
If we're wildly successful, there may be succeeding generations of
Open Graphics Architectures, with different register interfaces. They could
be distinguished as OGA-1, OGA-2, etc.
DRIVER NAME
Since all OGA (or OGA-1) products should look the same to the driver,
the X.org driver could reasonably be named oga.
SPECS AND STANDARDS
The specs that document the Open Graphics Architectures (OGA-1 and
any later-generation successors) could be issued as Open Graphics Project
documents. The typical numbering practice in standards organizations is to
give each document a unique identifier made up of three fields: the name of
the issuing organization, a unique integer, and a revision letter.
Following that familiar practice, all published documents that OGP
standardizes would form the OGP series.
As an example, the IPC standard for printed circuit board acceptance
criteria is formally called ANSI/IPC 600 or ANSI/IPC-600. It was initially
issued without a revision letter. The next official version was
ANSI/IPC-600-A. I think it's up to D or E now.
Since we wouldn't seek accreditation from ANSI or ISO as an official
standards body, our prefix would be plain OGP. I suggest reserving that
letter combination for OGP standardization documents, and not use it in any
part numbers or trade names. Thus, OGP documents would be numbered OGP-1,
OGP-2, and so on.
ASIC PART NUMBERS
The biggest problem in IC part numbering is to avoid conflict with
the hundreds of thousands of existing part numbers. There are
well-established IC part number format practices. ICs aren't sold directly
to computer users or builders, so they can be numbered according to IC
practices. It's very common to pick a 2 or 3 letter prefix to uniquely
identify the manufacturer. This opens up an entire conflict-free universe
of company part numbers.
Following practices used by National Semiconductor, Analog Devices,
and Linear Technology, I proposed TRV as a Traversal prefix, and TRV14 as
the basic part number for the first OGA chip design. It would have suffix
characters for performance grade, temperature range, and package -- again,
in accordance with typical industry practice.
I researched TRV as a company prefix and TRV14 as an IC part number,
and found them free of conflicts. Actually, TRV10 and up were all free.
GRAPHICS BOARD PART NUMBERS (NAMES)
Your suggestion to use OGC for cards using OGA chips should work
well. OGC could be both a generic trade name for a broad family of boards,
and the start of the part number structure. Boards are likely to spawn new
generations much faster than chips, so it would probably be wise to put a
number after the prefix right from the beginning, as you show below. As
noted earlier, I'd also include the bus type in the prefix characters before
the first dash, because each bus type requires a separate bare board layout,
and is thus a distinct product family.
>
> As for the PCB, one chip will give us many boards. We could just give
> them OGC names, completely independent of of the ASIC revision. And,
> as discussed before, we could name the model where a letter
> corresponds to a feature, of course preferring popular letters like
> 'X', 'L', 'Z', and 'Q'. :) So, we'd have the basic board being the
> "OGC1 X" (because it has TV), and a version that has twice as much
> memory is the "OGC1 XL", etc.
When you get into specific features, we should be dealing with part
numbers, not trade names. It might be helpful to have a few names for broad
families of boards, such as "the OGC1 family". The logical association
between a few family trade names and a large block of systematically
assigned part numbers might also be helpful, but it should be remembered
that names and part numbers are different things with different purposes.
Part numbers don't contain spaces. Ever. For any kind of product.
MRP managers will scream bloody murder if you try it. They don't even like
slashes, or other characters that have special meaning in command lines.
I've been screamed at for that. The accepted character set for part numbers
consists of letters, digits, dashes, and decimal points. Anything else
should be considered with great care.
So, a legitimate part number for a PCI graphics board belonging to
the OGC1 family, with an OGA chip and TV and DVI output options, might be
something like:
OGC1P-128VD
The standard options should have fields at fixed locations in the
part number, and have mnemonic coding if possible. This marketroid stuff
with X and XL having purely arbitrary meanings, if they mean anything at
all, is a PITA to someone trying to figure out what to order. Call the
video-out option V or TV, or something a customer can remember.
DEVELOPMENT BOARD PART NUMBERS (NAMES)
> >
> > We'd need a different name for the FPGA development board, since
> > it's not a fixed implementation of OGA or whatever we finally call it. I
> > suggested Bridgehead the other day (or Beachhead). Opinions?
>
> I don't see why we can't continue with the same naming convention. We
> could use OG, because it IS associated with the project, or we could
> use TT because it's a Traversal product, so it's TTP1 or something
> like that. I think OGP for that is nice, but it might cause
> confusion, unless the Open Graphics Project is renamed to something
> like the Open Graphics Foundation, but that's pointless until there's
> a group of contributors large enough to need their own governance.
Well, if you buy the idea of reserving OGP for the OGP document
series, how about OGD (for development) or OGF (for FPGA)? Not that there's
anything wrong with OG, but OGD is perhaps more specific. OGD could be both
a family trade name for all the versions of development boards, and the
prefix for development board part numbers.
I'd still tack on a series number and bus letter, to create a number
universe that can encompass later design generations and multiple bus types;
thus, the first designs would have part numbers that begin with
OGD1P
How's that sound?
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
