On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:42:42PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
Hi Jamie,
I like the idea, but do you know of anyone using OpenCores devices
implemented in silicon? It seems to me the motivation for ARM
emulation is to be able to simulate embedded devices that people may
feasibly end up
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:42:42PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
Hi Jamie,
I like the idea, but do you know of anyone using OpenCores devices
implemented in silicon? It seems to me the motivation for ARM
emulation is to be able to simulate embedded devices that people may
feasibly end up
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Chris Wilson wrote:
I find it strange that ARM would restrict emulation of their architecture
-- that could hardly pose a threat to their business, I would say.
Unfortunately, I don't. ARM probably makes quite a lot of money from
their development
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Karel Gardas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
:
: Chris Wilson wrote:
: I find it strange that ARM would restrict emulation of their architecture
: -- that could hardly pose a threat to their business, I would say.
:
IMHO majority of embedded devices is still ARM7TDMI based and this
instruction set (ARMv4 IIRC) should be emulated well in Qemu.
Depends which market segments you're aiming at.
If you're aiming at well established legacy or cheap, low-end hardware then
yes armv4t is fine.
If you want to use
Hi Jamie,
I like the idea, but do you know of anyone using OpenCores devices
implemented in silicon? It seems to me the motivation for ARM
emulation is to be able to simulate embedded devices that people may
feasibly end up using.
I'm no expert, but it appears that OpenCores have a working
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:06:07 +0300
Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01 Apr 2006, at 22:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
and they have been an extensive user of software patents,
And how:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/legal/summaries/2004/o29204.htm
The invention in this case
The way I understand this is that anyone who got ARM documentation with
the license that Paul mentioned, could not contribute patches that
implement v6 emulation. If, however, someone else (who has not signed such
a license) were to buy documentation about the ARMv6 architecture that
comes
Wolfgang Schildbach wrote:
The way I understand this is that anyone who got ARM documentation with
the license that Paul mentioned, could not contribute patches that
implement v6 emulation. If, however, someone else (who has not signed such
a license) were to buy documentation about the
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 03:30:30PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
I wonder about patents (and their validity).
A MIPS hardware implementation that I worked with had all the basic
MIPS integer instructions except one small group, on the ground that
those instructions were covered by a MIPS
Note that the new ARM ABI being pushed by ARM ltd, which is called
EABI, mandates using a thumb-related instruction (bx) in the function
exit path.
No it doesn't. The EABI mandates that code be interworking safe.
It's possible to implement this is an way that only uses bx when actually
Hello list,
Running an ARM application in user mode emulation (qemu CVS version of
3-15-2006), my code crashes at an SMMUL instruction (this is part of the
ARMv6 instruction set). A brief glance at translate.c and op.c seems to
suggest that qemu does not emulate that instruction (yet). Before
Thanks, Paul. That explains it...
I find it strange that ARM would restrict emulation of their architecture
-- that could hardly pose a threat to their business, I would say.
Anyhow, thanks for the note.
- Wolfgang
Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29.03.2006 16:39:12:
On Wednesday 29
Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ARMv6 architecture is released under a more restrictive licence than
ARMv5. The Arm licencing department have explicitly prohibited the
distribution of open source ARMv6/v7 emulators.
We're trying to get this restriction lifted, but so far to no
Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qemu cvs only supports ARMv5TE.
The ARMv6 architecture is released under a more restrictive
licence than ARMv5. The Arm licencing department have explicitly
prohibited the distribution of open source ARMv6/v7 emulators.
We're trying to get this
I could understand a claim if someone acquired ARM's documentation
under an agreement to not produce an emulator.
That's exactly where the restriction comes from.
Theoretically it may be possible to reverse engineer a good proportion of
ARMv6 from other sources (eg. gcc). However if that
So it's a purely contractual issue as opposed to an IP issue.Is a party to this contract allowed to write a disassembler? I can imagine a very nice disassembler feature that would explain in detail how each instruction it decodes works...
Of course no matter how such documentation were to escape,
Paul Brook wrote:
Better would be to lobby ARM to allow open source emulators.
I'd like to use ARM hardware for big project, but qemu doesn't support
ARMv7 so I'm thinking of using PowerPC instead is a particularly good
argument ;-)
I suspect ARM's business model - dependent wholly on
18 matches
Mail list logo
