Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Narishma 455 days ago
It may be technically space inefficient but they only added the RISC-V cores because they had area to spare. It didn't cost them much.
3 comments

Source for the RISC-V cores being essentially free (Luke Wren is the creator of the RISC-V core design used):

> The final die size would likely have been exactly the same with the Hazard3 removed, as std cell logic is compressible, and there is some rounding on the die dimensions due to constraints on the pad ring design.

https://nitter.space/wren6991/status/1821582405188350417

Funny thing is that it cost them more than you might think. It was the ability to switch to the riscv which made it (much) easier to glitch. See the "Hazardous threes" exploit [1]

[1] https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/security-through-transparen...

I wonder if they're using the same die for one or more microprocessor products that are RISC-V-only or ARM-only? They could be binning dies that fail testing on one or the other cores that way. Such a product might be getting sold under an entirely different brand name too.
They're not currently doing that but there is a documented way to permanently disable the ARM cores, so they could sell a cheaper RISC-V-only version of the same silicon if there's enough demand to justify another SKU.
That may be the plan for the future. Right now, this is a hedge / leverage against negotiations with ARM. For developers looking to test their code against a new architecture and compare it to known good code/behavior, it doesn’t get any easier than rebooting into the other core!