|
Message
From: Günter Dannoritzer<dannoritzer@w...>
Date: Fri May 9 12:31:02 CEST 2008
Subject: [oc] How to sell an open core?
marcus.erlandsson@o... wrote:
> Providing OpenSource IP (OSIP) is necessary in order to take the next
> step up in design methodology, we can’t re-invent the wheel for every
> design.
> Another beauty with OSIP is that if the core is frequently used, then
> this core is more verified then commercial cores, since its being
> tested by so many different engineers world-wide in different ways.
I fully agree. But opencores.org lacks a feed back here.
At the moment it is a one way street. There are developers that put up
code on the web page. Then there are users that use the code.
The first think I don't like is, that already the developer can not get
any feed back from the download form. What I mean is, if someone wants
to download the code, s/he has to fill out a form. The developer does
not get any feed back from that.
The next lack is that there is no encouragement for a user to provide
feed back.
It would be great if a user could provide feed back about how simple or
complicated it was to implement a core. Then the developer could get
some ranking about how good his/her cores are.
In addition there could be a statistic how often a core got implemented
in what technology.
> The benefits from a developer standpoint are to get help with the
> extensive work in verifying the core. We all know that the design
> proportion of an IP is 10-20% and the rest is simulation/verification.
Now, I think that opencores should also allow some more distinction
here. You are saying that an implemented core improves the core through
feed back by the user. But that feed back is not encouraged. Some people
may even not give it, as they don't want to show that they are using
that core.
On the other side, a developer on opencores is considered a developer of
a core. That is somewhat natural, as that is at the end all a user
wants. But actually, what a user wants is a verified core. So why not
also have the possibility to add a verification project?
For example, Teal/Truss http://trusster.com is a C++ based verification
framework and the developers used the opencores UART in one of the
examples. It would be great if they could have set up a new project for
their code and add a link to the UART project.
Then a user going to the UART project page, would see that someone else
did some verification effort to that core, not related to the developer.
I mean part of the verification problem is, that the developer tends to
be blind for own development errors, so having someone else do the
verification will increase quality.
Just some thought and sorry for the long post.
Cheers,
Guenter
|
 |
Browse
