←back to thread

I got almost all of my wishes granted with RP2350

(dmitry.gr)
700 points elipsitz | 5 comments | 08 Aug 24 13:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
blackkat ◴[08 Aug 24 15:02 UTC] No.41192280[source]▶
Some specs here: https://www.digikey.ca/en/product-highlight/r/raspberry-pi/r...

Based on the RP2350, designed by Raspberry Pi in the United Kingdom

Dual Arm M33s at 150 MHz with FPU

520 KiB of SRAM

Robust security features (signed boot, OTP, SHA-256, TRNG, glitch detectors and Arm TrustZone for Cortex®-M)

Optional, dual RISC-V Hazard3 CPUs at 150 MHz

Low-power operation

PIO v2 with 3 × programmable I/O co-processors (12 × programmable I/O state machines) for custom peripheral support

Support for PSRAM, faster off-chip XIP QSPI Flash interface

4 MB on-board QSPI Flash storage

5 V tolerant GPIOs

Open source C/C++ SDK, MicroPython support

Software-compatible with Pico 1/RP2040

Drag-and-drop programming using mass storage over USB

Castellated module allows soldering directly to carrier boards

Footprint- and pin-compatible with Pico 1 (21 mm × 51 mm form factor)

26 multifunction GPIO pins, including three analog inputs

Operating temperature: -20°C to +85°C

Supported input voltage: 1.8 VDC to 5.5 VDC

replies(5): >>41192318 #>>41192351 #>>41193287 #>>41194312 #>>41194963 #
1. my123 ◴[08 Aug 24 15:10 UTC] No.41192351[source]▶
Hazard3 RTL: https://github.com/Wren6991/Hazard3
replies(1): >>41194743 #
2. IshKebab ◴[08 Aug 24 18:33 UTC] No.41194743[source]▶
I wonder how well it's been verified.
replies(1): >>41198464 #
3. pclmulqdq ◴[09 Aug 24 03:00 UTC] No.41198464[source]▶
This is a really big deal. Verifying a core is hard, and if the repo doesn't come with a testbench, I'm very suspicious.
replies(1): >>41199390 #
4. IshKebab ◴[09 Aug 24 06:55 UTC] No.41199390{3}[source]▶
Even if it does I'm suspicious. The open source RISC-V verification systems are not very good at the moment:

* riscv-arch-tests: ok, but a very low bar. They don't even test combinations of instructions so no hazards etc. * riscv-test: decent but they're hand-written directed tests so they aren't going to get great coverage * TestRig: this is better - random instructions directly compared against the Sail model, but it's still fairly basic - the instructions are completely random so you're unlikely to cover lots of things. Also it requires some setup so they may not have ran it.

The commercial options are much better but I doubt they paid for them.

replies(1): >>41200035 #
5. my123 ◴[09 Aug 24 08:52 UTC] No.41200035{4}[source]▶
See https://github.com/Wren6991/Hazard3/tree/stable/test for the test harnesses used. I wonder if they did release all they used there.