The Boundary Between Hardware And Software(gnu.org)
gnu.org
The Boundary Between Hardware And Software
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/hardware-software-boundary.html
9 comments
Hi, I understand and agree with what you say and like the functional language suggestion perhaps augmented as in functional-reactive (a hunch), but I can't help pointing at a post from the Xilinx blog yesterday praising a workflow that leaves out HDL in favour of C++, so the world is getting more complex.
"Now, although you don’t see any Verilog or VHDL in the above tool flow,..."
http://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xcell-Daily-Blog/SDSoC-developme...
Though Zynq is ARM+FPGA, in principle one should be able to do the same with a soft processor cum custom coprocessing logic in a fpga-only thing.
"Now, although you don’t see any Verilog or VHDL in the above tool flow,..."
http://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xcell-Daily-Blog/SDSoC-developme...
Though Zynq is ARM+FPGA, in principle one should be able to do the same with a soft processor cum custom coprocessing logic in a fpga-only thing.
That's really cool. It looks like the ARM is doing the heavy lifting, though, and is supplemented by custom hardware (likely Xilinx's many hardware IPs) that the ARM farms things out to. I'm not saying this sort of thing has no place, and I think it's awesome, but you need the ASIC processor for this to be fast. This is perfect for Zynq because of the built-in ARM. You are right that it is also possible with just an FPGA, but FPGA logic is an order of magnitude slower than ASIC. People still do this sort of thing with soft processors though. Probably a lot.
The limits of this is you're not making custom IP, but rather using a library of digital logic designs provided by Xilinx. Which works well for a lot of use cases, but it's not on the same abstraction level as actually describing the hardware itself.
The limits of this is you're not making custom IP, but rather using a library of digital logic designs provided by Xilinx. Which works well for a lot of use cases, but it's not on the same abstraction level as actually describing the hardware itself.
Well said.
Different sides of the same dice I guess. There's a chapter in SICP dealing with conversion from functional to register machines. Sure, FP maps the electronic dataflow quite nicely. But stateful imperative expression isn't that far from the hardware too.
My dream : FP-ish abstrations at any layer (so called hardware would become just another interpreter for a different level of data flow)
My dream : FP-ish abstrations at any layer (so called hardware would become just another interpreter for a different level of data flow)
There are some existing examples of using a pure functional language as an HDL; Bluespec is Haskell-like, and the Lava family of languages is embedded in Haskell. I'm just a hobbyist when it comes to HDLs, but I've had success with the latter (Kansas Lava specifically).
Why 'strict'?
My thinking was that completely immutable functions map better to hardware that can't change its own design, but maybe it would be better to allow state sometimes. The problem with state is that it implies sequentialism.
Registers, signals, etc. can change values, but you can't change what they do or how they're used. So you can't really have anything like self-modifying code. But I guess allowing state would make sense sometimes as long as you are mindful of what the state is dependent upon. Making lots of independent little state machines would map well to hardware I think.
Registers, signals, etc. can change values, but you can't change what they do or how they're used. So you can't really have anything like self-modifying code. But I guess allowing state would make sense sometimes as long as you are mindful of what the state is dependent upon. Making lots of independent little state machines would map well to hardware I think.
"Strict" and "immutable" are rather different things. Which one did you mean? None of them really are related to self-modifying code though.
Oh, I meant immutable. Thanks for pointing that out!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Because hardware is fundamentally strict, when you read a value you read it.
This is not what 'strict' really means. 'Strictness' means that a function must evaluate its argument. In terms of h/w this would mean (I guess) that a 'strict' circuit must read its inputs, which is not usually required.
Is it ? aren't there differential circuits with history that won't activate the subsequent circuitry in case the read value didn't change ?
The order of operations is strict, when you specify you want something you grab it. In contrast Haskells evaluation order does not match the definition order necessarily.
The VHDL HDL is based on Ada. Works ok. An FP HDL is an interesting concept.
VHDL is what I use at work. It does work fine, but isn't it a bit funny having to ignore/unlearn all the procedural leftovers from Ada? Synthesizable for loops are a good example. In hardware these are synthesized such that they aren't procedural and there is no loop. It's actually much more similar to a map function in FP and it happens concurrently, not iteratively.
"As for the HDL code itself, it can act as software (when it is run on an emulator or loaded into an FPGA) or as a hardware design (when it is realized in immutable silicon or a circuit board)."
This statement comes with some pretty heavy caveats. You can't just compile any arbitrary piece of software to hardware. At least not directly...not without an implied runtime package to support your program on hardware. Software developers tend to take this stuff for granted, especially at the high level. If you're writing C, where is your stack living? Do you plan on using the heap? Those need to go down to hardware somewhere.
This is the big trouble with FPGAs+Software Developers. Folks at the software level can (and probably tend to) fully utilize the Turing completeness (or anything power above regular language recognition at least) in their languages, inadvertently or not. When you want to support a computation that requires more power than finite automata can provide, you're going to need to bundle in things like memory management functionality, and maybe even a proto-processor. The rub is that you already have these things in literally any computer, and they're likely going to be faster than what you can do on an FPGA. For now anyway.
FPGAs are a tough nut to crack from the bottom up and the top down. If they're going to turn into a massively disruptive technology, we're going to need better tools for them and maybe some different thinking about how we program for them.
This statement comes with some pretty heavy caveats. You can't just compile any arbitrary piece of software to hardware. At least not directly...not without an implied runtime package to support your program on hardware. Software developers tend to take this stuff for granted, especially at the high level. If you're writing C, where is your stack living? Do you plan on using the heap? Those need to go down to hardware somewhere.
This is the big trouble with FPGAs+Software Developers. Folks at the software level can (and probably tend to) fully utilize the Turing completeness (or anything power above regular language recognition at least) in their languages, inadvertently or not. When you want to support a computation that requires more power than finite automata can provide, you're going to need to bundle in things like memory management functionality, and maybe even a proto-processor. The rub is that you already have these things in literally any computer, and they're likely going to be faster than what you can do on an FPGA. For now anyway.
FPGAs are a tough nut to crack from the bottom up and the top down. If they're going to turn into a massively disruptive technology, we're going to need better tools for them and maybe some different thinking about how we program for them.
Indeed, but you can compile a lot into h/w. For example, you can compile recursive and higher-order functions and ground-type mutable state. You can also have a type system that tells you at compile time whether your program can be compiled or not.
Here are some entry points to the Verity/GOS project:
* Paper describing the theory: Dan R. Ghica, Alex I. Smith, Satnam Singh: Geometry of Synthesis IV: Compiling affine recursion into static hardware. ICFP 2011: 221-233
* Compiler from Verity to HDL: www.veritygos.org
Here are some entry points to the Verity/GOS project:
* Paper describing the theory: Dan R. Ghica, Alex I. Smith, Satnam Singh: Geometry of Synthesis IV: Compiling affine recursion into static hardware. ICFP 2011: 221-233
* Compiler from Verity to HDL: www.veritygos.org
Although I haven't developed hardware, I feel that hardware development suffers from rigidity.
Is there noticeable progress of development not manufacturing in last 10 years?
It seems that hardware developers often complain about VHDL and Verilog while continue to use them because they are only actual options vendors support.
I found netlist format such as EDIF seems assembly language for hardware, but I also heared that vendors need to produce their own custom netlist from souce of VHDL or Verilog.
I suspect that processors could evolved more than pace of Moore's law if tools have accumulated developer's creativity.
The hardware level cross-over between logic and physics is of exceptional interest to me, and one of the drivers of my personal investigation of computing more generally.
It is my current understanding of FPGAs that they allow for reconfigurable logical circuits, but still implement those functions using fixed spatial circuits, primarily by dispatching signals down routing traces as specified by LUTs. These spatial circuits, in particular the routing paths, as the physical underpinnings of an FPGA are non-reconfigurable, and form the proprietary core of the product. I have three question, if anyone could provide insight:
(1) Is the above notion correct, or does the act of burning in a bitstream to an FPGA actually physically reroute traces within and between blocks of logic gates?
(2) The latter option in (1) would presumably still require some sort of supporting hardware, itself non-reconfigurable, and subject to proprietariness correct?
(3) Are there reconfigurable devices that offer complete, self-hosted reconfigurability? By which I mean that an unconfigured device must first be bootstrapped (via an external tool) to contain the bitstream burning auxiliary circuitry, but this framework remains no more fixed than the rest of the device. Furthermore, the bootstrapped circuits can update themselves, by creating second-generation support circuitry elsewhere on the device, which access and alters the first generation configuration.
Thank you in advance.
Edit: (4) Given the answers to (1), are there any devices that have reconfigurable routing traces?
It is my current understanding of FPGAs that they allow for reconfigurable logical circuits, but still implement those functions using fixed spatial circuits, primarily by dispatching signals down routing traces as specified by LUTs. These spatial circuits, in particular the routing paths, as the physical underpinnings of an FPGA are non-reconfigurable, and form the proprietary core of the product. I have three question, if anyone could provide insight:
(1) Is the above notion correct, or does the act of burning in a bitstream to an FPGA actually physically reroute traces within and between blocks of logic gates?
(2) The latter option in (1) would presumably still require some sort of supporting hardware, itself non-reconfigurable, and subject to proprietariness correct?
(3) Are there reconfigurable devices that offer complete, self-hosted reconfigurability? By which I mean that an unconfigured device must first be bootstrapped (via an external tool) to contain the bitstream burning auxiliary circuitry, but this framework remains no more fixed than the rest of the device. Furthermore, the bootstrapped circuits can update themselves, by creating second-generation support circuitry elsewhere on the device, which access and alters the first generation configuration.
Thank you in advance.
Edit: (4) Given the answers to (1), are there any devices that have reconfigurable routing traces?
[deleted](1)
Re (3), FPGA Partial Reconfiguration has been a standard feature on high-end parts for a long time. However I've heard (never used it myself) that the present implementations are of limited utility. Most applications that can afford a high-end FPGA can afford an auxiliary processor for management duties, so self-reconfiguration remains something of a curiosity.
Thank you. To your knowledge, does any device have the property described in "Edit: (4)..."?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'physically reroute traces'. If you mean, physically move a metal trace across the chip, that's not really possible at this point.
One-time programmable devices (GAL and PAL devices that are essentially obsolete, most FPGAs are SRAM based these days) require physical fuses to be blown in order to program functionality. I suppose that's a physical change, but one that's irreversible.
One-time programmable devices (GAL and PAL devices that are essentially obsolete, most FPGAs are SRAM based these days) require physical fuses to be blown in order to program functionality. I suppose that's a physical change, but one that's irreversible.
Hi,
(1) the above thing is the correct one, simplifying the fpga has a flash memory inside to store the bitstream that configures the god given routing resources so the LUTs etc interconnect as in the netlist.
(3) I think you can do it with an actual fpga divided in two logical tiles, one reconfigures the other and vice-versa.
(1) the above thing is the correct one, simplifying the fpga has a flash memory inside to store the bitstream that configures the god given routing resources so the LUTs etc interconnect as in the netlist.
(3) I think you can do it with an actual fpga divided in two logical tiles, one reconfigures the other and vice-versa.
Thank you. Given the fixed state of FPGA circuitry, to your knowledge, does any other kind of device have the property described in "Edit: (4)..."?
The most relevant part of this mail seems like the announcement of the reverse-engineering success that allows programming an FPGA with a FOSS toolchain. That that toolchain currently uses C seems like a minor implementation detail; if the bitstream format is understood well enough to generate it, it should be possible to use an HDL to as well.
But the next generation of fgpa obsoletes the reverse engineered insights.
"software is the operational part of a device that can be copied and changed in a computer; hardware is the operational part that can't be. This is the right way to make the distinction because it relates to the practical consequences."
I disagree.
Operation of computers cannot be classified simply into hardware and software. There are 3 important parts: - Hardware - Software - The interface (basically the instruction set)
Another way to view ISAs is like a "Contract" between hardware and software. Hardware promises that certain instructions will provide certain behavior. Software acknowledges this and uses these instructions to build software on top of it.
I disagree.
Operation of computers cannot be classified simply into hardware and software. There are 3 important parts: - Hardware - Software - The interface (basically the instruction set)
Another way to view ISAs is like a "Contract" between hardware and software. Hardware promises that certain instructions will provide certain behavior. Software acknowledges this and uses these instructions to build software on top of it.
As mentioned earlier, FPGA's do not fit this 3-part distinction.
In addition, CPU microcode doesn't fit this distinction, as the microcode is software (not hardware) that is hidden behind the ISA's interface.
Also, I can think of computers that only have hardware and data input (without any programs or instruction set). Basically number crunchers that run a fixed program (e.g. DSP's or non-general GPU's that perfom a specific function), with only the data input that can change.
You bring up a good point by acknowledging "The Interface". But I would reclassify into a different set of parts, something along the lines of: "Interface" - "Implementation". I/O can be programs and/or data that interface with the implementation which can be hardware and/or software, or another whole computer. (This is potentially recursive classification, so it can include virtual machines.)
In addition, CPU microcode doesn't fit this distinction, as the microcode is software (not hardware) that is hidden behind the ISA's interface.
Also, I can think of computers that only have hardware and data input (without any programs or instruction set). Basically number crunchers that run a fixed program (e.g. DSP's or non-general GPU's that perfom a specific function), with only the data input that can change.
You bring up a good point by acknowledging "The Interface". But I would reclassify into a different set of parts, something along the lines of: "Interface" - "Implementation". I/O can be programs and/or data that interface with the implementation which can be hardware and/or software, or another whole computer. (This is potentially recursive classification, so it can include virtual machines.)
FPGAs are not processors and don't have "ISAs".
FSFs stance on firmware is one of the areas where the situation gets somewhat silly: http://lwn.net/Articles/460654/
Clever, they insert an additional chip between the cpu and wifi whose sole purpose is to load wifi firmware, and thus make it non-update-able "efectively circuitry" to bypass the silly FSF rules.
Using the same logic, what if someone ran netflix's proprietary DRM decryption-specific code in a seperate co-processor that interfaced with the main CPU only via the w3c's Encrypted Media Extensions? Assuming this code is never updated and runs isolated from the CPU, according to the FSF silly rules about updatability, they would be OK with this "effective circuitry" (of course ignoring their concerns about DRM itself). But if that same code would be run inside firefox's sandbox for EME plugin's, it would be considered dangerous non-free software.
Using the same logic, what if someone ran netflix's proprietary DRM decryption-specific code in a seperate co-processor that interfaced with the main CPU only via the w3c's Encrypted Media Extensions? Assuming this code is never updated and runs isolated from the CPU, according to the FSF silly rules about updatability, they would be OK with this "effective circuitry" (of course ignoring their concerns about DRM itself). But if that same code would be run inside firefox's sandbox for EME plugin's, it would be considered dangerous non-free software.
The best way I found to think about this is best summarised by Alan Kay: "Hardware is crystallised software".
I think is the best metaphor because you can think of the crystal as immutable software.
FPGA's are like melting crystals.
They can eventually mutate under some circumstances until they crystallise again (crystals/temperature vs. FPGA reprogramming)
I think is the best metaphor because you can think of the crystal as immutable software.
FPGA's are like melting crystals.
They can eventually mutate under some circumstances until they crystallise again (crystals/temperature vs. FPGA reprogramming)
I find it more natural to think of software as different internal states of hardware or driving the state changes, at least.
For FPGAs, the "software" defines the hardware (in a sense) so there is a very tight integration between the two - to the extent that there really isn't any.
For FPGAs, the "software" defines the hardware (in a sense) so there is a very tight integration between the two - to the extent that there really isn't any.
"Firmware that is installed during use is software; firmware that is delivered inside the device and can't be changed is software by nature, but we can treat it as if it were a circuit."
So any code, gate patterns, or microcode (preinstalled or not) that is potentially update-able (regardless of difficulty) would be considered "software". But any code, gate patterns, or microcode that is preinstalled into some rom or fuse memory inside the chip or that is otherwise impossible to be updated would be considered "hardware".
If an entire OS microkernel (like seL4) is burned into some rom inside the same chip with cpu and is physically impossible from being updated, it would be considered hardware by this gnu.org definition, but should be considered software according to wikipedia's definitions:
"[Software] is any set of machine-readable instructions that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations." "[Hardware] is the collection of physical elements that constitutes a computer system."
Theoretically anything in software can be implemented as hardware and vice-versa. But should updateable-ness really be the differentiating factor? Now lets say that seL4 was compiled into VHDL to put in a fpga. (I am using seL4 as an example because it is small and written in a functional language which would be easier to implement in hardware than a macrokernel written in a sequential language like C, and because it performs a significant function of a computer, even though it may be impracticable to implement in a hardware description language). Is that hardware or software now? I would say hardware, because it is now a collection of physical elements connected together. But gnu.org's definition only seems to care about the updateability-ness.
What if instead the seL4 code was on a rom that couldn't be updated internally, but could instead be physically removed from a socket or unsoldered and replaced (even if not intended to be). I'm not even sure whether this gnu.org definition would consider it hardware or software, but I would guess using the strict updateable-ness criterion alone, by having some manner to be replaced, it would be considered software.
Sometimes organizations choose definitions to provide realizable goals. FSF uses this updateable-ness distinction, and then can for example say that the libreboot X60 runs entirely free "software". But of course my libreboot X60 has a bunch of processors running un-updateable proprietary code, such as the wifi, disk, and graphics chips, even though they are interfacing to the cpu using open source drivers. Also FSF seems to tolerate the preconfigured microcode already on the cpu, but won't tolerate microcode updates loaded at boot. But by using this non-updateable-ness criterion, FSF has a much more manageable but achievable conditions to meet the goal of free computing rather than having to "free all the things".
Maybe FSF is attempting to find definitions relevant to libre-ness. But I don't think making up their own new definition of hardware and software is necessary for achieving goal of free computing, nor terribly useful. I think they should just stick to the 4 freedoms (to run the program, to study how the program works, to redistribute copies, to improve the program) and might be better focusing on using the word "program" instead of having to make up their own new definitions for hardware and software. The word "program" transcends the distinction between hardware and software.
So any code, gate patterns, or microcode (preinstalled or not) that is potentially update-able (regardless of difficulty) would be considered "software". But any code, gate patterns, or microcode that is preinstalled into some rom or fuse memory inside the chip or that is otherwise impossible to be updated would be considered "hardware".
If an entire OS microkernel (like seL4) is burned into some rom inside the same chip with cpu and is physically impossible from being updated, it would be considered hardware by this gnu.org definition, but should be considered software according to wikipedia's definitions:
"[Software] is any set of machine-readable instructions that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations." "[Hardware] is the collection of physical elements that constitutes a computer system."
Theoretically anything in software can be implemented as hardware and vice-versa. But should updateable-ness really be the differentiating factor? Now lets say that seL4 was compiled into VHDL to put in a fpga. (I am using seL4 as an example because it is small and written in a functional language which would be easier to implement in hardware than a macrokernel written in a sequential language like C, and because it performs a significant function of a computer, even though it may be impracticable to implement in a hardware description language). Is that hardware or software now? I would say hardware, because it is now a collection of physical elements connected together. But gnu.org's definition only seems to care about the updateability-ness.
What if instead the seL4 code was on a rom that couldn't be updated internally, but could instead be physically removed from a socket or unsoldered and replaced (even if not intended to be). I'm not even sure whether this gnu.org definition would consider it hardware or software, but I would guess using the strict updateable-ness criterion alone, by having some manner to be replaced, it would be considered software.
Sometimes organizations choose definitions to provide realizable goals. FSF uses this updateable-ness distinction, and then can for example say that the libreboot X60 runs entirely free "software". But of course my libreboot X60 has a bunch of processors running un-updateable proprietary code, such as the wifi, disk, and graphics chips, even though they are interfacing to the cpu using open source drivers. Also FSF seems to tolerate the preconfigured microcode already on the cpu, but won't tolerate microcode updates loaded at boot. But by using this non-updateable-ness criterion, FSF has a much more manageable but achievable conditions to meet the goal of free computing rather than having to "free all the things".
Maybe FSF is attempting to find definitions relevant to libre-ness. But I don't think making up their own new definition of hardware and software is necessary for achieving goal of free computing, nor terribly useful. I think they should just stick to the 4 freedoms (to run the program, to study how the program works, to redistribute copies, to improve the program) and might be better focusing on using the word "program" instead of having to make up their own new definitions for hardware and software. The word "program" transcends the distinction between hardware and software.
There is no firmware at all on the ath9k wifi chipsets. The firmware in the HDD/SSD is the same issue on all computers, not just libreboot. The graphics chip doesn't contain any firmware, instead the "video bios" is included in the SPI chip alongside coreboot or libreboot. In the case of libreboot, all current targets have free Video BIOS implementations, referred to in coreboot as "native graphics initialization".
"There is no firmware at all on the ath9k wifi chipsets."
No, there is firmware inside the wifi. Just looking at a specific chip ath9k wifi device: https://www.qca.qualcomm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AR94... I see it has a "32-bit Tensilica Xtensa CPU" and this CPU is running some proprietary firmware on the embedded Code ROM. Although this firmware cannot be updated, is completely isolated from the main x86 CPU in my libreboot X60s, can't directly access any data outside of the physical miniPCI board, and only interfaces to the rest of computer via open-source x86 driver code on the main CPU, this embedded ROM code controlling the embedded RISC processor is however still proprietary firmware. This is the same deal with the microcontrollers inside the HDD/SDD and graphics chipset, which all have proprietary embedded firmware which is interfaced with by the opensource x86 drivers. Firmware != driver.
No, there is firmware inside the wifi. Just looking at a specific chip ath9k wifi device: https://www.qca.qualcomm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AR94... I see it has a "32-bit Tensilica Xtensa CPU" and this CPU is running some proprietary firmware on the embedded Code ROM. Although this firmware cannot be updated, is completely isolated from the main x86 CPU in my libreboot X60s, can't directly access any data outside of the physical miniPCI board, and only interfaces to the rest of computer via open-source x86 driver code on the main CPU, this embedded ROM code controlling the embedded RISC processor is however still proprietary firmware. This is the same deal with the microcontrollers inside the HDD/SDD and graphics chipset, which all have proprietary embedded firmware which is interfaced with by the opensource x86 drivers. Firmware != driver.
The PDF that you linked to is talking about AR9462. Libreboot machines typically use chips with the AR9285 chipset.
Ok, I simply linked to that as an example of a device that can interface with the free ath9k driver. Looking at https://www.qca.qualcomm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AR92... I can't really see any closer detail inside of the black boxes labeled "Baseband
PHY and Wireless MAC" and "Host Interface" but I can make a very educated guess that they are running some very simple RISC and/or DSP with code off a ROM responsible for performing all the non-analog functions necessary for wireless media access control (e.g. error recovery, finding free channels, Rx/Tx buffering) and for interfacing with PCIe bus, outside of functions that handle higher level of the networking stack that are more practically implemented in the ath9k driver code running in the x86 cpu.
C is a procedural language. Most languages are procedural to some degree, but C is entirely sequential. Digital hardware, unlike a C program, is entirely concurrent. When you write HDL for hardware, you're not really writing a program, you're describing the hardware layout itself. Really it's closer to making a logic gate or circuit diagram. HDL doesn't "run" like a software program. It just exists on the FPGA. That's the design, and it doesn't change once it's programmed on the chip. As such, the only "procedures" in hardware are from causality from something that happened in the past in the same hardware, either from a different part of the circuit, or the same part in a clocked design.
So what would be a good tool to describe hardware? I think (preferably immutable state) functional languages would be much closer, because they're much less procedural. You can more directly describe complex logic that takes some input, and gives some output, in a manner such that sequence of events does not matter. This would be much more powerful when mapped to an FPGA, because everything that didn't rely on a previous result could happen at the exact same time. And THAT much better utilizes the power of hardware. Implementing a long chain of sequential events on hardware is... not the smartest way to design hardware.