Bug 771 - Creation of Cryptographic-Primitive OpenPower ISA Pseudo-code
Summary: Creation of Cryptographic-Primitive OpenPower ISA Pseudo-code
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Libre-SOC's second ASIC
Classification: Unclassified
Component: source code (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other Linux
: --- enhancement
Assignee: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
URL:
Depends on: 745 755 782 817
Blocks: 589
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2022-02-15 06:39 GMT by Jacob Lifshay
Modified: 2024-08-19 03:56 BST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
NLnet milestone: NLnet.2021.02A.052.CryptoRouter
total budget (EUR) for completion of task and all subtasks: 6000
budget (EUR) for this task, excluding subtasks' budget: 1750
parent task for budget allocation: 589
child tasks for budget allocation: 817 906 966
The table of payments (in EUR) for this task; TOML format:
lkcl={amount=1750, submitted=2024-05-27, paid=2024-08-21}


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jacob Lifshay 2022-02-15 06:39:57 GMT
Creation of the pseudo-code for the new instructions we will be creating, as well as
modification of existing pseudo-code, where warranted, for the
purposes of usage as a reference for simulation of the new/modified instructions for
testing purposes, as well as potential submission as one or more proposals
to the OpenPower Foundation as the de-jure reference for how those proposed
new instructions should function. Also, creation/improvement of the unit-tests for the above
referenced pseudo-code (budgeted separately under bug #850)
Comment 1 Dmitry Selyutin 2023-01-10 16:50:53 GMT
I've received the payment for tasks 771 and 840, but I'm kinda unsure about the sum. I'll contact Michiel via email.
Comment 3 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 2024-08-06 04:15:52 BST
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #20)

> Are you sure you want to position it this way, as AVX-512 has been pulled
> off the market for undisclosed reasons - but to some linked to patent issues
> Intel ran into?
> 
> Best regards,
> Michiel Leenaars

i do not know where the statement comes from, and as a research project
patents do not enter into the picture: it will be a commercial decision
which is out of scope for Libre-SOC.

however

1. it is extremely unlikely that Simple-V will run into issues,
   as it is a new design concept that abstracts Prefix from Suffix.

2. patents may be on *hardware* only - not on APIs. and SV is an *API*
   that does not specify or restrict or curtail how hardware implements it.

Suffix *individual instructions* may happen to have hardware implementations
that are patentable material: it is a simple job to avoid those.

Prefix *looping* may be implemented any which way the implementor chooses.
if there is a patent on one method of implementation, implementors choose
a different method to avoid that hardware patent.

none of which is down to the specification (as an API designed under
Research Grants, not commercial objectives)

additionally there may be a fundamental misunderstanding about the
difference between AVX512 and SV. SV is PURELY an abstract looping
concept, the SEPARATION of "looping" from the "SCALAR instruction being looped".

AVX512 is a ONE DIMENSIONAL instruction set. scalar instructions are
repeated (ad nauseam) with a for loop around each, the end result
being 10,000 instructions (and a dog's dinner mess but that discussion
is out of scope)

therefore it is the SCALAR instructions that are added to the base
ISA (in this case Power ISA as an example), one by one. we repeat
again and again and again: there *is* no "Vector Add" in SV
there is only a SCALAR Add instruction and there happens to be
GENERAL PURPOSE looping that HAPPENS to be possible to apply to
that SCALAR add instruction just like all and any other instructions
in GENERAL.

bottom line, it is not Libre-SOC's problem, the space is radically
different, the concept entirely different, and it is the SCALAR
instruction individual hardware implementation(s) that are more
likely to run into patent minefields... but that's what any
SCALAR processor would also run into, and is a general problem
that has absolutely nothing to do with SV as a looping CONCEPT
and API.