X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From:	hsank AT nospam DOT chipforge DOT org
X-Envelope-To:	<geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:37:58 +0100
Message-ID:	<20150204073758.Horde.czAmF2JsXvWH254t3K1lrw2@webmail.in-berlin.de>
From:	Hagen SANKOWSKI <hsank AT nospam DOT chipforge DOT org>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] FOSDEM
References:	<1420499386 DOT 3521 DOT 3 DOT camel AT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
	<20150202152654 DOT GA13336 AT cuci DOT nl> <54CFD589 DOT 9040702 AT xs4all DOT nl>
	<CAHBYzfRkn-nJb4JfrDYyaD0WwPrpZvAgi0QdHCusgz185iNoHA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAGde_xN-iNZUvHh-E47kx1EyoPRt1018wWiDwHhYQ9+od+cJwA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20150203112631 DOT 3507a0c1 AT Parasomnia DOT thuis DOT lan>
	<20150204054256 DOT Horde DOT Pm1JV8RJbICk9SHvIGwZ7A3 AT webmail DOT in-berlin DOT de>
	<CAOP4iL2stWVCy3WK0=SNu2zAbs8t6B0uyAgFuOnzG8v_MrYNfw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<CAOP4iL2stWVCy3WK0=SNu2zAbs8t6B0uyAgFuOnzG8v_MrYNfw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.2.0)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

Hello John!

Quoting Ouabache Designworks <z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com>:

>>
>> So let us start to bring the Idea of a common platform for EDA to reality.
>> I don't like vaporware :-)
>>
>>
>>
> I read a very interesting databit from a eda blogger (Daniel Payne) who
> cited a report that for every $1 we spend on EDA tools
> (Synopsys,Mentor,Cadence etc) that we spend $3 on supporting
> those tools and getting them to work together. Everybody is spending a huge
> amount to create their very own custom tool flows that does basicly what
> everybody elses tool flows do.

Your are right, I guess. But it is not only the flow which takes so  
much effort -
the libraries with all the circuits, symbols, simulation models and footprints
are nearly everywhere "in-house" solutions based on "vendor lock-ins".
In the field of ASIC developing, the ratio you mentioned is even  
higher for sure.

> This is the ideal problem for an open source solution. We all need to do
> the same thing. We are all currently spending a huge effort to create our
> own unique solutions. The problems are really not that hard. Our toolflows
> and scripts are not critical IP that we cannot share. If you wanted to
> create a tool flow that was better than 75% of all the toolflows out then
> then that is not hard to do.

d'accord

> If we could get all the eda teams currently supporting their own tool flows
> to contribute to a single open source solution then we would all be a lot
> better off.

Well, everybody has it's own solution. With own pit falls, with own  
advantages.

> It is time for EDA users to realize that big EDA can not and will not solve
> this problem for us. We need a grass roots effort to rally around and
> support an open source EDA tool flow solution with a completely free  
> tool set.

Sure.

> We got to start talking to each other and sharing ideals and problems.
> There is no money in this for Big EDA so don't expect any help from them
> but we need this. This could be the "Linux" of the EDA world.

So, which requirements do you/we have?

I dream of
- symbols clearly dedicted to standards (IEC, ISO, IEEE, ...)
- reliable simulation models of all tastes (Spice, IBIS, Verilog, BSDL, ...)
- tool-independend and accurate (generic) footprints (M4 is great!)

- an open-source Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)
- well documented FPGA Configurations
- a vendor independend F/OSS tool chain to configure the FPGAs

- more current technology libaries for the Magic Toolkit  
(http://opencircuitdesign.com)


Regards,
Hagen Sankowski

-- 
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1775)

- Raw text -