Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] TI vs Freescale DSP for open-source development

[Alexander Chemeris]

Jeff, Al, Brian,

A little bit delayed thank you to all of you!

So, I took my time to investigate TI offer further and after all I
should agree that TI support of open-source is indeed much more decent
then that of Freescale. Combined with Jeff's comment about the number
of developers who work with TI and with Freescale, this moves TI far
behind Freescale. So, we decided to bet on TI for our open-source
development.

I asked TI guys about support of the new C66 family in their compilers
and whether one can use them to develop an open-source code, and they
said - yes, you can. Check out answers of Bill Miils at this thread:
http://e2e.ti.com/support/dsp/c6000_multi-core_dsps/f/639/p/92243/322882.aspx

Now I can't wait to get an EMV for this great new C66 SoC to start playing.
And in my dreams I see someone creating a "Gumstix C66 4-8 core" to
use with USRP E100 - that would be truly killer SDR solution.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 00:59, Jeff Brower <address@hidden> wrote:
> Alexander-
>
>>  okay here are my 2 cents
>>
>> 2- TI actually offers all the tools you need to develop for their DSP for 
>> free, I can vouch for the C64x+ DSP since
>> that's what I have experience using.  You can download and look at the 
>> supported DSP for the free download from
>> http://software-dl.ti.com/dsps/dsps_registered_sw/sdo_sb/targetcontent/
>>
>>
>> The biggest issue you might run into with the free software is the ability 
>> to use a JTAG, if you want to use a JTAG
>> you have to use Code Composer period.  Though I've read about people using 
>> the free demo version of Code Composer
>> (CCS) 4.0 with a very cheap JTAG ( < $150) to debug their DSP code.  I think 
>> TI restricts the type of DSPs and JTAGs
>> you can use with the free CCS I know that the JTAG I use (XDS560) is not 
>> supported.
>>
>> 3- TI support for open source is surprisingly decent.  I've posted many 
>> questions on their support forums and TI
>> engineers have always gotten back to me with alot of good information and 
>> continued asnwering as posted more follow up
>> questions.
>>
>>  4- The learning tool has a bit of a learning curve that's for sure.  I have 
>> posted a github link on the listserv
>> yesterday which includes new custom blocks for GNU Radio using the C64x+ 
>> DSP.  You might find the guide helpful in
>> shedding some light about developing with TI tools.
>>
>> 6- I've been using TI software as an open source developer for almost 1.5 
>> years now and I think they've managed to
>> find a great balance between being a for profit company and a supplier of 
>> tools for the open source community.  I
>> don't have experience with freescale but my experience with TI has been a 
>> positive one.
>
> We are a heavy TI device user and have been for years.  Al Fayez's comments 
> are pretty much accurate.
>
> I would add a few additional comments for MSC8x5x vs. C667x; i.e. high 
> performance multicore CPUs (the vendors are
> moving away from the term "DSPs" nowadays, hehe).  My comments apply *only* 
> to these high-end multicore devices.
>
> My two major concerns with Freescale are a) peer support and b) product 
> roadmap.  First, there simply are not enough
> users.  For example there is a motoroladsp Yahoo Group (there are several TI 
> DSP Yahoo groups, C6x, C5x, etc) but in
> the last several years activity on the mot group has slowly died off.  There 
> are still knowledgeable Mot/Freescale DSP
> guys on comp.dsp, but mostly in audio/acoustic related areas.
>
> Second, product roadmap.  Before they were Freescale, Mot used to have a 
> strong, competitive product portfolio in DSP.
>  In 1998 they started a downhill slide when their CEO re-organized his own 
> DSP guys into an "internal resource
> matrix", essentially deciding there wasn't actually a DSP market.  Obviously 
> TI thought otherwise and became "a DSP
> company" and we all know the rest of that story.  (As a side note, that CEO 
> was Hector Ruiz, the same guy who later
> presided over AMD during its decline and is now subject to an SEC 
> investigation).  In 2004, Mot DSPs became Freescale
> and enjoyed a resurgence with Starcore based devices.  Starcore technology 
> has always looked quite promising, but in
> my opinion, in day-to-day execution Freescale has not been able to match TI.  
> Now TI has out the C667x series, which
> leaps beyond MSC815x/MSC825x.
>
> Not to mention that TI's multicore CPUs benefit indirectly, both in terms of 
> technical advances, and in terms of
> customer support, from what TI is doing in smart phones, tablets, 
> high-performance ARM, etc.
>
> -Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Chemeris <address@hidden>
>> To: Gnuradio-discuss <address@hidden>
>> Sent: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 10:24 am
>> Subject: [Discuss-gnuradio] TI vs Freescale DSP for open-source development
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We're working on an open-source WiMAX receiver/scanner and we're
>> looking into using a high-performance DSP to process data from USRP.
>> Right now we implement this processing in FPGA, but we want to
>> experiment with DSPs too. I know there are skilled people here and I'm
>> looking forward to hear their opinion.
>>
>> Note, that this project is not meant for starving students or
>> occasional hobbyists. It is for high-profile hobbyists, targeted
>> researchers and for small companies. So please refrain from comments
>> like "no way, this is too expensive for 90% of community". Though we
>> would appreciate comments on how to make it cheaper.
>>
>> So, I'm looking for the community advise about pros and cons of
>> different DSPs. Particularly I'm interested in comparing Freescale
>> MSC815x/MSC825x [1][2][3] and TI TMS320C667x [4][5] DSPs/SoCs from the
>> perspective of open-source development. But if you know any other good
>>  high-profile DSPs - please propose them too. So far, as I read it we
>> have following comparison:
>>
>> 1) Price.
>> It used to be that Freescale is cheaper, but right now I see that
>> "pricing for the MSC8156 starts at $192 in 10,000 unit quantities"
>> [6], while TMX320C6670CYP is priced 160.00 USD | 1ku [7]. So they're
>> barely the same with TI slightly winning. I'm not sure how much will
>> new MSC8157 cost.
>>
>> 2) Development tools price
>> Both Freescale CodeWarrior and TI Code Composer seem to be at the same
>> line with about $2K per single license (correct me if I'm wrong - I
>> may have missed something easily).
>>
>> Big minus here is that neither Freescale nor TI offer open/free
>> compilers for their DSPs, which is a big roadblock for open-source
>> development.
>>
>> 3) Support for open-source technologies.
>> Well, both Freescale and TI declare themselves as more or less
>> open-source supporters (which is weird while they have expensive
>> development tools). Both offers BSPs for Linux for GPP part of SoCs
>> and free/open OSes for DSP cores (SmartDSP for Freescale, SYS/BIOS for
>> TI). I would appreciate if someone could comment on maturity of those
>> and their usability (bug-ness level).
>>
>> Other then that I don't see any evidence of their support for
>> open-source for their DSPs.
>>
>> 4) Quality/simplicity
>> I have no experience with those DSPs yet, so I would very much
>> appreciate comments about development tools quality / easy to use,
>> code generation quality, DSP architecture simplicity for a programmer
>> and (important!) documentation quality.
>>
>> 5) Chips availability
>> I'm a software guy, so again I seek for an insight about availability
>> of Freescale and TI DSPs. How hard is it to source them? Especially
>> outside of US?
>>
>> 6) Any other concerns?
>> Please share your opinion - I should have missed something important.
>> It's hard to keep everything in mind.
>>
>> PS As I told, we're working on an open-source WiMAX receiver right
>> now. If you're a skilled engineer and you're willing to participate -
>> drop me a few lines with your experience description. We need more
>> skilled hands to get up and running faster. And I should say this
>> project is a *lot* of fun.
>> PPS Please don't mail me if you just want to look into the code out of
>> curiosity or don't have enough skills or enough time to help. We'll
>> announce the project publicly when we have a (somehow) working
>> prototype. Right now we just have a bunch of Matlab proof-of-concept
>> code and we've started to port it to FPGA.
>>
>> Thank you if you get that far! Sorry for the long e-mail :)
>>
>> 1. http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=STARCORE_HOME
>> 2. http://www.bdti.com/InsideDSP/2010/12/16/Freescale
>> 3. http://www.bdti.com/InsideDSP/2010/05/20/Freescale
>> 4. 
>> http://focus.ti.com/dsp/docs/dspcontent.tsp?contentId=77428&DCMP=nysh_101109&HQS=Other+PR+c66multicore-tcipr-lp
>> 5. http://www.bdti.com/InsideDSP/2010/11/18/Ti
>> 6. 
>> http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4108765/Freescale-reboots-base-station-DSPs-leapfrogs-TI
>> 7. http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tms320c6670.html
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Chemeris.
>> http://www.fairwaves.ru
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>>
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
http://www.fairwaves.ru