Microblaze? Why not OpenRISC

GNU Radio
1

For the USRP2 why did you guys decide to go with the Microblaze soft
processor (which is not open source) versus the OpenRISC core on
OpenCores.org (which is open source)? Was it just the overhead that
would
have been needed to get it up and running (my guess) or was it something
else?

Thanks,

–
Newell

http://www.gempillar.com
Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water
After enlightenment: code, build circuits

2

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Newell J. [email protected]
wrote:

For the USRP2 why did you guys decide to go with the Microblaze soft
processor (which is not open source) versus the OpenRISC core on
OpenCores.org (which is open source)? Was it just the overhead that would
have been needed to get it up and running (my guess) or was it something
else?

Actually, USRP2 uses the AEMB from OpenCores:

http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/aemb/overview

–
Johnathan C.
Corgan Enterprises LLC
http://corganenterprises.com/

3

Newell J. wrote:

For the USRP2 why did you guys decide to go with the Microblaze soft
processor (which is not open source) versus the OpenRISC core on
OpenCores.org (which is open source)? Was it just the overhead that
would have been needed to get it up and running (my guess) or was it
something else?

We are NOT using the Microblaze. We are using an OpenCore called the
aeMB which has the same instruction set as the microblaze, so we use the
same GCC compilers as the microblaze. I chose not to use the OpenRISC
because it is much larger.

Matt

4

My bad. Thanks for the explanation…I had been reading about the
Microblaze compilers and just assumed (what not to do before you hit the
list).

–
Newell

http://www.gempillar.com
Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water
After enlightenment: code, build circuits