| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 30 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 68:42:07 |
| Calls: | 414 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,015 |
| Messages: | 94,393 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
When we discuss hardware designs at this level, reusable
components that go into the system are often referred to as "IP
cores" or just "IPs". For example, a UART might be an IP.
Think of them as building blocks that go into, say, a SoC.
When we discuss hardware designs at this level, reusable
components that go into the system are often referred to as "IP
cores" or just "IPs". For example, a UART might be an IP.
FWIW, I hate this terminology which comes from "intellectual
property" since it insists on the value of this only as
a bargaining/power tool rather than for what it actually performs.
FWIW, I hate this terminology which comes from "intellectual
property" since it insists on the value of this only as
a bargaining/power tool rather than for what it actually performs.
It is also a bit misleading. Where I come from, "intellectual
property" refers to patents.
FWIW, I hate this terminology which comes from "intellectual
property" since it insists on the value of this only as
a bargaining/power tool rather than for what it actually performs.
It is also a bit misleading. Where I come from, "intellectual
property" refers to patents.
Where I come from it also means copyright and trademarks.
I agree that if it's a building block or a core, call it that.
In article <vv5dnq$si6$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >>According to Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
FWIW, I hate this terminology which comes from "intellectual
property" since it insists on the value of this only as
a bargaining/power tool rather than for what it actually performs.
It is also a bit misleading. Where I come from, "intellectual
property" refers to patents.
Where I come from it also means copyright and trademarks.
I agree that if it's a building block or a core, call it that.
You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field. Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks. That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.
You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field. Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks. That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.
People in construction probably hate that computer people call
things "blocks" that aren't made of concrete.
You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field. Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks. That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.
People in construction probably hate that computer people call
things "blocks" that aren't made of concrete.
That comparison doesn't work, the problem with "IP" is not ambiguity,
but that it's politically/ethically charged. That's why I hate it:
because I disagree with the politics behind it (and hate the fact "they" >managed to make "everyone" use it, without even paying attention to what
it means).
In article <jwv4iy113qz.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>,
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field. Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks. That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.
People in construction probably hate that computer people call
things "blocks" that aren't made of concrete.
That comparison doesn't work, the problem with "IP" is not ambiguity,
but that it's politically/ethically charged. That's why I hate it:
because I disagree with the politics behind it (and hate the fact "they" >>managed to make "everyone" use it, without even paying attention to what
it means).
Well, good luck getting the hardware engineers to change
their nomenclature to suit your sensibilities there. *shrug*
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> schrieb:
In article <jwv4iy113qz.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>,
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field. Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks. That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.
People in construction probably hate that computer people call
things "blocks" that aren't made of concrete.
That comparison doesn't work, the problem with "IP" is not ambiguity,
but that it's politically/ethically charged. That's why I hate it: >>>because I disagree with the politics behind it (and hate the fact "they" >>>managed to make "everyone" use it, without even paying attention to what >>>it means).
Well, good luck getting the hardware engineers to change
their nomenclature to suit your sensibilities there. *shrug*
Which begs the quesiton - can an IP with an IP be IP-protected?
The main problem is probably the lack of acronym namespace. This is relatively harmless in this context, but can cause serious confusion
when discussing, for example, chemicals with abbreviations.
Serious misunderstanding can ensue, for example when "MC" can
mean either Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane) or Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane).
DEI stood for "Dale Earnhardt Enterprises" for 2 decades before
the bleeding hearts confiscated it.
Serious misunderstanding can ensue, for example when "MC" can mean
either Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane) or Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane).