PDP era and a question

From: Clint Wolff <vaxman_at_oldy.crwolff.com>
Date: Sat Aug 28 15:46:50 1999

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Tony Duell wrote:

> You are missing the point. I am not asking that the FPGA companies
> produce/support tools that run on <whatever>. I am simply asking that
> they allow me to create said tools.
>

Given the information you want, it would be fairly easy to reverse
engineer someone elses IP core and repackage it as your own.

You could purchase the rights to use someone elses 8051 uC core in
your Altera device. The core is delivered to you as an encrypted,
compiled, gate level description. You compile and fit it into a
(fully documented) part, read the bitstream, and generate
essentially a compiled, gate level description. Re-encrypt it, and
sell it as your own. Since it is encrypted, the original IP owner
can't decrypt it and verify it is theirs.

This requires very little engineering work on your part.

> Think of microcontrollers for the moment, particularly the Microchip PIC.
> I use that chip a lot. Now, I can either use the (free) Microchip
> assembler/simulator that runs on PCs, or I can take the databook off the
> shelf and write my own assembler/simulator. The necessary information is
> given to do that.
>

True, except for "secure" microcontrollers that are being sold into
smart cards and security systems. You have to convince the uC manufacture
you are a real company that is going to buy millions of their chips.
This makes it much more difficult for a hacker to read the EPROM and
look for security holes.

> There is another reason I want this information. I want to create
> self-modifying circuits, reconfigurable CPUs, etc. And I can't do that if
> I am forced to use the manufacturers tools for every change in configuration.
>

This is a very valid reason. Have you asked for the information on
that basis? And convinced the company you are for real? This involves
convincing the tech support grunt answering the phone you really should
be allowed to talk to an aps engineer, and possiblly even a design
engineer. The documentation exists (the hardware guys didn't write
the code), you just have to social engineer your way to it.

> Most (all?) of the existing work on such systems was done using the
> now-discontinued Xilinx XC6200 series. Those were fully documented (I
> have the data sheets).
>

This implies there wasn't a good reason to continue supplying the
documentation to the public. Too many idiots trying to write their
own tools and calling tech support hourly when it didn't work?

>
> Hmm... Since the architecture of the FPGA is already pretty well
> described in the databook, releasing exactly how the bitstream configures
> the chips is not giving that much more away.
>

But it is information, and companies get rich selling information.

clint
Received on Sat Aug 28 1999 - 15:46:50 BST