(no title)
dist1ll | 6 months ago
Not sure what the situation is for other hardware like NVMe SSDs.
[0] 2750 page datasheet for the e810 Ethernet controller https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/6138...
dist1ll | 6 months ago
Not sure what the situation is for other hardware like NVMe SSDs.
[0] 2750 page datasheet for the e810 Ethernet controller https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/6138...
throwaway2037|6 months ago
Real question: Why do you think Intel does this? Does it guarantee a very strong foothold into data center NICs? I am sure competitors would argue two different angles: (1) this PDF shares too much info; some should be hidden behind an NDA, (2) it's too hard to write (and maintain) this PDF.
WalterBright|6 months ago
(I'm not including the C++ Standard Library, as I didn't implement it.)
awjlogan|6 months ago
It does take a huge amount of work to write and maintain. Typically the authors are not technical, so it also relies on the designers being available to answer questions as well. Then there’s a choice of how it’s written: narrative and potentially imprecise but readable, or terse and precise but hard to read. There’s both styles in the same document, terse for register descriptions.
jovial_cavalier|6 months ago
Regards to (1), if you don't publish this information you're not selling a CPU, you're selling a very expensive chunk of sand. There is simply no way that a customer can guess at what your implementation looks like. Additionally, Intel barely has IP in the traditional sense. They hold patents, but their only real competitor in making x86 processors, AMD, has a long-standing mutual non-enforcement agreement wrt patents.
Regards to (2), I'm guessing a majority of this PDF can be generated sort of like you generate API documentation from doxygen comments.
[1]: https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruh73q/spruh73q.pdf?ts=175651560...
mrandish|6 months ago
I'm not sure large traditional silicon vendors like Intel, TI, et al re-evaluate the documentation requirements (and costs) on a chip by chip basis. It's probably done by chip class and for companies who've been selling chips by the millions over many decades to industries as diverse as defense, aerospace, automotive, etc there are classes of chips where robust, complete documentation is not only expected but often a required part of the RFP, compliance or conformance processes.
While this level of effort probably isn't needed for every chip in that class, it could be hard to reliably predict when a general purpose chip is still in the design phase which customers may be interested in it during its life (which for some of these chips might be decades). Many chips which conform to MIL-SPEC or other similar standards which can require extensive documentation are simply enhanced versions of standard chips, so the docs exist anyway. Finally, there's the organizational capabilities and culture aspect. Once the org needs to maintain the systemic ability to generate serious documentation at scale, you end up with a lot of managers and staff who think this way.
lelanthran|6 months ago
For comparison, a data sheet for a single transistor can be around 12 to 30 pages. A data sheet for a tiny microcontroller is probably a few hundred pages.
I once wrote a driver for a flash chip and that had a data sheet of around 80 pages.
unknown|6 months ago
[deleted]
pjjpo|6 months ago
Assumptions, fair or not, about (1) seems more likely somehow.
miki123211|6 months ago
bhawks|6 months ago
wtallis|6 months ago
the-rc|6 months ago
XorNot|6 months ago
theideaofcoffee|6 months ago