picorv32 VS minimax

> Right now, most devices on the market do not support the C extension

This is not true and easily verifiable.

The C extension is defacto required, the only cores that don't support it are special purpose soft cores.

C extension in the smallest IP available core https://github.com/olofk/serv?tab=readme-ov-file

Supports M and C extensions https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32

Another sized optimized core with C extension support https://github.com/lowrisc/ibex

C extension in the 10 cent microcontroller https://www.wch-ic.com/products/CH32V003.html

This one should get your goat, it implements as much as it can using only compressed instructions https://github.com/gsmecher/minimax

In contrast to most people here saying you NEED to spend money. I disagree with that. You can implement and simulate a SPI master/slave fully on your computer, no FPGA or other hardware required. There are simulation models for SPI peripherals you could use. For example: https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32/blob/master/picosoc/spiflash.v

The Pico RV32 is pretty small, and can go as low as about 750 LUTs, with most features elided. I don't know how Xilinix LUTs translate to Lattice though.

Picorv32: https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32

There are loads of free RISC-V cores that you can read the source of and run on cheap FPGAs. Take a look at PicoRV32: https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32

picorv32 is written in Verilog.

In short: it works, though the implementation lacks the crystal clarity of FemtoRV32 and PicoRV32. The core is larger than SERV but has higher IPC and (very arguably) a more conventional implementation. The compressed instruction set is easier to expand into regular RV32I instructions than it is to execute directly.

That is, reducing the number of LUT required to implement a CPU of a given ISA.

A basic RV32 CPU is down to 500-700 LUT.

    https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32

I've bought a cheap FPGA board (Sipeed Tang Nano 9K) because I want to implement a little 8 or 16-bit CPU. The FPGA has plenty of BRAM for such a little CPU, so I wouldn't even need to implement an SPI controller initially, but I want to implement a von Neumann architecture, and was wondering if the only way of doing so using single port (or semi dual port) RAM would be to use 2 cycles or more for memory transfer operations (one for loading the instruction, one for executing the actual memory transfer), or if there was any technique that could be used to avoid this without having to implement instruction-level parallelism. Even if not, references to understandable code implementing a simple memory interface would be appreciated. I looked at PicoRV32 but couldn't really understand its inner workings.

Have you looked at PicoRV32? https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32

> Right now, most devices on the market do not support the C extension

This is not true and easily verifiable.

The C extension is defacto required, the only cores that don't support it are special purpose soft cores.

C extension in the smallest IP available core https://github.com/olofk/serv?tab=readme-ov-file

Supports M and C extensions https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32

Another sized optimized core with C extension support https://github.com/lowrisc/ibex

C extension in the 10 cent microcontroller https://www.wch-ic.com/products/CH32V003.html

This one should get your goat, it implements as much as it can using only compressed instructions https://github.com/gsmecher/minimax

On FPGAs, a register file probably fits better into distributed RAM than block RAM.

On Xilinx, for example: a 64-bit register file doesn't map efficiently to Xilinx's RAMB36 primitives. You'd need 2 RAMB36 primitives to provide a 64-bit wide memory with 1 write port and 2 read ports, each addressed separately. Only 6% (32 of 512) entries in each RAMB36 are ever addressable. It's this inefficient because ports, not memory cells, are the contented resource and BRAMs geometries aren't that elastic.

A 64-bit register file in distributed RAM, conversely, is a something like an array of DPRAM32 primitives (see, for example, UG474). Each register would still be stored multiple times to provide additional ports, but depending on the fabric, there's less (or no) unaddressed storage cells.

The Minimax RISC-V CPU (https://github.com/gsmecher/minimax; advertisement warning: my project) is what you get if you chase efficient mapping of FPGA memory primitives (both register-file and RAM) to a logical conclusion. Whether this is actually worth hyper-optimizing really depends on the application. Usually, it's not.

I haven't used it on a huge design (I'm usually a VHDL person), but it was a hassle-free replacement for iverilog when regression testing Minimax. Performance is substantially better; compilation times are worse.

Note that you can't compare LUT4 results (ZPU @ 440 LUTs) against LUT6 results (PicoRV32 @ 750 LUTs). The ZPU is remarkably small, and it's a bigger gap than a direct comparison shows.

SERV is a fair comparison, since it's architected for 4LUTs and I suspect the synthesis results come from iCE40 tools.

I have a contender in the "very small" space, too [1], although I don't claim it's as mature or complete as SERV. (If Minimax was excluded from your post on the basis of insanity, I'm OK with that.)

[1] https://github.com/gsmecher/minimax

I develop Minimax (https://github.com/gsmecher/minimax), an open-source RISC-V implementation. It's currently written in both VHDL and Verilog (the two implementations are equivalent, though I am likely to drop the VHDL implementation if it's too much work to keep them both.)

The best point-of-entry for "tiny" MCUs these days is FemtoRV32-Quark or SERV. I also maintain my own small RISC-V core (Minimax), though it's early on in graduating from "experiment" to "real design".