rocket-chip VS riscv-boom

Hello. I'm looking into implementing RISC-V on an FPGA for a school project. The two repos I'm looking into using are the Ariane and RocketChip repos. Both look actively maintained, but RocketChip has more recent releases, and it's used by this other repo that creates a block design in Vivado with the RISC-V RTL. However, we would also like to be able to make changes to the core, and I'm afraid that scala/Chisel might be difficult to learn. Ariane looks like SystemVerilog while RocketChip is mostly Chisel. Does any have recommendations on which RISC-V repo would be good to use for a project?

You could do a trial build of an in-order Rocket RISC-V core [1] to see how much space it takes up.

[1] https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip

My definition of a RISC CPU is one that has a reduced instruction set. In other words, the category of CPU is defined by the size of the instruction set, not in how it is implemented. Consider for example RISC-V CPUs. These are defined by their open instruction set alone, in spite of the fact that many implementations of RISC-V CPUs exist: some pipelined, and some not.

More complex CPUs are typically completely out of scope for hand coding, therefore you can implement generators like: https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip

We don't have Sifive's specifically but we do have the open source cores they've historically used to design their cores: https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip

This would allow you to experiment with your own chip or something like [the RocketChip generator](https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip).

https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip/blob/c7da610430f51b02ebda37f3d444674dc8f2adbf/src/main/scala/system/Configs.scala#L28

I don't know about the u74 specifically, but sifive does seem to invest in a open source risc-v core called rocket-chip.

Looks like from Appendix D that only 2 bugs were found in BOOM:

> 1. Inaccurate instruction count when minstret is written by software

I don't know what that means, but having minstret written by software was definitely not something I ever tested. In general, perf counters are likely to be undertested.

> 2. Static rounding is ignored for fdiv.s and fsqrt.s

A mistake was made in only listening to the dynamic rounding mode for the fdiv/sqrt unit. This is one of those bugs that is trivially found if you test for it, but it turns out that no benchmarking ever cared about this and from all of the fuzzers I used when I worked on BOOM, NONE of them hit it (including commercial ones...). Ooops.

Fixed here: https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom/pull/629/files

The two most micro architecturally advanced cores that I know of are BOOM, an out of order RV64GC core with all the features you expect plus sort of weird fancy things like short forward branch predication, and VROOM, another out of order RV64GC core with things like uop fusion and a trace cache.

it is used in the Berkley Out-of-Order RISC-V processor: https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom

SonicBOOM: https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom

Some cores are open source and you can see for yourself.

Rename logic from BOOM, a RISC-V core written in a DSL embedded in Scala:

https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom/blob/1ef2bc6f6c98e5...

From RSD, a core designed for FPGAs written in SystemVerilog:

https://github.com/rsd-devel/rsd/blob/master/Processor/Src/R...

And then there's the recently open-sourced XuanTie C910, which contains this Verilog… which is completely unreadable. Seems like it was produced by some kind of code generator that they didn't open-source?

https://github.com/T-head-Semi/openc910/blob/d4a3b947ec9bb8f...

We don't have Sifive's specifically but we do have the open source cores they've historically used to design their cores: https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip

If you look at the decoder (https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom/blob/master/src/main/scala/exu/decode.scala), you can see that the fence instructions are also marked as "unique" instructions. Only one "unique" instruction is allowed in the pipeline at a time.