C-SKY CPU Architecture For Linux 5.6 Picks Up Stack Protector, PCI Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: C-SKY CPU Architecture For Linux 5.6 Picks Up Stack Protector, PCI Support

While two weeks past the Linux 5.6 merge window some late changes for the C-SKY CPU architecture were accepted today...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=C-SKY-Linux-5.6-Late-Updates

[GraysonPeddie]

That processor I saw looks like it has a silkscreen effect -- similar to an LCD display with a TN panel. (I have a Samsung monitor with a TN panel with bad vertical viewing angle, especially when looked at very close to the screen.) I wonder what it looks like if you rotate the processor downward?

[Adarion]

Seems to be a good bunch of ASIC-ish chips in that little SoC. But it is to wonder if that one would ever reach end-user market.

[coder]

That processor I saw looks like it has a silkscreen effect -- similar to an LCD display with a TN panel. (I have a Samsung monitor with a TN panel with bad vertical viewing angle, especially when looked at very close to the screen.) I wonder what it looks like if you rotate the processor downward?

That's actually a pretty large die for what's described as a low-power core.

Anyway, while searching for other die shots, I ran across this:

https://www.convergedigest.com/2018/04/alibaba-acquires-c-sky-microsystems-for.html

Hopefully, phoronix will mention this, in future articles about them. Not that it changes much, but it makes developments involving them perhaps a bit more consequential.

[coder]

I'm most interested in "Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCP) / SRAM support". I wonder if that's a generic kernel facility, or something very specific to their SoC. I think software-managed SRAM is probably something we're going to be seeing more often.

[AusMatt]

Shouldn't "Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCP)" be "Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)"?

[coder]

Shouldn't "Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCP)" be "Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)"?

Agreed. I had the same thought. I hope the patch actually called it TCM and it was just a typo/misquote.