On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:35:49 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 6/10/2015 11:56 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >> Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> writes: >> >>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did >>>> the TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one >>>> of the several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices >>>> requiring a lot of porting? >>> >>> Rick, >>> >>> Not THESE days, but when I was at Ericsson (late 90s/early 2000s), they >>> had their own GSM chipset (all hardware) for many years that did pretty >>> all the DSP in the tx/rx chain except the voice codecs, which, along >>> with other audio processing, was done on a TI C54x DSP. >> >> PS: When Ericsson split off their handset development to Sony/Ericsson >> around 2001, they formed Ericsson Mobile Platforms to do chipset >> development. They were around for several years, but I'm not sure if >> they still are. >> >> Also, I don't know if either of these answer your inquiry - I may have >> not understood it correctly. > >Sure, an insight is helpful. I was just curious how the DSP thing >worked out. I remember when cell phones were starting out TI made a >decision to steer the whole semi part of the company (which may have >ended up being pretty much the *whole* company) to support the cell >phone business. At one time I think every hand set had a TI 5xxx DSP in >it and every base station had a TI 6xxx DSP (or many I guess). Likely >even the base stations have special chips in them now.Many of the BSs are FPGAs. Since the BS volumes aren't nearly as high as the handsets, and the BSs are more expensive and need flexibility, they tend to not be dedicated silicon. Some of (if not all) the BS architectures will digitize the entire IF BW and demodulate all of the channels together in the same part(s).> >RickEric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Cell Phone DSP Hardware
Started by ●June 10, 2015
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:43:00 +0200, "Robert Lacoste" <see-alciom-dot-com@none.com> wrote:>"rickman" wrote in message news:mlaiba$8jp$1@dont-email.me... >>Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did the >>TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one of the >>several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices requiring a lot of >>porting? > >Hi Rick, >As far as I know the vast majority of baseband cell phone chips are based on >DSP IP cores from companies like CEVA, TENSILICA. VERISILICON and similar. >These DSP cores are of course integrated in custom ASICs. According to >CEVA's web site, they are sold more than 5 billion DSP cores to date, more >than 1 billion per year. > >Rober Lacoste >www.alciom.com >Good data. Thanks. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
Den torsdag den 11. juni 2015 kl. 08.43.00 UTC+2 skrev Robert Lacoste:> "rickman" wrote in message news:mlaiba$8jp$1@dont-email.me... > >Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did the > >TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one of the > >several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices requiring a lot of > >porting? > > Hi Rick, > As far as I know the vast majority of baseband cell phone chips are based on > DSP IP cores from companies like CEVA, TENSILICA. VERISILICON and similar. > These DSP cores are of course integrated in custom ASICs. According to > CEVA's web site, they are sold more than 5 billion DSP cores to date, more > than 1 billion per year. >That is some big numbers ARM just recently reached 50 billion chips, now something like 10billion shipped a year -Lasse
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
Den torsdag den 11. juni 2015 kl. 16.13.15 UTC+2 skrev Eric Jacobsen:> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:35:49 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 6/10/2015 11:56 PM, Randy Yates wrote: > >> Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> writes: > >> > >>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did > >>>> the TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one > >>>> of the several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices > >>>> requiring a lot of porting? > >>> > >>> Rick, > >>> > >>> Not THESE days, but when I was at Ericsson (late 90s/early 2000s), they > >>> had their own GSM chipset (all hardware) for many years that did pretty > >>> all the DSP in the tx/rx chain except the voice codecs, which, along > >>> with other audio processing, was done on a TI C54x DSP. > >> > >> PS: When Ericsson split off their handset development to Sony/Ericsson > >> around 2001, they formed Ericsson Mobile Platforms to do chipset > >> development. They were around for several years, but I'm not sure if > >> they still are. > >> > >> Also, I don't know if either of these answer your inquiry - I may have > >> not understood it correctly. > > > >Sure, an insight is helpful. I was just curious how the DSP thing > >worked out. I remember when cell phones were starting out TI made a > >decision to steer the whole semi part of the company (which may have > >ended up being pretty much the *whole* company) to support the cell > >phone business. At one time I think every hand set had a TI 5xxx DSP in > >it and every base station had a TI 6xxx DSP (or many I guess). Likely > >even the base stations have special chips in them now. > > Many of the BSs are FPGAs. Since the BS volumes aren't nearly as > high as the handsets, and the BSs are more expensive and need > flexibility, they tend to not be dedicated silicon.The FPGAs also tend be in the latest and greatest process, that might offset the price of the extra silicon And I've been told by distributors that since so much of the cost of an FPGA is the development cost, they can offer big volume discounts -Lasse
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT), lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote:>Den torsdag den 11. juni 2015 kl. 16.13.15 UTC+2 skrev Eric Jacobsen: >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:35:49 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On 6/10/2015 11:56 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >> >> Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> >> >>>> Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did >> >>>> the TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one >> >>>> of the several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices >> >>>> requiring a lot of porting? >> >>> >> >>> Rick, >> >>> >> >>> Not THESE days, but when I was at Ericsson (late 90s/early 2000s), they >> >>> had their own GSM chipset (all hardware) for many years that did pretty >> >>> all the DSP in the tx/rx chain except the voice codecs, which, along >> >>> with other audio processing, was done on a TI C54x DSP. >> >> >> >> PS: When Ericsson split off their handset development to Sony/Ericsson >> >> around 2001, they formed Ericsson Mobile Platforms to do chipset >> >> development. They were around for several years, but I'm not sure if >> >> they still are. >> >> >> >> Also, I don't know if either of these answer your inquiry - I may have >> >> not understood it correctly. >> > >> >Sure, an insight is helpful. I was just curious how the DSP thing >> >worked out. I remember when cell phones were starting out TI made a >> >decision to steer the whole semi part of the company (which may have >> >ended up being pretty much the *whole* company) to support the cell >> >phone business. At one time I think every hand set had a TI 5xxx DSP in >> >it and every base station had a TI 6xxx DSP (or many I guess). Likely >> >even the base stations have special chips in them now. >> >> Many of the BSs are FPGAs. Since the BS volumes aren't nearly as >> high as the handsets, and the BSs are more expensive and need >> flexibility, they tend to not be dedicated silicon. > >The FPGAs also tend be in the latest and greatest process, that might offset the price of the extra silicon > >And I've been told by distributors that since so much of the cost of an FPGA >is the development cost, they can offer big volume discounts > >-LasseYeah, companies that wind up shipping a lot of FPGAs or a decent number of really expensive FPGAs tend to get treated very well by the distributors and vendors. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT), lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote:>Den torsdag den 11. juni 2015 kl. 08.43.00 UTC+2 skrev Robert Lacoste: >> "rickman" wrote in message news:mlaiba$8jp$1@dont-email.me... >> >Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did the >> >TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one of the >> >several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices requiring a lot of >> >porting? >> >> Hi Rick, >> As far as I know the vast majority of baseband cell phone chips are based on >> DSP IP cores from companies like CEVA, TENSILICA. VERISILICON and similar. >> These DSP cores are of course integrated in custom ASICs. According to >> CEVA's web site, they are sold more than 5 billion DSP cores to date, more >> than 1 billion per year. >> > >That is some big numbers > >ARM just recently reached 50 billion chips, now something like >10billion shipped a year > >-LasseARM has a very enviable business model. They've managed themselves very well along the way, too. This is another example that you don't have to have an exceptionally excellent product to be very successful, just a good-enough one that is available on decent terms. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
On 6/11/2015 4:52 PM, lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote:> Den torsdag den 11. juni 2015 kl. 16.13.15 UTC+2 skrev Eric Jacobsen: >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:35:49 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 6/10/2015 11:56 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >>>> Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did >>>>>> the TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one >>>>>> of the several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices >>>>>> requiring a lot of porting? >>>>> >>>>> Rick, >>>>> >>>>> Not THESE days, but when I was at Ericsson (late 90s/early 2000s), they >>>>> had their own GSM chipset (all hardware) for many years that did pretty >>>>> all the DSP in the tx/rx chain except the voice codecs, which, along >>>>> with other audio processing, was done on a TI C54x DSP. >>>> >>>> PS: When Ericsson split off their handset development to Sony/Ericsson >>>> around 2001, they formed Ericsson Mobile Platforms to do chipset >>>> development. They were around for several years, but I'm not sure if >>>> they still are. >>>> >>>> Also, I don't know if either of these answer your inquiry - I may have >>>> not understood it correctly. >>> >>> Sure, an insight is helpful. I was just curious how the DSP thing >>> worked out. I remember when cell phones were starting out TI made a >>> decision to steer the whole semi part of the company (which may have >>> ended up being pretty much the *whole* company) to support the cell >>> phone business. At one time I think every hand set had a TI 5xxx DSP in >>> it and every base station had a TI 6xxx DSP (or many I guess). Likely >>> even the base stations have special chips in them now. >> >> Many of the BSs are FPGAs. Since the BS volumes aren't nearly as >> high as the handsets, and the BSs are more expensive and need >> flexibility, they tend to not be dedicated silicon. > > The FPGAs also tend be in the latest and greatest process, that might offset the price of the extra siliconThat is a totally specious argument. Yes, it is in the latest process, second only to the Intel CPUs. But the FPGA fabric adds a 10x multiplier in silicon area (at least) and some factor of lost speed 2x, 10x??? Then there is the power issue. I don't know how FPGAs weigh in on power consumption if you compare apples to apples in terms of product goals. What I do know is you have no way to trade off speed for power as you do in ASSPs.> And I've been told by distributors that since so much of the cost of an FPGA > is the development cost, they can offer big volume discountsThere is a bit of irony in that. FPGAs beat ASICs because of the large NRE costs for anything custom. Then they hit you up in the purchase price for the NRE of making the FPGAs. lol Still, that NRE is spread over a *much* larger customer base with a *much* larger sales volume. BTW, I was told by Xilinx people on several occasions that they spend more on developing the software than they do the hardware. I wonder how many feel they get their money's worth with Xilinx? I'm glad I don't have first hand experience with their tools for a number of years. -- Rick
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
On 6/11/2015 5:52 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT), > lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote: > >> Den torsdag den 11. juni 2015 kl. 16.13.15 UTC+2 skrev Eric Jacobsen: >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:35:49 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/10/2015 11:56 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >>>>> Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone know what DSP hardware is used in cell phones these days? Did >>>>>>> the TI designs end up as IP on SoCs allowing software reuse or did one >>>>>>> of the several DSP startups get their IP onto the SoC devices >>>>>>> requiring a lot of porting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Rick, >>>>>> >>>>>> Not THESE days, but when I was at Ericsson (late 90s/early 2000s), they >>>>>> had their own GSM chipset (all hardware) for many years that did pretty >>>>>> all the DSP in the tx/rx chain except the voice codecs, which, along >>>>>> with other audio processing, was done on a TI C54x DSP. >>>>> >>>>> PS: When Ericsson split off their handset development to Sony/Ericsson >>>>> around 2001, they formed Ericsson Mobile Platforms to do chipset >>>>> development. They were around for several years, but I'm not sure if >>>>> they still are. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I don't know if either of these answer your inquiry - I may have >>>>> not understood it correctly. >>>> >>>> Sure, an insight is helpful. I was just curious how the DSP thing >>>> worked out. I remember when cell phones were starting out TI made a >>>> decision to steer the whole semi part of the company (which may have >>>> ended up being pretty much the *whole* company) to support the cell >>>> phone business. At one time I think every hand set had a TI 5xxx DSP in >>>> it and every base station had a TI 6xxx DSP (or many I guess). Likely >>>> even the base stations have special chips in them now. >>> >>> Many of the BSs are FPGAs. Since the BS volumes aren't nearly as >>> high as the handsets, and the BSs are more expensive and need >>> flexibility, they tend to not be dedicated silicon. >> >> The FPGAs also tend be in the latest and greatest process, that might offset the price of the extra silicon >> >> And I've been told by distributors that since so much of the cost of an FPGA >> is the development cost, they can offer big volume discounts >> >> -Lasse > > Yeah, companies that wind up shipping a lot of FPGAs or a decent > number of really expensive FPGAs tend to get treated very well by the > distributors and vendors.Same is true for pretty much any product. -- Rick
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
Robert Lacoste <see-alciom-dot-com@none.com> wrote:> As far as I know the vast majority of baseband cell phone > chips are based on DSP IP cores from companies like CEVA, > TENSILICA. VERISILICON and similar. These DSP cores are of > course integrated in custom ASICs. According to CEVA's web site, > they are sold more than 5 billion DSP cores to date, more than > 1 billion per year.Thanks. As an outsider, I find it difficult to figure out a given DSP core is in a given baseband chip. Qualcomm in public simply says their Snapdragon chips have Qualcomm's "6th generation DSP". Even knowledge that one of the above vendors has a contract with Qualcomm or Mediatek does not indicate lots of the baseband chips contain the core. And, assuming it's a soft core, analyzing the chip cannot tell you very much. The numbers quoted by CEVA are impressive but they might not be primarily cellular basebands. CEVA sells cores for Bluetooth devices which outnumber handsets last I checked. Steve
Reply by ●June 11, 20152015-06-11
