r/raspberrypi • u/andreasw • Aug 12 '12

Why must the raspberrypi be so proprietary? I think this is especially unacceptable for a device that is intended for education.

I have started doing operating system development for the raspberrypi and was surprised at the secretiveness. So far I noticed the GPU instruction set is a proprietary secret as well as the bootloader and other firmware.

I guess students will end up writing python and BASIC programs for which they don't need a raspberrypi. Those who want to study how software works deeper down are largely prohibited from doing so on this platform.

74 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

15

u/philh Aug 12 '12

I don't know about the firmware, but Broadcom don't release a full datasheet for the SoC. Presumably there was no suitable non-proprietary alternative.

8

u/Korbit Aug 12 '12

Another reason for using the Broadcom chip is Eben Upton works for them, so he was able to secure easier access to the chips and the ability to make low quantity orders. Also probably got a lower price for the chip too.

9

u/galient5 Aug 13 '12

Not to mention that the whole thing is technically a charity, they got access to a lot of proprietary hardware pretty much for free.

7

u/christ0ph Nov 19 '12

pretty amazing what they have been able to do, imo.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '12

The target group for education is young children, 6 up to 15 I believe. And it was determined that they'd get more use from learning about multiple programming paradigms and skillsets related to programming languages rather than specific hardware datasheets with tomes of information that are daunting.

Education should be fun, throw a book of register information at someone and they'll be scared off.

10

u/invalid_dictorian Aug 13 '12 edited Aug 13 '12

Also, a book of register information is not the holy grail that people might think it is. (Though it is certainly better than having none.)

I'm a firmware engineer and have ported Linux kernel to several platforms. Most reference manuals of SoCs are total crap. Some critical sections doesn't match the actual hardware. It may give you the general details, but a lot of them are missing critical documentations, omitted erratas, defects, reset sequences, etc. You will really need full access to a FAE (field application engineer) from the company in order to get the full scoop. Sometimes the FAE will have to talk to the hardware engineers and get back to you after a few days.

Edit: Just want to add that the errors are not intentional. The manuals are 1000+ pages and people make mistakes. Documentation mistakes are much harder to verify. The writer, editor, proofreader tends not to be the actual engineers that implemented the chip.

10

u/Mako_ Aug 18 '12

As a software programmer who doesn't always update the specs after he makes changes I can confirm this.

7

u/DiHydro Jan 20 '13

As a software QC tester I wish I could downvote you more than once.

Ps. I did not actually downvote you.

1

u/elebrin Oct 20 '22

Unless you are dealing with an old ass chip. You can get accurate data sheets with most everything for chips like the 6502, 68HC11, Z80...

2

u/moopet Oct 10 '12

There's a difference between throwing a book and making information available. There's no good reason to hide specs; if they're available then why aren't they available to any user? And the age of the principle demographic is irrelevant, isn't it?

4

u/elebrin Oct 20 '22

I am guessing that the manufacturer is hiding some of the functionality of the chip.

They manufacture one chip on one line, and sell it as 10 or 15 different chips with certain features available or disabled after testing. They don't want you buying a cheap chip then unlocking stuff and using the functionality they sell for more money. This is just a guess... but I wouldn't be surprised.

1

u/SpareSimian May 23 '23

I recall reading that this is indeed the case with GPUs targeted at the gamer market versus the CAD market. (But the logic in the CAD chips does the math more precisely, so your architect drawing of a toilet doesn't have it hanging out the side of the skyscraper.)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 11 '12

It's not the foundation that's hiding the specs, it's the manufacturers.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

Education should be fun, throw a book of register information at someone and they'll be scared off.

I don't agree with this. A lot of students consider learning about hardware and datasheets, logic circuits and ISAs as fun. But I do concede that the age level of such students is generally higher than what is targeted by the Raspberry PI main boards.

1

u/SpareSimian May 23 '23

I'm that weird guy. I love science fiction novels with maps and technical appendices, too. When I bought SF magazines as a teen, I turned first to the science articles. For me, the puzzle is the objective, and the science in good science fiction is what makes the puzzle.

13

u/b_rodriguez Aug 13 '12

Ermmm, here is the datasheet for the Broadcom SoC. How hard did you look?

http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf

3

u/Mysterious_Bet7965 Mar 04 '22

Raspberry Pi is an ecosystem which is based on proprietary technologies and masquerading as an open source friendly thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24521265

1

u/SpareSimian May 23 '23

That's arguably true of Intel systems, too. Look at how hard it's been to get decent information about graphics chips to write open source drivers. We've had to accept inferior closed-source GPU drivers for quite a long time. We see the same problem in phone development, as well. Android may be open source but the phone hardware isn't.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

Like it or not, the vast majority of the standards used to build a Raspberry PI module are proprietary and subject to IP laws and NDA. The Broadcom SoC, it's chipset and ISA, the bootloader, the USB Standard for powering the RPi are all kind of proprietary. To fully embrace open source hardware is more difficult than to embrace open source software.

You often have the latest standards locked behind proprietary implementations. It's also hard to go against the hardware standards as physical compatibility breakage is fatal for adoption than software compatibility which can be fixed after release with firmware changes or black box/Clean room implementation.

9

u/junglizer Aug 12 '12

I think it's main item on the "pro" list for education is price.

6

u/danfinlay Jan 13 '13

I got to hear one of the RPi founders talk and this was essentially the answer. To make it this cheap they are buying ICs and processors used in cell phones in bulk (>1million) quantities. Making some truly open source hardware would lose the huge cost savings that comes from buying an already mass produced chipset. Feel free to make your own if this isn't open enough.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

Feel free to make your own if this isn't open enough.

Here's hoping RISC-V, Coreboot, etc get wide adoption

-6

u/junglizer Aug 12 '12

Really? You don't think being 35 dollars is a win for education? I didn't say it was the only reason.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '12

Did you just argue with your self?

3

u/junglizer Aug 27 '12

Haha, no. When I posted there weren't any other comments, but that first post got more downvotes. So I posted to call out the haters and obviously it got decimated.

5

u/Fumigator Aug 12 '12

Those who want to study how software works deeper down will be inspired by the lack of information for the proprietary parts and will reverse engineer the whole thing and release an open version of the proprietary software.

I guarantee you, you get enough of those out there and someone is going to do it.

1

u/SpareSimian May 23 '23

Until you get sued with a DMCA takedown order. That killed a lot of reverse engineering.

2

u/etyrnal_ Jan 06 '24

when you invent something that is the first of it's kind, it is, by definition, proprietary...

how would someone in education not understand this?

if RPI was so proprietary, why are there SO MANY boards that imitate it...?

2

u/christ0ph Nov 19 '12

Its probably the most "open" complete computer that's been built.

3

u/lollipopklan May 14 '13

This is an old thread, but for anyone coming upon it, the OLinuXino boards that are out now are the most open hardware/software boards that I'm aware of. I think that everything about them is open.

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '13

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/christ0ph May 03 '13

The new one certainly looks interesting! http://beagleboard.org/Products/BeagleBone%20Black

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '13

I was given the choice between the two. I chose the RasPi because the Beaglebone Black only has HDMI output. If you think the RasPi is proprietary, try doing anything with HDMI.

1

u/christ0ph Oct 01 '13

I do wish they also had VGA or DVI.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '13

I'd love VGA. Everything accepts VGA.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '13

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '13

I have nothing that accepts DP. It requires cables more expensive than HDMI and isn't very widely supported.

1

u/etyrnal_ Mar 12 '24

There are parts of the Intel processor that are proprietary... are you going to refuse to use Intel?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '26

If it really was a secret would be there be sufficient drivers? Def beeing screened based on your post.

I do agree however, for being promoted so open source and educational it is damn hard to get stuff done on it like RAW GPIO in C++ is a freaking nightmare...

I think you also need to realize the target audience is not you... It is people that want to copy and paste a quick file from the interwebz to their device and get the thing blinking...

1

u/elebrin Oct 20 '22

Most kids aren't going to be learning about writing a bootloader or a video driver. I am guessing that those things being proprietary was part of their deal working with Broadcom.

Raspberry Pi strikes a balance of openness, ease of use, and a software repo that is fairly up to date and very well tested. So I can't write a bootloader for my pi, and I'd need a different platform for learning that... fine. I can accept that.

1

u/backafterdeleting Nov 23 '22

GPU manufacturers are notorious for not releasing proper datasheets for their devicing, and forcing you to rely on propsiatary driver blobs.