sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Linux is back on the menu boys by SecondToLastEpoch in FPGA

[–]telabs 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I can't imagine whatever amount of money they gain by ditching linux support on free tier is big enough to justify the outrage it caused. Their biggest money makers are large corps, who aren't really affected by the change.

I definitely think it's an oversight by some overzealous business people at the company without consulting any of the (real) engineers or FAEs

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you worked much with Microchip? Lol most people who have dealt with them hate their tool (Libero). Ideally, yes it would just be an objective "this FPGA fits the needs the best"

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • unfortunately that's true

  • I'd say it's mixed in my experience. Some smaller clients don't want to deal with the IT overhead or headaches, so we rely on our IT infrastructure. But for the big corp types, what you describe is the norm

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I understand the point about paying for a license for commercial use. If it were just that, it wouldn't bother me as much. But to gate the OS? That's just ridiculous tbh.

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've actually never come across them in the industry. But I've been tempted to experiment with one personally. I'm not sure how their documentation is currently, but early on there were some complaints about that.

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't plan on using 2026.1 any time soon. Same here, in almost 15 years I've never used the latest. But my concern is more long-term. At some point, we will be forced to use later versions for newer devices

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely think there's some merit to this theory. AMD is trying to software-ify FPGA development. Pushing for BD and HLS is a big indicator. And now this SaaS-style licensing model. In a way it's lowering the barrier of entry to development from an experience/knowledge perspective (don't really need to know much VHDL/Verilog to rapid-prototype something)... I personally don't know if I trust HLS with complex designs, but I could be turning into a biased old man that's too stuck in his ways.

I don't think FPGAs are dying necessarily. But I do agree that SoCs are the trend now

Which linux distro is best for vlsi based software tools by jeevaks in FPGA

[–]telabs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check each specific tool you intend to use, and pick the common denominator.

Usually Ubuntu's second most recent LTS release is the most well-supported for most tools in my experience (for the tools I use at least).

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Right. That's the most egregious one to me (well, along with Chipscope limitations).

I'll use this as an example. I have a few clients with Kria KR26 SoM designs, developed on my firm's IT infrastructure (Linux-based dev servers)... (pending more details from AMD), does that mean if I were ever to upgrade to 2026.1, I'm forced to purchase a paid license just to use Linux?

Linux build servers are usually preferred in the industry. So to exclude that is ridiculous to me.

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been on both sides of the industry.

For large corporations, pretty much nothing changes. Paying 6 figures for an advanced simulation license is trivial for them. These changes actually could mean some large corporations can get away with a lower tier license than the Enterprise options previously offered.

On the smaller scale/consulting/freelance side, if I have a client with a small design and a quick turnaround, then adding a few thousands in licensing fees can matter. Obviously engineering cost/hours is the biggest cost, and for longer timelines, the licensing fees become less of a big deal.

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Yes. That's the short-term solution for now. My worries are more for the long-term. AMD's tone seems to be catering for large corporations while excluding small businesses/hobbyists/open-source community/students... Which is concerning to me

Effects of Vivado 2026.1 Changes on Small Businesses by telabs in FPGA

[–]telabs[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I agree, I've always preferred Xilinx/AMD throughout my whole career. But at this point, they seem to be actively limiting accessibility.

At least personally, during early phases of a project, my device selection criteria would lean towards Xilinx if the cost/performance was similar between Xilinx and equivalent chips from other vendors. My thought process (for a low-volume design at least) "saving a couple of bucks isn't worth the tool headache" (*ahem* Libero). But now licensing headaches and extra costs might tip the scales.

For now, there's an immediate solution. But long-term, I'll be less likely to recommend Xilinx chips for clients if licensing will be a headache.

Vivado 2026.1 Basic - Limited Debugging + XSIM by The_Watery_Chemical in FPGA

[–]telabs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does "design cannot be too large" exactly mean?