There is stuff like that going on in PCB design, where manufacturers make free design software, or distributors making footprint libraries.
Totally different things. Asking TMSC how to design a RISC-V chip is akin to asking Advanced Circuits or OSH Park how to design an Intel motherboard. They can make the board for you, but they dont design it.
TSMC is a manufacturer, but they still have a whole IP/Parts library that they share with their customers.
> TSMC's Design Service Alliance partners provide industry-leading, silicon-verified libraries, IP and design services directly to designers in fabless semiconductor companies, IDMs and systems houses. DSA partners provide best-of-class, silicon-verified libraries; high-performance, leading-edge intellectual property cores; unprecedented accuracy in design simulation, validation and verification; faster cycle time from specification through tapeout to finished wafers; and access to experienced designers and developers of complex functions.
https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/2211 (year: 2000)
There is eFabless, among other efforts in the vein you describe, they do a multi project wafer shuttle thing that google sponsors using skywater. It's supposedly an open source PDK, I haven't used it.
And that cost is exactly why it makes Zero sense the mainstream view on internet and HN that SiFive or RISC-V is going to crush ARM on Server / Desktop / Smartphone computing. Despite repeatedly asking what are the competitive advantage. Of course China betting everything on RISCV is a different story.
And this submission only have 52 upvote with very little comments. i.e It will never reach mainstream thoughts. Although I dont think any of the RISC-V Evangelism Strikeforce would want to hear them anyway.
Having an open core is only half the battle. Cheap, commoditized stuff is tuned and tweaked to within an inch of its life for the available foundries and specific processes on which it is being fabbed both to squeeze out maximum yield and to give the highest possible performance at minimum power. That's very expensive engineering for which investors are going to want to earn their money back on.
In theory, every patented technique is already public: it’s described by the text of the patent. In practice, today’s patents are malicious compliance writ large: most of the time, they describe only the most indispensable (not necessarily the most difficult) parts of the processes in the most obtuse language possible. And while I hold that a patent lawyer’s job is morally repugnant, the overall fault is hardly with those exploiting loopholes, it’s with those who cast the loopholes in stone (making them part of national law, pervasive international agreement bundles such as the WTO, etc.) in the first place.
The question than will be how close we can come to the proprietary systems and which use-cases are low-key enough that their cutting edge new innovations don't make a difference.
I think the microcontroller space will be wholly owned by RISC-V in the long run. For cheap, commoditized stuff, open is better than closed for everyone. For the high performance stuff, the manufacturer still needs to protect their investment, especially because the will need to invest more and more for ever smaller gains.
Do you think that makes sense or am I phantasizing? :D