Broadcom is notorious for hiding everything behind very restrictive NDAs. You want a CPU from them? Don't bother contacting them unless you plan buying six figures, is the common sentiment on HN.
On the other hand, there aren't many competitors that are better in terms of accessibility. Sigh. Implementing embedded devices with any sorts of "smarts" beyond some Atmel uC from scratch is a pain - one has to go with ready-made modules (ESPxx, Raspberry Pi compute module, COMexpress) to not go insane.
And it's not just the data sheets where you will run into issues (at least, usually you can find them somewhere pirated to get started). Design guides, layouting rules and certifications are a way bigger pain point... looking at you Thunderbolt.
And when you finally have your first PCB version ready, you'll soon find out that any components more intelligent than a couple transistors have sometimes ridiculous minimum order quantities. Let's take a SI2494 56k modem chip... 45$ apiece at a MOQ of 43 - which means if you want one or two you'll have to shell out about 2k $! And to add insult to injury, it's apparently still profitable to sell them for under 9$ at high quantities. This fucking rip-off is the reason why many hobbyist electronic projects are restricted to using dumbass components.
edit: I totally forgot about the software side with embedded SoCs. Basically, to boot Linux or anything else on a SoC you need firmware blobs (e.g. for the GPU or wireless radio parts) and lots of custom code (e.g. to bootstrap clocks, memory, IO). Usually the SoC vendors have an ancient fork of a Linux kernel and u-boot in which over each new chipset there gets ever more custom cruft and (often shoddily) backported stuff from newer kernels. This conglomerate is called "board support package" or BSP - and is, despite consisting of open source code, often guarded as heavily by NDAs as the data sheets.
Sometimes, especially for Mediatek stuff, these BSPs get leaked on Github... and it's always a wild ride looking into them. It's no surprise that upstream Linux doesn't have the support for whatever specific CPU... because the quality of the code is more often than not so hardcore rotten that it's a wonder you don't hear every day about some compromised IoT device.
I wonder what Broadcom's endgame is. They appear to be selling the SoC very cheap to the foundation. I thought maybe this is to encourage other customers to buy that same SoC at a higher price but it appears they don't sell it. If there's no path for Broadcom to make reasonable margins then of course they have no incentive to increase production.
When has Broadcom ever given a sign that they care about their reputation among end users? They want the OEM design wins, and anything after that is not their problem.
Well then what are you waiting for? Start your own chip company.
We get it. Broadcom doesn't release specs for their parts. Their market cap is 20 billion dollars, so all the open source sanctimony won't dent them a bit.
What's the same: Broadcom is still the non-datasheet-releasing, our-chips-implementing-standard-phy-spec functionality are subject to manhattan-project secrecy, assholes.
If you asked for my reflexive feeling about using a Broadcom chip in a new design the answer is you're asking to be in a abusive relationship with a supplier.
reply