I strongly depends on what you mean by 'control' and 'made'. In a sense it all depends on the depth of control and making your own; nearly all modern silicon requires proprietary software to initialise it to a usable state, and almost all hardware can't really run on its own and needs supporting devices which can cause an otherwise open design to end up closed anyway (even if it is something tangentially adjacent like a required PMIC).
Some CPUs and SoC can be operated to their fullest capabilities with pure open hardware and software designs where you have all the control in the world (if we draw the line at silicon diffusion and packaging), but those usually lack one thing or another making them less feasible for common modern use. Often these are things like memory controllers and I/O where internal SoC peripherals need special initialisation before they are usable. Even in cases where the driver side of things is reverse-engineered a bunch of Real-Time OS code needs to be loaded at boot time to get things like GPUs, Basebands and storage to work at all. So far, there are practically no cases where those have been reverse-engineered and replaced.
For a lot of internet-commenting-people, 'open' means something specific to them, like changing some design aspects like colours and fonts, or installing cracked software. Those are mostly just end-user features and have little to do with openness. This has a sad side-effect making searching for 'open' information get littered with what essentially boils down to appearance and recompositions of existing software.
Perhaps we need 'levels' of openness or other words to describe what we mean. The Snapdragon example is a good one in that it essentially uses an openly available and targetable ISA, but closed system design which still makes it impossible to use as-is (thus needing the blobs you mentioned). On one hand it's all legal and NDA stuff, on the other hand it's also laziness and cheaping out on the long-term usability. If a company were to spend just a little of their marketing budget on finding out the parts of the hardware that doesn't need all that NDA coverage, making open software to run the hardware becomes much easier.
Good points, ideally I'd say the software should at least be non-proprietary or at least source-available, but in reality I would settle for anything where I can control at least the software (OS level) side of things.
Some CPUs and SoC can be operated to their fullest capabilities with pure open hardware and software designs where you have all the control in the world (if we draw the line at silicon diffusion and packaging), but those usually lack one thing or another making them less feasible for common modern use. Often these are things like memory controllers and I/O where internal SoC peripherals need special initialisation before they are usable. Even in cases where the driver side of things is reverse-engineered a bunch of Real-Time OS code needs to be loaded at boot time to get things like GPUs, Basebands and storage to work at all. So far, there are practically no cases where those have been reverse-engineered and replaced.
For a lot of internet-commenting-people, 'open' means something specific to them, like changing some design aspects like colours and fonts, or installing cracked software. Those are mostly just end-user features and have little to do with openness. This has a sad side-effect making searching for 'open' information get littered with what essentially boils down to appearance and recompositions of existing software.
Perhaps we need 'levels' of openness or other words to describe what we mean. The Snapdragon example is a good one in that it essentially uses an openly available and targetable ISA, but closed system design which still makes it impossible to use as-is (thus needing the blobs you mentioned). On one hand it's all legal and NDA stuff, on the other hand it's also laziness and cheaping out on the long-term usability. If a company were to spend just a little of their marketing budget on finding out the parts of the hardware that doesn't need all that NDA coverage, making open software to run the hardware becomes much easier.