> This is the first step.
No, one of many steps already taken.
> I would have prefered a 64bits core
Sounds like you're not in the target market.
> because once I write 64bits RISC-V assembly code paths, I could really re-use them on desktop/server/embedded.
Not really. There's not much overlap between "desktop/server" (a 64 bit only affair) and "embedded" (mostly 32 bit cores). Not to mention that apart from 32<->64 bit, the programming environment tends to be very different between these: system complexity, boot procedure, how to interact with outside world - just to name a few.
In short: pick target device(s), code for that. Want code to move easily between different types of devices? Then code in something other than assembly.
No, one of many steps already taken.
> I would have prefered a 64bits core
Sounds like you're not in the target market.
> because once I write 64bits RISC-V assembly code paths, I could really re-use them on desktop/server/embedded.
Not really. There's not much overlap between "desktop/server" (a 64 bit only affair) and "embedded" (mostly 32 bit cores). Not to mention that apart from 32<->64 bit, the programming environment tends to be very different between these: system complexity, boot procedure, how to interact with outside world - just to name a few.
In short: pick target device(s), code for that. Want code to move easily between different types of devices? Then code in something other than assembly.