On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:24:12 -0700, nathan binkert <[email protected]>
wrote:
The bottom line is that I think Platform is mostly historical, but I
don't
know the history, so maybe for starters someone like Nate or Ali
could bring
me up to speed...
I believe that there is no good reason for Platform to be separate to
System
and I think that we should do as you say and have a System object
that does
both.
Nate
The reason for the platform is to separate the ISA from the
implementation of the hw implementation that runs that ISA. For example
if we think back to turbo laser, tsunami, alpha, linux and tru64. We
have AlphaSystem, and then AlphaLinuxSystem and AlphaTru64System for the
two operating systems. The platform provided an interface to interrupts
and i/o so you could build a tsunami system that booted Linux or Tru64
or a Tlaser system that booted either. Otherwise there isn't a clear
object hierarchy that can be built (some combination is going to result
in a lot of code duplication).The Tusnami and the TLaser system had very
different ways of handling interrupt and the translating memory for DMA,
so there needs to be some specialization.
Ali
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
