On Tuesday, September 27, 2011, Gabe Black wrote: > To expand on this more, while I think something needs to serve the role > of the platform object and that it shouldn't be the system object, I > also think we should design out the platform object. It really has two > roles right now, to forward interrupts from devices to the CPUs through > an interrupt controller object, and to handle PCI address spaces and > devices. > > The interrupt handling could be done directly by the interrupt > controller by extending the system I have for x86 to all ISAs (local > routing through "wires" with up/down state) and then sent up to the CPU > through the memory system. > > The PCI aspect could be managed by a PCI controller object, which > actually seems like a better reflection of real systems on top of being > more modular. >
I disagree with the intermediate steps you went through earlier in this thread, but I agree with your final conclusion. I would say that the Platform object should be merged with the System object, but that it's a good idea to make the functions that get transferred over more modular by delegating them to an interrupt controller object and a PCI controller object. Since it looks like we're ending up in the same place, I'd say there's no need to discuss which is the better mental path to that destination... Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
