On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Andreas Hansson wrote:
Hi guys,
I am very much inclined to support Brad's approach, which doesn't care
about the "physical" topology of the interconnect.
Also, I don't want to de-rail the discussion, but an idea that I came to
think of based on all my previous NoC work, do you really need to enquire
the router network at all? Isn't the state always determined what the
controllers and end-points see? What happens if the network only sees
"packets" and has no clue about the actual higher-level messages (which is
the case in plenty real NoC implementations)?
There are several things that I believe you are missing out on.
* The claim that the network does not need to enquired at all is
incorrect. It is possible that the data is in some packet in the network,
and hence the network buffers need to be searched for that packet.
Secondly, it seems to me that the network hierarchy it self can store some
information that is required for making a functional access. I have not
proven this yet.
* A real NoC implementation does not support functional accesses. Anyway,
I am not assuming any particular structure on the packets themselves,
except that they provide a function for making a functional read/write
access. Changes have been made to the higher level messages to support
those functions.
* I have stated before that I am not opposed to having flat list of
buffers. But it is not the approach that I prefer.
--
Nilay
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
