----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3185/#review7885 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/mem/request.hh (line 223) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3185/#comment6844> Looking at the APU/GPU patch, it seems these are more mutually exclusive options than flags in bitmask. Would it not make sense to rather have an enum for the segment, and one for the scope, and then use the same enum here and where the value is acted upon? - Andreas Hansson On Jan. 13, 2016, 9:24 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3185/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 13, 2016, 9:24 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11279:e858f2256ccb > --------------------------- > mem: misc flags for AMD gpu model > > This patch add support to mark memory requests/packets with attributes defined > in HSA, such as memory order and scope. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/common/DataBlock.hh d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/RubyRequest.hh > d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm > d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Types.sm > d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/request.hh d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3185/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Tony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
