----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3350/#review8057 -----------------------------------------------------------
Minor question: was this meant to be named signalPerfLevelUpdate rather than signalPerLevelUpdate? - Matthew Poremba On Feb. 25, 2016, 11:56 p.m., Curtis Dunham wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3350/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 25, 2016, 11:56 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > sim: Fix clock_domain unserialization > > This patch addresses an issue with the unserialization of clock > domains. Previously, the previous performance level was not restored > due to a bug in the code, which detected the post-unserialize update > as superfluous. This patch splits the setting of the clock domain into > two parts. The original interface of perfLevel is retained, but the > actual update takes place in signalPerLevelUpdate, which is private to > the class. The perfLevel method checks that if the new performance > level is different to the previous performance level, and will only > call signalPerLevelUpdate if there is a change. Therefore, the > performance level is only updated, and voltage domains notified, if > there is an actual change. The split functionality allows > signalPerLevelUpdate to be called by startup() to explicitly force an > update post unserialization. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/sim/clock_domain.hh 31c5786945b447b372c3b7d346aea8fa6208577c > src/sim/clock_domain.cc 31c5786945b447b372c3b7d346aea8fa6208577c > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3350/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Curtis Dunham > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
