----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3451/#review8269 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc (line 180) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3451/#comment7079> May I propose we take one step further and do not use a queued port here? This should be as easy as just returning rp->pioSlavePort.sendTimingResp(pkt); The retry should not be difficult to wire up. I really don't think there is a need for a queued port here. - Andreas Hansson On April 21, 2016, 7:49 p.m., Brandon Potter wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3451/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 21, 2016, 7:49 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11444:4e99eb9997e2 > --------------------------- > ruby: change clock periods for requests associated with ruby port > > This suggestion was brought up here: reviews.gem5.org/r/3442 > > This change involves using the clock period set by a ruby port (instead of > the clock period used by the ruby system) when issuing requests through > the ruby port object to attached objects. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc cfad34a15729e1d5e096245f5a80ded6e2c379ca > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3451/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Brandon Potter > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
