Hey, > Am 27.07.2017 um 09:14 schrieb Andreas Hansson <andreas.hans...@arm.com>: > > Overall I strongly support aligning gem5 and SystemC further. The best > outcome, in my view, would be if gem5 was transitioned to work on the > SystemC kernel, allowing interoperability and more elaborate event > semantics, and then also transitioned to use the TLM ports. That would be > quite a work package though.
I see it the same way, SystemC/TLM is an IEEE standard which is widely used in industry. And therefore there would be a much larger interoperability and also the chance to integrate much more available models to gem5 or vice versa. I also have a large interest in pushing this further! From a TLM view, most of the components could just use the standard TLM methods like b_transport, nb_transport and debug_transport because its indeed very related to Atomic, Timing and Functional methods of gem5, respectively. Some modules would require paylod extensions or even additional protocol phases. But beside this the transition to TLM standard interfaces would be maybe easier than the job of switching to the SystemC kernel ;) But this would be required in order to get the PEQs working for TLM... Just a shameless plug for the SystemC work that we have done so far: http://samos-conference.com/Resources_Samos_Websites/Proceedings_Repository_SAMOS/2017/49_Final_Paper.pdf Regards Matthias _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
