Hi Gabe, Why have a new special "port" and not just a function (e.g., connectCPU or connectMemory depending on if you're CPU or memory-side focused)?
I would strongly prefer to have descriptive names and not something like "Export" which could mean many things. Jason On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:05 PM Gabe Black via gem5-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks. I've been thinking about a new type of port which only exists in > python, and which just proxies for another port which belongs to some other > object. If you're familiar with systemc, I think this is pretty similar to > the "export" object. The major use case for this would be to, for instance, > add some to a SubSystem class (which is nothing but a blank box to hold > other things) to expose ports within the SubSystem without having to dig > around inside it. For instance, if you have a CPU complex with internal > structure, you might want to wrap it all in a SubSystem and add a port for > data, instruction, cached, uncached, etc. That would provide a lot more > uniformity between CPUs, and help avoid having special little methods to > hook up ports or say what port to use when connecting to a bus. > > The name is a little tricky since port proxy is already a well known > thing. Maybe just Export? That name has precedence, but I've always thought > it wasn't immediately clear what it was. > > Gabe > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
_______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
