On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Steve Reinhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Derek Hower<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Steve Reinhardt<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Before we worry about the details of this patch, I have a higher-level > >> question: why do we need a separate DMA request type and port at all? > >> On the M5 side, we've gotten by just fine so far with ReadReq and > >> WriteReq, and M5 devices don't explicitly mark their DMA requests as > >> such. I understand that that's how Ruby does things, > > > > That's only partially true. Ruby doesn't actually make a distinction > > between DMA and CPU ports. Both are abstract RubyPort objects and > > take the same read/write request types. The only time they are > > distinguished is in the configuration system when the ports are > > matched up to their corresponding objects in Bochs. > > Excellent... even more reason to just handle it in some Bochs-specific > config script and not put any dedicated support in the C++. > > Steve, I must be confused, but I don't quite understand how you envision bochs-specific config scripts handling port assignment for the m5 tester. Polina > Steve > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
