On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Hicks <[email protected]>wrote: > > I think the most important question is why? What does doing this buy us? >
As John already said, the flexibility of not being forced to arrange the memory space after the current restrictions. For example, it will make the architecture a lot more suitable as a drop-in replacement into an existing SoC. I'd like to turn the question around, what harm would it do? It's a small change, that doesn't create any regressions if implemented. IMO the benefits outnumbers the disadvantages (non as I'm concerned) by far. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 07:59:31PM -0600, Matthew Hicks wrote: > For me, one of the biggest problems with the OR1K ISA is that it tries to > be everything to everyone. Very little in the ISA is mandated, while the > toolchains and Linux distributions ignore all these possibilities, i.e., > only working for the OR1200. > Last I looked, all of those were open source, no? What restrict you from updating those to start supporting some of the optional things? Regarding this SPR being optional, I wouldn't mind having it mandatory, but for or1k it's a bit too late. Stefan _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
