On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Peter Gavin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Stefan Kristiansson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> - The granularity of the link is a word. >>> (I'm certainly open for discussions on this one, e.g. a cacheline could >>> make >>> sense too) >> >> >> I think a single word is fine. Doing the whole cacheline would be more >> complex, wouldn't it? Plus if the whole cache line was linked it would mean > > Why would it be more complex? Snooping the bus is done at the cacheline > level, right? >
I don't think it would be any more complex, it's just a matter of masking out a couple of bits in the internal link address. >> code that uses atomic instructions needs to know the cache line size, which >> might be annoying. > > IIRC, on PPC it applies to the whole cacheline. > What Peter is speaking about is the fact that the cache line size is configurable on OR1K, but perhaps it would make sense to just set it to the largest possible cache line (32 bytes). Stefan _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
