----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2144/#review4866 -----------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to see http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2039/ go in first (and that patch also has a few follow ons to fix some incorrect assumptions in the RubyPort). Would that be ok? I'd rather fix the way it does the routing before adding more of the same. - Andreas Hansson On Jan. 17, 2014, 5:45 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2144/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 17, 2014, 5:45 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10017:66f543a6cac7 > --------------------------- > ruby: route all packets through ruby port > Currently, the interrupt controller in x86 is connected to the io bus > directly. Therefore the packets between the io devices and the interrupt > controller do not go through ruby. This patch changes ruby port so that > these packets arrive at the ruby port first, which then routes them to their > destination. Note that the patch does not make these packets go through the > ruby network. That would happen in a subsequent patch. > > > Diffs > ----- > > configs/ruby/MESI_Two_Level.py a362694dda2d > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.hh a362694dda2d > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc a362694dda2d > src/mem/ruby/system/Sequencer.py a362694dda2d > tests/configs/pc-simple-timing-ruby.py a362694dda2d > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2144/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
