On 23 June 2017 at 13:38, KONRAD Frederic <frederic.kon...@adacore.com> wrote: > Le 06/23/2017 à 11:51 AM, Peter Maydell a écrit : >> As an aside, I still find it very odd that you get a clock >> object for both an input clock and an output clock. I feel >> like we should have one end owns the clock object and the >> other just has a reference to it of some kind. > > > The point is beeing able to bind/unbind clocks inside the device > to model a clock selector for example. So you just bind/unbind > the input and output clocks.
I don't see why this needs both 'input clock' and 'output clock' to be separate objects. What I have in mind is: Device A: has-a clock C1 Device B: has-a clock C2 Device C: (a clock selector) clock inputs CI1, CI2 has-a clock C3 Each device "owns" its output clock objects, but input clocks are just pointers to the clock object owned by the device at the other end. In the board you wire up CI1 to C1, and CI2 to C2 (using link properties I guess). Then in device C you can implement the clock switching by some kind of bind(s->CI1, &s->C3) call because you have pointers to all the relevant clock objects. As I understand it your current implementation makes not just the output clocks C1 C2 C2 be clock objects, but also the inputs CI1 CI2, so effectively each link from a clock source to a clock sink has two objects involved. thanks -- PMM
