On 2023/7/18 8:43, Weiwei Li wrote:
On 2023/7/17 23:13, Rob Bradford wrote:
On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 21:22 +0800, Weiwei Li wrote:
On 2023/7/6 18:44, Rob Bradford wrote:
The previous check was failing with:
ELEN = 64 SEW = 16 and LMUL = 1/8 (encoded as 5) which is a valid
combination.
Fix
On 2023/7/17 23:13, Rob Bradford wrote:
On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 21:22 +0800, Weiwei Li wrote:
On 2023/7/6 18:44, Rob Bradford wrote:
The previous check was failing with:
ELEN = 64 SEW = 16 and LMUL = 1/8 (encoded as 5) which is a valid
combination.
Fix the check to correctly match the
On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 21:22 +0800, Weiwei Li wrote:
>
> On 2023/7/6 18:44, Rob Bradford wrote:
> > The previous check was failing with:
> >
> > ELEN = 64 SEW = 16 and LMUL = 1/8 (encoded as 5) which is a valid
> > combination.
> >
> > Fix the check to correctly match the specification by using
On 2023/7/6 18:44, Rob Bradford wrote:
The previous check was failing with:
ELEN = 64 SEW = 16 and LMUL = 1/8 (encoded as 5) which is a valid
combination.
Fix the check to correctly match the specification by using minimum SEW
rather than the active SEW.
From the specification:
"In
On 7/6/23 07:44, Rob Bradford wrote:
The previous check was failing with:
ELEN = 64 SEW = 16 and LMUL = 1/8 (encoded as 5) which is a valid
combination.
Fix the check to correctly match the specification by using minimum SEW
rather than the active SEW.
From the specification:
"In
The previous check was failing with:
ELEN = 64 SEW = 16 and LMUL = 1/8 (encoded as 5) which is a valid
combination.
Fix the check to correctly match the specification by using minimum SEW
rather than the active SEW.
>From the specification:
"In general, the requirement is to support LMUL ≥
