First read/write!

This commit is contained in:
Alex Mykyta
2021-11-16 23:29:58 -08:00
parent d5c5d42390
commit 249fc2df7c
33 changed files with 1332 additions and 202 deletions

View File

@@ -28,6 +28,54 @@ the template would do something like:
Basically, i'd define a ton of helper functions that return the signal identifier.
================================================================================
Accesswidth vs Regwidth
================================================================================
Reading some old versions of the SystemRDL spec (the old "v1 RDL" spec from Cisco)
it becomes clear that regwidth is actually what defines the bus width!
Some useful points:
- Section 8.1.3 defines the bus width to be sized according to the superset
span of msb:lsb fields.
This means that 'accesswidth' is solely for defining the minimum *granularity* of
an access. For example - APB3 lacks byte strobes, so the bus imposes an accesswidth == regwidth
APB4 introduces PSTRB, which implies the ability to support an accesswidth of 8
Changes to this tool this new understanding imposes:
- derive the CPU bus width based on the largest regwidth
this seems like a reasonable & easy thing to implement
- CPUIF should make sure to always present an aligned address!
if bus width is 32-bits, decoder logic shall recieve an address with bits [1:0] ALWAYS zeroed
Codify this in the internal specification!
- address decode may produce multiple strobes if registers are packed.
Eg: if bus width is 32, and there is a region of 8-bit registers that are tightly packed,
an access will strobe four of them at once
- readback stage needs to account for narrower registers, and properly
pack read values into the response array
Remember - the array width is based on the CPUIF width, NOT the reg width
Multiple regs can be packed into a cpuif width
So what on earth do I do with accesswidth?
- seems to define if sub-accesses are even allowed.
I suppose this would be useful to allow/deny such transactions on a per-register basis
- for now, enforce that accesswidth == regwidth. This lets me ignore it.
- In the future I can ease up on this if I enforce a uniform accesswidth granularity
ie: accesswidth can be used, as long as all registers agree to the same value.
(unless the regwidth is narrower. thats ok.)
eg - OK if:
max regwidth = 32
all 32-bit registers use 16-bit accesswidth
irrelevant to 16 and 8-bit registers
Write about this in the SystemRDL errata?
Could there be guidance on the CPUIF bus width?
For simple protocols like APB, this is meaningful.
Maybe not so much in other protocols...
Maybe add some words to the "clarifications" section
================================================================================
Dev Todo list
================================================================================
@@ -38,6 +86,32 @@ Dev Todo list
- readback mux
- Start a sphinx docs thing
I need to keep better track of everything!
Diagrams of each layer in an architecture overview
transcribe logbook into dev notes
- Am i doing msb/lsb correctly?
bit ordering:
fields are always [msb:lsb]
but could be [low:high] or [high:low]
But how does this affect bus <-> field mapping though??
- [low:high] means that bit order gets swapped from the bus
- [high:low] means bit order is sliced naturally
DONE
endianness controls byte order of the CPU bus
controls byteswap at the CPUIF layer
Internally, use little endian ordering.
TODO: Add hooks for this in CPUIF layer
Do something about cpuif byte strobes?
Remove for now?
Demote to APB3?
- Other field output assignments
- HWIF layer