First read/write!
This commit is contained in:
@@ -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
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user