new cache code for rc1 #731
Conversation
| @@ -31,7 +32,7 @@ module bsg_wormhole_to_cache_dma_fanout | |||
|
|
|||
| , parameter wh_ready_and_link_sif_width_lp=`bsg_ready_and_link_sif_width(wh_flit_width_p) | |||
| , parameter wh_then_ready_link_sif_width_lp=`bsg_then_ready_link_sif_width(wh_flit_width_p) | |||
| , parameter dma_pkt_width_lp=`bsg_cache_dma_pkt_width(dma_addr_width_p, dma_mask_width_p) | |||
| , parameter dma_pkt_width_lp=`bsg_cache_dma_pkt_width(dma_addr_width_p, dma_mask_width_p, dma_ways_p) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
any more changes/testing required here?
| @@ -372,7 +430,7 @@ module bsg_cache_miss | |||
|
|
|||
| // If it's not AINV, and the chosen set is dirty and valid, evict the | |||
| // block. | |||
| miss_state_n = (~decode_v_i.ainv_op & stat_info_in.dirty[flush_way_n] & valid_v_i[flush_way_n]) | |||
| miss_state_n = (~decode_v_i.ainv_op & ((notification_en_i & decode_v_i.aflinv_op) | stat_info_in.dirty[flush_way_n]) & valid_v_i[flush_way_n]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what functionality is this adding and when is it needed? Flushing clean data on AFL when notification_en_i is enabled?
| assign io_read_in_progress_n = ((send_state_r == SEND_ADDR) & ~dma_pkt_lo.write_not_read & dma_pkt_lo.uncached_op & wh_link_sif_in.ready_and_rev) | ||
| ? 1'b1 | ||
| : (((recv_state_r == RECV_IO_DATA) & return_fifo_yumi_li) | ||
| ? 1'b0 | ||
| : io_read_in_progress_r); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be in the alway_comb block above?
| // for convinience, we use the unused field to store the way_id, evict_pending bit, uncached_op and write_validate bit here | ||
| // instead of splitting them into separate new fields | ||
| // assign header_flit.unused = {'0, dma_pkt_lo.write_validate, dma_pkt_lo.uncached_op, dma_pkt_lo.evict_pending, dma_pkt_lo.way_id}; | ||
| assign header_flit.unused = {'0, dma_pkt_lo.evict_pending, dma_pkt_lo.way_id}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when does write_validate or uncached_op get set?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably better to make into separate fields so that old modules break noisily instead silently?
RicoLi424
force-pushed
the
mini_rebase_new
branch
from
35c7438 to
b88a1ea
Compare
|
@tommydcjung @RicoLi424 @farzamgl @dpetrisko any convergence |
|
@RicoLi424 where are the changes to the current testbenches and unit-testing for the new features? How do I know these changes are tested? |
|
|
@RicoLi424 please update the existing benchmarks as well to pass with the new features disabled. |
|
Hey @RicoLi424. One minor thing: I saw some comment blocks in this PR (for example here: https://github.com/RicoLi424/basejump_stl/blob/mini_rebase_new/bsg_cache/bsg_cache.svh#L69). If they are not necessary anymore, maybe we could delete them. |
|
Note that I have put a PR at your local basejump repo. (RicoLi424#1) |
Redirect uncached IO to separate wh dest
@tommydcjung