| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The only part of the MaserPort the PortProxy uses is the sendFunctional
function which is part of the functional protocol. Rather than require
a MasterPort which comes along with a lot of other mechanisms, this
change slightly adjusts the PortProxy to only require that function
through the use of a delegate. That allows lots of flexibility in how
the actual packet gets sent and what sends it.
In cases where code constructs a PortProxy and passes its constructor
an unbound MasterPort, the PortProxy will create a delegate to the
sendFunctional method on its own.
This should also make it easier for objects which don't have
traditional gem5 style ports, for instance systemc models, to implement
just the little bit of the protocol they need, rather than having to
stub out a whole port class, most of which will be ignored.
Change-Id: I234b42ce050f12313b551a61736186ddf2c9e2c7
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/20229
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
|
|
The void * type is for pointers which point to an unknown type. We
should use that when handling anonymous buffers in the PortProxy
functions, instead of uint8_t * which points to bytes.
Importantly, C/C++ doesn't require you to do any casting to turn an
arbitrary pointer type into a void *. This will get rid of lots of
tedious, verbose casting throughout the code base.
Change-Id: Id1adecc283c866d8e24524efd64f37b079088bd9
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/18571
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandberg@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
Maintainer: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
|
|
These were originally in the SETranslatingPortProxy class, but they're
not specific to SE mode in any way and are an unnecessary divergence
between the SE and FS mode translating port proxies.
Change-Id: I8cb77531cc287bd15b2386410ffa7b43cdfa67d0
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/18570
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
Maintainer: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
|
|
The idea of a "secure" memory area/access is specific to ARM and
shouldn't be in the common mem directory, although it's built in to the
generic memory protocol at this point.
Regardless, it should minimially be in its own file like the virtual
and physical port proxy classes are.
Change-Id: I140d4566ee2deded784adb04bcf6f11755a85c0c
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/18569
Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
|
