Re: [lowrisc-dev] Porting TileLink2 to LowRISC
Hi Sean,
I don't speak for the project.
On 24.06.2017 22:16, Sean Halle wrote:
The issue is that we are based on LowRISC and plan to continue
with the
LowRISC distribution to the end.
That is great to hear and exactly what I understand lowRISC is intended for.
So, as a compromise they are proposing to port TileLink2 to
LowRISC.
The question we have for the list is what do people think about the porting
and then upstreaming? If we resolve the Chisel2 vs Chisel3 part, then
would it be a viable option for them to send a pull request and have the
port become a permanent part of the LowRISC distro?
TL2 is not in lowRISC because it is an old version of Rocket, right?
Aside the issues some people see with the Rocket code base, wouldn't it
be desirable to catch up with upstream instead of diverging permanently?
The current lowRISC rocket still is on privilege spec 1.9, too.
Maintaining a lowRISC specific application core that entirely diverged
from the upstream rocket can become a massive workload, I think.
Cheers,
Stefan
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 181 bytes)