[lowrisc-dev] Re: [sw-dev] Is a de facto standard memory map helpful or harmful?

Alex Bradbury asb at asbradbury.org
Wed Jul 13 14:16:24 BST 2016

On 13 July 2016 at 13:59, Krste Asanovic <krste at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Config string is supposed to provide this information.  We have code to parse and package this for Linux.  OS ports should all use this and the SBI to avoid binding to absolute physical addressees.

Great, I suspected we are thinking along similar lines. What actually
triggered this email is I saw the SiFive "U5 Coreplex Series Manual"
explicitly details the memory map. I've thought previously about doing
this with our current lowRISC implementation (and indeed working with
other groups to try to agree on this), but then wondered whether in a
world of device tree and similar systems such as the proposed RISC-V
configuration string this is necessary or beneficial. Perhaps the
SiFive document could contain a note indicating that best practice for
software developers is to not rely on hardcoded values indicated in
this map?



More information about the lowrisc-dev mailing list