walkeranderson Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Is there some good reason that the n_bytes argument to uvm_mem_mam request_region() and reserve_region() are unsigned ints and not unsigned longints? It seems inconsistent with the address "offset" arguments/attributes which *are* longints (or bit [63:0]) and obviously it prevents allocation of regions larger than 2**32-1. Perhaps this could/should be fixed in a future release? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing. Thanks. Walker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_59 Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 This was supposed to be fixed in UVM 1.1b. Maybe they missed some other places. http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3966 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkeranderson Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Actually that bug report is for uvm_mem. The bug I described is with uvm_mem_mam. FWIW, changing all of the "int unsigned" size or n_bytes arguments to "longint unsigned" works just fine it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_59 Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Yes. I mean the problem is more widespread than just uvm_mem. Anywhere there is the possibility of addressing a memory needs the ability to change the index range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.