Closed MPEZZIN closed 6 months ago
@MPEZZIN do you have more changes to make?
@MPEZZIN we need to finalize this. Other TWG ballots are going ahead- can you please weigh in on where this document stands at the moment?
All comments are now addressed and folder/file were renamed to match actual project name. I consider this version being the final one.
Hi @MPEZZIN
There is still this little section about:
* Replace global clock gate by equivalent global enable signal
As already discussed together, this would be the only point that would make me vote against the project.
Regards, Pascal.
Hi @MPEZZIN
There is still this little section about:
* Replace global clock gate by equivalent global enable signal
As already discussed together, this would be the only point that would make me vote against the project.
Regards, Pascal.
@MPEZZIN , how about having a parameter? so that it stays as is when the parameter is false, and it is the new way when true?
This section is under the priority 2 features proposal. Thus for me it is not mandatory but nice to have. Either making it optional with a parameter or not implementing it at all as part of the official OpenHW Group project is fine for me. If really needed, this feature may be implemented in a separate unofficial branch of a project fork. I can remove related text from the proposal if you want.
This section is under the priority 2 features proposal. Thus for me it is not mandatory but nice to have. Either making it optional with a parameter or not implementing it at all as part of the official OpenHW Group project is fine for me. If really needed, this feature may be implemented in a separate unofficial branch of a project fork. I can remove related text from the proposal if you want.
yes it would be nice to remove the related text :) for me it's good to be merged after this
This section is under the priority 2 features proposal. Thus for me it is not mandatory but nice to have. Either making it optional with a parameter or not implementing it at all as part of the official OpenHW Group project is fine for me. If really needed, this feature may be implemented in a separate unofficial branch of a project fork. I can remove related text from the proposal if you want.
yes it would be nice to remove the related text :) for me it's good to be merged after this
done
This section is under the priority 2 features proposal. Thus for me it is not mandatory but nice to have. Either making it optional with a parameter or not implementing it at all as part of the official OpenHW Group project is fine for me. If really needed, this feature may be implemented in a separate unofficial branch of a project fork. I can remove related text from the proposal if you want.
yes it would be nice to remove the related text :) for me it's good to be merged after this
done
thanks a lot @MPEZZIN - for me is good, let's wait for @DBees
Overall, this looks good @MPEZZIN, thanks to you and the CEA team for bringing this project concept forward. A few minor comments:
ECA was not signed when I submitted the PR. This is done now