search

openhwgroup / programs

Documentation for the OpenHW Group's set of CORE-V RISC-V cores
Other
185 stars 96 forks source link

Initial version of Project Concept for CV32E40PX #634

Closed MPEZZIN closed 6 months ago

MPEZZIN commented 9 months ago

ECA was not signed when I submitted the PR. This is done now

DBees commented 8 months ago

@MPEZZIN do you have more changes to make?

DBees commented 8 months ago

@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?

MPEZZIN commented 7 months ago

All comments are now addressed and folder/file were renamed to match actual project name. I consider this version being the final one.

pascalgouedo commented 7 months ago

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.

davideschiavone commented 7 months ago

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?

MPEZZIN commented 7 months ago

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.

davideschiavone commented 7 months ago

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

MPEZZIN commented 7 months ago

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

davideschiavone commented 7 months ago

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

MikeOpenHWGroup commented 7 months ago

Overall, this looks good @MPEZZIN, thanks to you and the CEA team for bringing this project concept forward. A few minor comments: