hw: Support custom axi_xbar config structs
#254
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
|
After some thought, I don't see why we cannot add this. The only reason would be to avoid confusion as to why we set a default, which can be addressed with a comment. |
paulsc96
changed the title
axi_xbar configurationsaxi_xbar config structs
paulsc96
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In picobello we have the issue that the clusters use a multicast capable AXI xbar that have additional fields in the
xbar_cfg_t. We don't actually want to use a multicast capable AXI xbar in Cheshire, but since we cannot have two separateaxidependencies in a project, our workaround was to assigndefault: '0to unknown struct fields, which should be compatible with the vanilla AXI xbarThere is a PR open to merge the multicast capable AXI xbar pulp-platform/axi#398, but it is unlikely to make progress anytime soon, since it is a major change and also probably not entirely AXI compliant. Hence, this change would allow us to again track the main branch of cheshire and make it easier to stay up to date new developments (e.g. the SystemRDL ones #253 #252).
It's not the best solution and if you disagree with this change, we will keep a
picobellobranch on cheshire and I will close this PR again.