RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Memory view and addressable size

[John Cortell <john.cortell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK. So, to confuse matters some, I'd like to start a discussion on 
the need for the memory window to allow the user to specify the 
access size for the memory reads.

Let's consider a simple example:

In a memory configuration that has an addressable size of 1 (i.e., 
memory location 0x10000 represents one byte of memory; 0x10001 
represents the next byte), there are cases where we want to let the 
user tell the backend how the bytes in the memory should be read from 
the target: one byte at a time, or in chunks of two, etc. Currently, 
it's up to the backend to do the physical reads as it sees fit, and 
in theory, this should have no effect on the reported bytes. However, 
such theory does not take into account some strange peculiarities of 
memory mapped registers (MMRs) in some embedded system. In these 
systems, reading 16 bits from an MMR address can return different 
results than if two consecutive 8 bit reads are done.

At this point, I'm mostly curious to see if anyone else in the dsdp 
space has a similar requirement.

John

At 07:44 AM 6/19/2006, Ken_Dyck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> This is already supported in the platform. The getAddressableSize()
> method in IMemoryBlockExtension determines how many bytes of data are
> displayed for each address.
>
> IIRC, the memory view always requests blocks of bytes in multiples of
> the addressable size, and expects blocks to return the bytes for each
> cell in big endian order.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> john.cortell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:19 AM
> To: platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [dsdp-dd-dev] Memory view and addressable size
>
>
> Samantha,
>
> I looked to see if the current 3.2 memory view supports the
> following, but I'm not seeing it.
>
> Some of our target architectures have memory configurations that
> don't have a 1:1 correlation between a memory address and number of
> bytes. E.g., there is one system where an address location represents
> 32 bits, such that, e.g.,
>
>         0x10000 contains 0x23923472;
>         0x10001 contains 0x89004048;
>
> Can you confirm that the current view doesn't support this? Are there
> plans to add this support post 3.2?
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
> dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
> AMI Semiconductor - "Silicon Solutions for the Real World"
> NOTICE:
> This electronic message contains information that may be 
> confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use 
> of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is 
> prohibited. If you received this electronic message in error, please 
> notify the sender and delete the copy you received.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
> dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev