Hi Andrew,
Thank you very much for your patience and explaination. Please
excuse me if I miss something or misunderstand something
because my main focus is on my own assignment.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
> In the case of a Read cycle the Universe-2 will read the data
> off the VMEbus and pass it back to the CPU and finish the pending PCIbus
> read cycle. However for a posted write cycle there is no reason to delay
> the CPU until the write completes, as it may be able to execute tens or
> even hundreds of instructions between performing the PCIbus write cycle
> and the VMEbus cycle completing.
>
I think you meant that the address pipelining on the UniverseII chip is
done via the posted write, which makes more sense for me now.
However, I just did a test and found out that one can disable the
posted write on the UniverseII running RTEMS-mvme5500. With a
coupled cycle (posted write disable), the VME bus master only
receives DTACK when the data transition is complete on the PCI bus.
This means that the VMEbus is unavailable to other masters while
the PCI bus transaction is executed.
I agree with you that one should enable the posted write by default.
However, it could be disabled, which means the address
pipelining on the UniverseII could be disabled as well on the Mvme5500.
I thought the origianl issue is "to disable the address pipelinig".
It looks like you have a reason to disable the posted write
for the NI VME-MXI-1. The trad off is to sacrifice the bandwidth
of the VME bus. However, I do not know if the decrease is
significant for your application. I hope this helps.
Thanks,
Kate
- Replies:
- Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVMECPUmodules) Kate Feng
- et_wish mon problem Lei Ge
- References:
- mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modern VME CPU modules) Kate Feng
- Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modern VME CPU modules) Andrew Johnson
- Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVME CPU modules) Kate Feng
- Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVME CPU modules) Andrew Johnson
- Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVMECPU modules) Kate Feng
- Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVMECPU modules) Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
RE: some of my scan tasks are not being processed because of long delays. Sibley III, Coles
- Next:
Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVMECPUmodules) Kate Feng
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
<2004>
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVMECPU modules) Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: mvme5500 (was National Instruments VME-MXI-1 modules vs. modernVMECPUmodules) Kate Feng
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
<2004>
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|