|
Message
From: kr74 at dreamwiz.com<kr74@d...>
Date: Thu Dec 30 13:48:27 CET 2004
Subject: [oc] SoC Review UPDATE
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudolf Usselmann <rudi@a...>
To: <cores@o...>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:02:57 +0700
Subject: Re: [oc] SoC Review UPDATE
>
>
>
> Hi John !
>
> I've read section 1.8.1. It is not clear from it that ABH is
> replacing ASB. It says that both are available for the use as
> main system bus. The second paragraph recommends the use of the
> AHB for all new designs, because it is "better" not because
> ASB is obsolete or AHB is replacing ASB.
> At least that how I am interpreting the specification. May be
> I'm supposed to read between the lines ;*)
>
> AMBA Spec. 2.0
> --------------
> 1.8.1 Choice of system bus
>
> Both AMBA AHB and ASB are available for use as the main system
> bus. Typically the choice of system bus will depend on the
> interface
> provided by the system modules required.
>
> The AHB is recommended for all new designs, not only because it
> provides
> a higher-bandwidth solution, but also because the
> single-clock-edge
> protocol results in a smoother integration with design
> automation tools
> used during a typical ASIC development.
>
> Cheers !
> rudi
>
> on 1/9/01 10:57, John Dalton at johnd@s... wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rudi,
> >
> > I've just read the update to the SoC review.
> >
> > The statement about AHB replacing ASB is in the second
> > paragraph of section 1.8.1 ("choice of system bus") in the
> > AMBA specification, on page 1-12. The copy of the spec
> > I read is titled "AMBA Specification (Rev 2.0) and is
> > dated 13th May 1999.
> >
> > I haven't read the wishbone spec yet, but based on the
> comments
> > from Wade, it sounds as if your choice of wishbone was a good
> > one.
> >
> > Regards
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>
|
 |
Browse
