Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix remaining sec inconsistency regarding the X-IF addition #291

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 25, 2025

Conversation

cairo-caplan
Copy link

  • I reviewed fix rf_we #290 and found out that what the main issue still missing was that the signal rf_wdata_sel, coming out of the cve2_decoder, had its length changed from 1 to 2 bits in order to allow the RF_WD_COPROC value.

The problem is that this was made independently if the X-IF interface is enabled or not, so I set it to be 1 bit when XInterface is 0.

  • Regarding the reset on the rf_we, as done on the original core. I just simplified the logic on fix rf_we #290
  • Additionally, I modified the assertion that checks the value of rf_wdata_sel after instr_valid_i is set, to comprise its valid states dependent on the XInterface (presence of X-IF). i.e. to not consider an RF_WD_COPROC value if there is no X-IF.

@cairo-caplan cairo-caplan mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2025
@davideschiavone davideschiavone merged commit 3bc1261 into openhwgroup:x_if Mar 25, 2025
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants