On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 15.04.14 04:21, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>>
>> Add a sysbus device consisting of a single ram. This allows for
>> instantiation of RAM just like any other device. There are a number
>> of good reasons to want to do this this:
>>
>> 1:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Am 15.04.2014 04:21, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>> Add a sysbus device consisting of a single ram. This allows for
>> instantiation of RAM just like any other device. There are a number
>> of good reasons to want to do this this:
Peter,
Am 15.04.2014 04:21, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
> Add a sysbus device consisting of a single ram. This allows for
> instantiation of RAM just like any other device. There are a number
> of good reasons to want to do this this:
>
> 1: Consistency. RAM is not that special where board level f
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:24:18 +0200
Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 15.04.14 04:21, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> > Add a sysbus device consisting of a single ram. This allows for
> > instantiation of RAM just like any other device. There are a number
> > of good reasons to want to do this this:
> >
>
On 15.04.14 04:21, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
Add a sysbus device consisting of a single ram. This allows for
instantiation of RAM just like any other device. There are a number
of good reasons to want to do this this:
1: Consistency. RAM is not that special where board level files should
have to
Add a sysbus device consisting of a single ram. This allows for
instantiation of RAM just like any other device. There are a number
of good reasons to want to do this this:
1: Consistency. RAM is not that special where board level files should
have to instantiate it with a completely different API
