I expect that is just a holdover from some earlier...
# efabless
t
I expect that is just a holdover from some earlier version of the
defs.h
file that may have defined
reg_la0_data_in
as an alias for
reg_la0_data
. There shouldn't be any difference, and both should point to
0x25000000
.
s
I managed to make it work. The correct register to use is reg_la0_data_in only and not other one @Tim Edwards @Anton Maurovic (efabless support)
t
I don't even have a
defs.h
file that defines
reg_la0_data_in
. . .
...even though the last link there has a comment referring to the newer (?) address but then using the older (?) address.
It appears that
reg_la0_data_in
is defined (indirectly) as:
(*(volatile uint32_t*) ((0xf0000000L + 0x3020L) + 12))
So in summary,
caravel/verilog/dv/caravel/defs.h
appears to be outdated (?),
caravel_mgmt_soc_litex/verilog/dv/firmware/defs.h
appears to be correct, but don't trust the comments in the latter because they're wrong.
t
Cripes.
😁 1