**************************************************...
# caravelm
Matt Venn
03/08/2022, 4:37 PM******************************************************************************
<!channel>
We've just discovered that a bug in the litex implementation of Caravel has made it onto MPW2, 3 & 4.
This bug limits the wishbone user address space from 0x3fff_ffff to 0x3010_0000.
https://github.com/efabless/caravel_mgmt_soc_litex/issues/21
Please let us know if your project is affected by this.
Because of the amount of work required to validate the management SoC after fixing the bug, we're not sure if the fix will be in for MPW5, so please check your designs for MPW5.
******************************************************************************
d
Dinesh A
03/08/2022, 4:58 PMThis will impact all my MPW-2/MPW-3/MPW-4/MPW-5 submission as my design expect at 0x3000_0000 to 0x30FF_FFFF address range for user space.
Not sure why Caravel SOC level simulation with user_project_wrapper is not broken ? Is it because caravel simulation setup for MPW2/MPW3/MPW4 uses picorv32.v instead of litex core ?
m
Matt Venn
03/08/2022, 4:59 PMI was worried about yours Dinesh. It's because after MPW1 issues, the management core was retroactively swapped out. So we tested our designs with picorv32 and they were actually taped out with litex vexrisc
i
Ivan Rodriguez
03/08/2022, 5:05 PMHi My project in MPW-2 uses from the 0x3000_0000 to 0x3010_007F. So the part from 0x3010_0000 to 0x3010_007F will be broken?
m
Matt Venn
03/08/2022, 5:17 PMwhat will happen is that an access above 0x3010_0000 will not generate the cycle/strobe line so your project won't respond or ack and the cpu will hang
d
Dinesh A
03/08/2022, 5:22 PMIs it possible to re-submit MPW-3/MPW-4 tapeout ?
m
Matt Venn
03/08/2022, 5:23 PMyes
i
Ivan Rodriguez
03/08/2022, 5:29 PMOk so this affects our ability to access one part of our design. But is a redundant way to access. So the impact will be minimal.
d
Dinesh A
03/09/2022, 3:05 AM@User I assume this will be caravel fix and user need not required to adjust the address space.
s
Siva Prasad
03/09/2022, 6:32 AM@User, I have used address spaces 0x3001_0000 to 0x300A_0000. Its okay right?
d
Dinesh A
03/09/2022, 7:02 AM@User Your address with 0x3000_0000 to 0x300F_FFFF, it should be good for you
Dinesh A
03/09/2022, 7:05 AM@User This issue look like already reported on 1 Jan 2022 itself https://github.com/efabless/caravel_mgmt_soc_litex/issues/10
look like no one given attention to this?
Due to Multiple MPW5 tool setup issues, I was also using MPW-4 caravel RTL for simulation and not noticed this issue.
👀 1
Dinesh A
03/15/2022, 5:40 PM@User I am bit confused with MPW-5 shuttle email saying caravel address map issue will not be fixed ? Is it means I need re-submit the my MPW-2/MPW-3/MPW-4 project in MPW-5 with address fix?
m
Matt Venn
03/15/2022, 6:38 PM@User, what was the plan for people affected by this?