-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
[Router] Fix conflicted packet_rule
entries
#1087
Conversation
@@ -210,8 +210,10 @@ | |||
// CHECK: aie.rule(24, 0, %[[VAL_69]]) | |||
// CHECK: } | |||
// CHECK: aie.packet_rules(EAST : 0) { | |||
// CHECK: aie.rule(24, 8, %[[VAL_70]]) | |||
// CHECK: aie.rule(24, 8, %[[VAL_71]]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good example to show the issue. Previously, both rules here share the exact same condition, which is incorrect and causes data to go through the wrong arbiter.
a84e747
to
29e67c7
Compare
compiler/plugins/target/AMD-AIE/aie/AMDAIECreatePathFindFlows.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
compiler/plugins/target/AMD-AIE/aie/AMDAIECreatePathFindFlows.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
compiler/plugins/target/AMD-AIE/aie/AMDAIECreatePathFindFlows.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, could add a description to the PR which explains the changes needed with an example for future reference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks!
Each
packet_rules
operation can contain up to four individualpacket_rule
entries. These entries must be unique and sorted in the IR, as the first matching entry takes priority.