TMDSCNCD28379D: Local shared RAMs blocks arbitration

Hello Divir,

You can refer to section 3.11.1.6 Access Arbitration within the device manual for the expansive detail on how arbitration works, where Figure 3-15 "Arbitration Scheme on Local Shared Memories" shows arbitration for LSxRAM. Let me know if you have questions on specifics on how this arbitration works.

Best regards,

Omer Amir

Hi Omer,

Thank you for the prompt response.

Yes, I have previously and also now reviewed these sections but my question was not about the arbitration process itself (when required). 

My question was whether arbitration is required at all and implemented when two different LSxRAM memory blocks are trying to be accessed simultaneously or rather arbitration is not required in this case and the two LSxRAM memory blocks will indeed be accessed simultaneously.

To make it more clear, could you kindly refer to the following example where 2 different LSxRAM memory blocks are attempted to be accessed simultaneously:

If CPU1 tries to access LS1RAM and CLA.CPU1 tries to access LS2RAM simultaneously (at the same clock cycle), is there a conflict where arbitration is required or is there no conflict and access will happen at the same clock cycle?

I know that if two different GSxRAM memory blocks are trying to be accessed at the same clock cycle (e.g., GS1 by CPU1 and GS2 by DMA1) then there is a conflict and arbitration must be executed to resolve this conflict, this is clearly mentioned in the documentation (section 5.6). However, I couldn't find anything written about the same case with two different LSxRAM memory blocks. 

Best regards,

Dvir

Hello Dvir,

I will try to confirm with some other experts on this and get back to you early next week.

Best regards,

Omer Amir

Hi Omer,

Thank you. Looking forward to your feedback.

Best regards,

Dvir