ron minnich wrote:
cpu_phase1 and cpu_phase 6 (for example)
Please call it cpu_phase2 instead. Then:
now I see. You want cpu_phase6 to be called cpu_phase2?
Yes, exactly! :)
Here is why I did not. I want to leave open the possibility that hardware creates a need for other phases. However, I'm not picky on this.
While it is nice to plan ahead a little I would prefer if we just changed the numbering.
This needs to be done for some non-CPU stages/phases too. I think we should just do it.
//Peter