Mainstream processor chips, both in high performance and low power segments, are increasingly integrating additional functionality such as graphics, display engines, security engines, PCIe™ ports (i.e., ports in accordance with the Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCI Express™ (PCIe™)) Specification Base Specification version 2.0 (published 2007) (hereafter the PCIe™ specification) and other PCIe™ based peripheral devices, while maintaining legacy support for devices compliant with a PCI specification such as the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) Local Bus Specification, version 3.0 (published 2002) (hereafter the PCI specification).
Such designs are highly segmented due to varying requirements from the server, desktop, mobile, embedded, ultra-mobile and mobile Internet device segments. Different markets seek to use single chip system-on-chip (SoC) solutions that combine at least some of processor cores, memory controllers, input/output controllers and other segment specific acceleration elements onto a single chip. However, designs that accumulate these features are slow to emerge due to the difficulty of integrating different intellectual property (IP) blocks on a single die. This is especially so, as IP blocks can have various requirements and design uniqueness, and can require many specialized wires, communication protocols and so forth to enable their incorporation into an SoC. As a result, each SoC or other advanced semiconductor device that is developed requires a great amount of design complexity and customization to incorporate different IP blocks into a single device. And it is difficult to design any SoC that accommodates general-purpose processor cores along with such IP blocks, due to the customized nature of both processor design and IP block design.
In various embodiments, different components such as direct media interface (DMI)/PCIe™ controllers, display engine, manageability engine, memory arbiter, cores, power control unit and other such components can be integrated using an on-die protocol. More specifically, these components, all implemented on a single semiconductor die, can be coupled via one or more hierarchies of a fabric that provides for high bandwidth primary communication and low bandwidth sideband communication. A hub implemented via multiple fabric interfaces can provide a basic platform to enable more IP integration into processors and SoCs.
Embodiments can be used in many different types of systems. As examples, implementations described herein may be used in connection with semiconductor devices such as processors or other semiconductor devices that can be fabricated on a single semiconductor die. In particular implementations, the device may be a system-on-chip (SoC) or other advanced processor that includes various homogeneous and/or heterogeneous processing agents, and additional components such as networking components, e.g., routers, controllers, bridge devices, memories and so forth.
Some implementations may be used in a semiconductor device that is designed according to a given specification such as an integrated on-chip system fabric (IOSF) specification issued by a semiconductor manufacturer to provide a standardized on-die interconnect protocol for attaching intellectual property (IP) blocks within an SoC or other chip. Such IP blocks can be of varying types, including general-purpose processors such as in-order or out-of-order cores, fixed function units, graphics processors, controllers, among many others. By standardizing an interconnect protocol, a framework is thus realized for a broad use of IP agents in different types of chips. Accordingly, not only can the semiconductor manufacturer efficiently design different types of chips across a wide variety of customer segments, it can also, via the specification, enable third parties to design logic such as IP agents to be incorporated in such chips. And furthermore, by providing multiple options for many facets of the interconnect protocol, reuse of designs is efficiently accommodated. Although embodiments are described herein in connection with this IOSF specification, understand the scope of the present invention is not limited in this regard and embodiments can be used in many different types of systems.
Referring now to
As will be described further below, each of the elements shown in
The IOSF specification includes 3 independent interfaces that can be provided for each agent, namely a primary interface, a sideband message interface and a testability or design for test (DFx) interface. According to the IOSF specification, an agent may support any combination of these interfaces. Specifically, an agent can support 0-N primary interfaces, 0-N sideband message interfaces, and an optional DFx interface. However, according to the specification, an agent must support at least one of these 3 interfaces.
Fabric 20 may be a hardware element that moves data between different agents. Note that the topology of fabric 20 can be product specific. As examples, a fabric can be implemented as a bus, a hierarchical bus, a cascaded hub or so forth. Referring now to
In various implementations, primary interface 112 implements a split transaction protocol to achieve maximum concurrency. That is, this protocol provides for a request phase, a grant phase, and a command and data phase. Primary interface 112 supports three basic request types: posted, non-posted, and completions, in various embodiments. Generally, a posted transaction is a transaction which when sent by a source is considered complete by the source and the source does not receive a completion or other confirmation message regarding the transaction. One such example of a posted transaction may be a write transaction. In contrast, a non-posted transaction is not considered completed by the source until a return message is received, namely a completion. One example of a non-posted transaction is a read transaction in which the source agent requests a read of data. Accordingly, the completion message provides the requested data.
In addition, primary interface 112 supports the concept of distinct channels to provide a mechanism for independent data flows throughout the system. As will be described further, primary interface 112 may itself include a master interface that initiates transactions and a target interface that receives transactions. The primary master interface can further be sub-divided into a request interface, a command interface, and a data interface. The request interface can be used to provide control for movement of a transaction's command and data. In various embodiments, primary interface 112 may support PCI ordering rules and enumeration.
In turn, sideband interface 116 may be a standard mechanism for communicating all out-of-band information. In this way, special-purpose wires designed for a given implementation can be avoided, enhancing the ability of IP reuse across a wide variety of chips. Thus in contrast to an IP block that uses dedicated wires to handle out-of-band communications such as status, interrupt, power management, configuration shadowing, test modes and so forth, a sideband interface 116 according to the IOSF specification standardizes all out-of-band communication, promoting modularity and reducing validation requirements for IP reuse across different designs. In general, sideband interface 116 may be used to communicate low performance information, rather than for primary data transfers, which typically may be communicated via primary interface 112.
As further illustrated in
Using an IOSF specification, various types of chips can be designed having a wide variety of different functionality. Referring now to
As further seen in
As further seen in
As further seen, fabric 250 may further couple to an IP agent 255. Although only a single agent is shown for ease of illustration the
Furthermore, understand that while shown as a single die SoC implementation in
As discussed above, in various embodiments all out-of-band communications may be via a sideband message interface. Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Note that the communications between the fabrics themselves, namely fabric 712, an intermediate fabric 714, and an upstream fabric 716 may be generally via a target interface only. That is, in various embodiments there are no request and grant communications or credit initialization process. Instead, the fabrics communicate with each other via a target interface protocol, which thus is a more basic protocol than a master-target interface according to the IOSF specification. Thus in an upstream direction upstream commands and data are communicated, with corresponding upstream transaction credits being sent back to the originating fabric as space becomes available in the corresponding buffer in the target fabric, and in a downstream direction data and command information are communicated downstream with corresponding downstream transaction credits communicated back to the initiator. Note that these credits can be fixed for a given implementation such that no credit initialization protocol is performed, as is done on the master-target interfaces according to the IOSF specification.
As with fabric 712, fabric 714 may also communicate with multiple IP agents. Specifically, fabric 714 is coupled to multiple PCIe™ controllers, namely a PCIe™ controller 725 (e.g., a PCIe™×16 controller) via corresponding master and target interfaces 726 and 727 and a PCIe™ controller 740 (e.g., a PCIe™×4 controller) via corresponding master and target interfaces 741 and 742. In turn, fabric 716 also communicates with multiple IP agents, namely a PCIe™ controller 730 (e.g., a PCIe™×8 controller) via corresponding master and target interfaces 731 and 732 and a DMI 735 via corresponding master and target interfaces 736 and 737 which in turn can communicate with other components such as a peripheral controller hub (PCH), not shown for ease of illustration in the embodiment of
To provide communications upstream to an IMPH 750, upstream fabric 716 may include master and target interfaces to communicate with corresponding master interface 751 and target interface 752 of IMPH 750. As seen, IMPH 750 may be coupled via a memory interconnect to memory, e.g., off-chip dynamic random access memory (DRAM). Although the scope of the present invention is not limited in this regard, furthermore, IMPH 750 may also communicate with a plurality of cores 7600-760n, which can be homogeneous or heterogeneous cores, and IO agents 7700-770n. Although shown with this particular implementation in the embodiment of
Referring now to
As specifically seen in
As further seen with regard to fabric 714, incoming transactions from PCIe™ controllers 720 and 740 may be coupled through corresponding target interfaces 714a and 714b according to the IOSF specification. Similarly, incoming transactions from DMI 735 and PCIe™ controller 730 may be coupled to corresponding target interfaces 716a and 716b of fabric 716 according to the IOSF specification. Thus as seen, at each fabric, additional virtual channels are represented, reflecting the virtual channels from the most downstream-connected fabric on upward, such that upstream fabric 716 includes the largest number of incoming virtual channels, which it allocates onto a fewer number of virtual channels, including a single VC0 channel. Although in the embodiment shown in
Thus in the embodiment of
Each fabric supports an arbitration of all the incoming channels and request types in both upstream and downstream directions. In the embodiment shown in
Since a collapsed VC is coupled between fabric 716 and IMPH 750 for all agents' VC0 channels, fabric 716 may be configured to send source information to the IMPH so that completions can come back downstream with appropriate destination identifiers. The following Table 2 describes the source identifiers used for that purpose.
Data bus widths for various agents coupled to the fabric can be different. For example, in one embodiment, the display engine and IMPH can support different data bus widths for master and target interfaces (e.g., 16 bytes in the upstream direction and 32 bytes in the downstream direction). In this way, hardware design can be optimized for given bandwidth requirements.
The fabric and the IP agents may support differing flow control request and transaction credits to optimize the hardware design (and thus can include differing numbers of corresponding request and transaction queues). For the agents and fabric interfaces where high bandwidth is to be implemented, a larger number of credits (and corresponding queues) can be supported to ensure that command and data buses can send back-to-back requests without any bubbles in the pipelines. For channels where bandwidth is not as important, a smaller number of credits, e.g., minimum credits (e.g., 1 credit) are supported. And with the given transaction and request credits for traffic connected to and from various IP agents seeking to access memory, a primary fabric can support variable peak bandwidths.
In various embodiments a sideband network may include a plurality of endpoints connected through a topology including routers, frequency converters and width converters that enables communication to occur between various IP agents including cores and system agent circuitry (e.g., a so-called uncore) running at various frequencies. This sideband network may be used for purposes such as control register accesses, DFT accesses, power management flows, etc.
While all the router-to-agent links may include IOSF based flow control, the links between any two routers can instead implement a basic credit based flow control, namely fixed credits that are implemented by hard encoding, avoiding the need for a credit initialization process.
To simplify network design, frequency conversion and width conversion may occur only between two routers. In one embodiment the sideband network may run through 4 different frequency domains and supports communications having flit widths of 8 bit and 16 bits.
To realize integration of various components such as different IP agents, interface logic to interface with a fabric can be provided for each agent, as described above. In addition, a hub logic that can be formed of multiple fabric instantiations may include a simplified credit-based mechanism between the fabric instantiations. In addition, multiple virtual channels (VC's) may be collapsed into a single VC for area reduction. To this end, certain packets may be modified to allow later redistribution into multiple VC's. Also, a semi-centralized frequency/width conversion may occur between frequency domains on a sideband channel scheme. Credit allocation and pipeline design can provide full bandwidth for bandwidth sensitive areas.
In one embodiment, an IOSF implementation of a SoC may include a primary channel fabric that supports a bandwidth of up to 12.8 gigabits per second (GBs) between multiple PCIe™ controllers (e.g., ×16, ×8, ×4), DMI controller (×4), display engine, manageability engine, and an integrated memory and peripheral hub (IMPH), which provides arbitration for memory accesses and an interface to input/output devices and one or more cores. The SoC may further include a sideband network having a large number of end points connected through a topology containing routers, frequency converters, and at least one width converter that enables the communication to occur between various units across system agent logic and multiple cores running at various frequencies.
A primary channel fabric may be used to support a high bandwidth, high frequency design. In one such embodiment, a cascaded structure having a plurality of fabrics may form a hub, which in one embodiment may operate at a 800 megahertz (MHz) frequency. Each hub, corresponding to a fabric, supports a primary interface to one or more IP agents, to enable requests to flow downstream towards an agent.
Referring now to
Generally, shown in
Still referring to
Thus embodiments may be used in a SoC including a plurality of cores to implement a communication protocol that integrates various components while maintaining high bandwidth requirements. And at the same time, power management solutions can be implemented to maintain idle power lower with the help of ISM handshakes that provide for a standard request/grant handshake instead of custom sideband wires to simplify reuse.
While the present invention has been described with respect to a limited number of embodiments, those skilled in the art will appreciate numerous modifications and variations therefrom. It is intended that the appended claims cover all such modifications and variations as fall within the true spirit and scope of this present invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5493566 | Ljungberg et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
6009488 | Kavipurapu | Dec 1999 | A |
6233632 | Meiyappan et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6330647 | Jeddeloh et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6427169 | Elzur | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430182 | Oyama | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6469982 | Henrion et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6611893 | Lee et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6694380 | Wolrich et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6725313 | Wingard et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6810460 | Kirkwood | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816938 | Edara et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
7065733 | Goodnow et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7124376 | Zaidi et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7308668 | Bueti et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7415533 | Lacroute et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
7421543 | Suzuki | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7457905 | Gehman | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7506089 | Cho et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7573295 | Stadler | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7673087 | Ansari et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7685346 | Teh | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7723902 | Mandhani et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7734856 | Reinig | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7783819 | Mandhani | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7793345 | Weber et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7809024 | Rijpkema et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7873068 | Klinglesmith et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7979592 | Pettey et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
7990999 | Lee | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010731 | Mandhani | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8023508 | Horton | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8069286 | Orthner et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8199157 | Park et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8225019 | Asnaashari | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8286014 | Han et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8364874 | Schlansker et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8437369 | Shaikli | May 2013 | B2 |
8443422 | Weber et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
20020038401 | Zaidi | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20030088722 | Price | May 2003 | A1 |
20030126336 | Creta | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030227926 | Ramamurthy et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040177176 | Li et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040218600 | Alasti et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050010687 | Dai | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050120323 | Goodnow et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137966 | Munguia et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050289369 | Chung et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289374 | Kim et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060047849 | Mukherjee | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060101179 | Lee et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060140126 | Zhong | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060218336 | Ishizawa et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070006108 | Bueti | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070067549 | Gehman | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20080059441 | Gaug et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082840 | Kendall et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080147858 | Prakash et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080163005 | Sonksen et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20050177664 | Clark et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235415 | Clark et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080288689 | Hoang | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080310458 | Rijpkema | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006165 | Teh et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090119432 | Lee et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090235099 | Branover et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090249098 | Han et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090296624 | Ryu et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090296740 | Wagh et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300245 | Shoemaker et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100199010 | Goren et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100220703 | Farrugia et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235675 | Subramanian et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100262855 | Buch et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100278195 | Wagh | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100293304 | Alexandron et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100312942 | Blinick et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110032947 | Brueggen | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047272 | Bosneag | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110078315 | Matsushita et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078356 | Shoemaker | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093576 | Cherian et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110179248 | Lee | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110238728 | Nagarajrao et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120051297 | Lee et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120066468 | Nakajima et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120079590 | Sastry et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120233514 | Patil et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120303842 | Cardinell et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120303899 | Ash et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120311213 | Bender et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130054845 | Nimmala et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130089095 | Chen et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101620585 | Jan 2010 | CN |
10-2005-0077437 | Aug 2005 | KR |
10-2005-0082834 | Aug 2005 | KR |
201003410 | Jan 2010 | TW |
2005071553 | Aug 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,234, filed Sep. 29, 2011, entitled, “Sending Packets With Expanded Headers”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2393). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,232, filed Sep. 29, 2011, entitled, “Common Idle State, Active State and Credit Management for an Interface”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2392). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,243, filed Sep. 29, 2011, entitled, “Aggregating Completion Messages in a Sideband Interface”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2394). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,252, filed Sep. 29, 2011, entitled, “Providing Error Handling Support to Legacy Devices”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2395). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,263, filed Sep. 29, 2011, entitled, “Providing Multiple Decode Options for a System-On-Chip (SoC)”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2396). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,270, filed Sep. 29, 2011, entitled, “Supporting Multiple Channels of a Single Interface”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2397). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,276, filed Sep. 27, 2011, entitled, “Issuing Requests to a Fabric”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. (2398). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,244, filed Nov. 29, 2011, entitled, “Providing a Sideband Message Interface for System on a Chip (SoC)”, by Robert P. Adler, et al. (2572). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/222,354, filed Aug. 31, 2011, entitled, “Providing Adaptive Bandwidth Allocation for a Fixed Priority Arbiter”, by Kie Woon Lim, et al. (2400). |
International Searching Authority, “Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” mailed Jan. 2, 2013, in International application No. PCT/US/2012/050992. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Jun. 7, 2013 with Reply filed Sep. 3, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,232. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Jun. 20, 2013 with Reply filed Sep. 18, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,243. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Apr. 23, 2013 with Reply filed Jul. 22, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,263. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Jun. 14, 2013 with Reply filed Sep. 9, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,270. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Jun. 20, 2013 with Reply filed Sep. 17, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,276. . |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Sep. 18, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,252. |
Intel Corporation, “An Introduction to the Intel QuickPath Interconnect,” Jan. 2009, pp. 1-22. |
Sousek, et al., “PCI Express Core Integration with the OCP Bus,” CAST, Inc. 2006, 15 pages. |
Mentor Graphics, “PCI Express to AMBA 3 AXI Bridge IP,” Mentor Graphics, Jun. 2007, 2 pages. |
Everton Carara, et al., “Communication Models in Networks-on-Chip,” 18th IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP '07), 2007, pp. 57-60. |
Taiwan Patent Office, Office Action mailed Apr. 30, 2014 in Taiwan Application No. 101130840. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Dec. 3, 2013, with Reply filed Feb. 26, 2014, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,234. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action mailed Jun. 13, 2014, with Reply to Final filed Aug. 7, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,234. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 8, 2014, with Reply filed Jun. 6, 2014, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/248,252. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Mar. 31, 2014, with Reply filed Jun. 26, 2014, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/222,354. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 7, 2014, with Reply filed Aug. 22, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/222,354. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Oct. 23, 2013, with Reply filed Jan. 22, 2014, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,244. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 30, 2014, with PreAppeal Request and Notice of Appeal filed Jul. 23, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,244. |
PCI-SIG, “PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 3.0,” Feb. 3, 2004, 3 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/326,654, filed Jul. 9, 2014, entitled “Common Idle State, Active State and Credit Management for an Interface”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/209,207, filed Mar. 13, 2014, entitled “Aggregating Completion Messages in a Sideband Interface”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/209,184, filed Mar. 13, 2014, entitled “Providing Multiple Decode Options for a System-On-Chip (SoC) Fabric”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/209,146, filed Mar. 13, 2014, entitled “Supporting Multiple Channels of a Single Interface”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/295,810, filed Jun. 4, 2014, entitled “Issuing Requests to a Fabric”, by Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy, et al. |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action mailed Jul. 22, 2014, in U.S. Appl. No. 14/295,810. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130054845 A1 | Feb 2013 | US |