The workload object is still optional for the sake of compatibility,
even though it probably shouldn't be in the long term. If a simulation
is just a collection of components with nothing in particular running on
it, for instance driven by a traffic generator, should it even have a
System object in the first place?
Change-Id: I8bcda72bdfa3730248226fb62f0bba9a83243d95
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/33278
Reviewed-by: Matthew Poremba <matthew.poremba@amd.com>
Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com>
Tested-by: kokoro <noreply+kokoro@google.com>
Continue along the same line as the recent patch that made the
Ruby-related config scripts Python packages and make also the
configs/common directory a package.
All affected config scripts are updated (hopefully).
Note that this change makes it apparent that the current organisation
and naming of the config directory and its subdirectories is rather
chaotic. We mix scripts that are directly invoked with scripts that
merely contain convenience functions. While it is not addressed in
this patch we should follow up with a re-organisation of the
config structure, and renaming of some of the packages.
This patch moves the addition of network options into the Ruby module
to avoid the regressions all having to add it explicitly. Doing this
exposes an issue in our current config system though, namely the fact
that addtoPath is relative to the Python script being executed. Since
both example and regression scripts use the Ruby module we would end
up with two different (relative) paths being added. Instead we take a
first step at turning the config modules into Python packages, simply
by adding a __init__.py in the configs/ruby, configs/topologies and
configs/network subdirectories.
As a result, we can now add the top-level configs directory to the
Python search path, and then use the package names in the various
modules. The example scripts are also updated, and the messy
path-deducing variations in the scripts are unified.
