3 ms·
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I don't think any implementation does that, since it would require holding back the entire burst in a buffer in the DDR controller.
by eqvinox 5y ago
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I don't think any implementation does that, since it would require holding back the entire burst in a buffer in the DDR controller. Which would significantly impact performance through the added latency.
But honestly I don't know — and also this seems like if some vendor wanted to take (or not take) the performance hit for extra safety, they could well deviate from everyone else.
- Dylan16807 5y agoTo be 100% safe, it would add latency to part of the reads. Though not much compared to the normal speed of a memory access. To be 99% safe you could send a signal a couple nanoseconds late that says "wait, this data is bad, you should abort". It also might make writes a bit more awkward.