RE: [sv-bc] Re: configs and params

Yes, there are still open issues about configurations (see below), but
that shouldn't stop us from adding a necessary enhancement.
 
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=986
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1210
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1021
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1220
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1022
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1181
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1070
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1472
   http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1213

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Don
Mills
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:04 PM
To: Adam Krolnik
Cc: Gordon Vreugdenhil; Bresticker, Shalom; Mark Hartoog; sv-bc@eda.org;
Jason Kopas
Subject: [sv-bc] Re: configs and params


See replies below:

Adam Krolnik wrote: 

	
	Hello Don;
	
	As an aside,  Have we cleaned up the other problems that keep
people from using configurations ??
	
	

I would have to pass this question on to Dave R or Shalom or someone
else.  I don't know myself.



	o These examples, though small, express what you desire for the
old way of using verilog.
	   The first one may look better to show the new parameter value
to be, say, top.WIDTH+2 - something
	   different than the file completely.
	

Lets come back to this after you look at the next write up I am sending
out.



	o Do we need to use the parameter override syntax, or can we use
simple assignment ? E.g.
	   instance top.a1.size = top.WIDTH;
	   cell top.WIDTH = 16;
	

I prefer to keep the current syntax for now.  What ever is easiest to
make this a possiblity



	o Shouldn't the 2nd example say "instance top #(.WIDTH(32));"
to set the WIDTH to 32 ?
	   You are missing the '#'.  
	

yes - fixed in the next file to be sent out shortly.



	o  It isn't clear that setting top.WIDTH to 32 means that this
new value will be used when setting top.a1.size to top.WIDTH.
	

see new file soon to follow.




	o Now we need to know how to modify types/interfaces from a
configuration file.
	

my  preference for now is to keep this simple.  If possible, I would
prefer to only override value and not types, but I see no reason why my
proposed syntax couldn't also be applied to types.  




	Don Mills wrote: 

		Attached is my first pass at actual text to be submitted
as a mantis item.  I wanted to run this by you guys first to make sure
that I did not have any glaring problems.  I assume that the text will
need some work, we can either clean things up within the confines of
this small group or I could go ahead and open the mantis item and we
could have our discussion on the reflector.  What is the preference? 
		
		dm 
		
		


	-- 
	    Soli Deo Gloria
	    Adam Krolnik
	    Director of Design Verification
	    VeriSilicon Inc.
	    Plano TX. 75074
	    Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"
	  


-- 
==========================================================
Don Mills
mills@lcdm-eng.com
www.lcdm-eng.com
==========================================================

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.