Subject: Re: Control Sub-group for the ITC?
From: m.vitale@philips.com
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 05:09:44 PST
Brian,
I think a separate working group that start working on the issues which
have an impact point further away in the future is important and I, for
one, would be very interested in participating into it. I also think that
at least some of the participants of this subgroups should also monitor
the progresses in the SCE-API subgroup for what's related to the Control
Interface.
It seems almost like we have a chain of working groups: SCE-API/CI feeding
into the ITC/Control (and maybe getting some requirements from it).
Similarly the ITC/Control subgroup would link into the ITC/Debug subgroup
(if we decide to form it) and gets substantial requirements from it.
Even with the strong interconnections between the subgroups, I would think
that making them peer subgroups of the ITC is more appropriate than
hierarchically nest them into SCE-API. One of the advantages is that
company/people only interested in one aspect are more likely to know about
the existence of the working group this way.
Talking about the debug subgroup, I've asked the people in Philips who
worked on out internal Debug API standard (which I forwarded to this group
many moons ago) if they're interested in contributing in this area. I'm
still waiting for their reaction and I'll let the group know.
For the present Control Interface (the one already active, looking at the
off-line debugging issues), I'd like to be copied on mails/meetings so
that I
can have a clearer picture for when we start the wider work.
Best regards,
Maurizio
Maurizio Vitale
Philips Semiconductors
System and Software Design - Innovation Team
1721 Moon Lake Blvd. - suite 500 ph: +1 (847) 843-4562
Hoffman Estates, IL 60194
"Bailey, Brian" <brian_bailey@mentorg.com>
Sent by: owner-itc@server.eda.org
02/22/2002 05:13 PM
To: "'itc@eda.org'" <itc@server.eda.org>
cc: (bcc: M. Vitale/HFF/SC/PHILIPS)
Subject: Control Sub-group for the ITC?
Classification:
As a follow-up to our last meeting, there was a suggestion that we
should have a separate working group for the control interfaces as
distinct from the existing efforts on the SCE-API. We also discussed this
issue in our SCE-CI meeting this morning. Our conclusion there was that
the current SCE-CI work is very specific and dependent on the rest of the
SCE-API work and could not exist as a stand-alone entity. As such the
short term efforts of this group should remain unchanged and should be
considered as a supplier for the SCE-API working group.
However, it was also acknowledged that we are at this time ignoring
many of the thorny issues of a more generic control structure that will
eventually be needed to bind together the many interfaces that will
probably exist, the SCE-API being one of them. This means that we will
need such a group and it would make sense for it to be a peer of the
SCE-API group. Before deciding on this issue, I would like to open it up
to a more general discussion and to find out how many people would be
interested in beginning work on this in the short term.
Cheers
Brian
==============================================
Brian Bailey brian_bailey@mentor.com
Chief Technologist Tel: 503 685
1371
System Verification Development Office Fax: 503 685 1652
Mentor Graphics Corp. 8005 S.W. Boeckman Rd. Wilsonville, OR 97070
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Feb 24 2002 - 05:10:24 PST