RE: Action Item: Draft proposal for prevention of SCE-MI 1.1 and SCE-MI 2.0 model mixing

Ok,

 

I agree now with your more precise definition.

 

Shabtay

 

________________________________

From: Stickley, John [mailto:john_stickley@mentor.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:06 PM
To: Shabtay Matalon; itc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Action Item: Draft proposal for prevention of SCE-MI 1.1
and SCE-MI 2.0 model mixing

 

Shabtay,

The use of the term "model" is arbitrary but convenient.

The more precise definition is "some level of heirarchy containing
macros
in itself or below cannot have DPI functions anywhere in itself or
below".

Similarly, "some level of hierarchy containing DPI functions in itself
or below cannot have macros anywhere in itself or below.

This forces macros to only exist in disjoint hierarchies from functions.

I'm just conveniently labeling such hierarhcies as "models" because that
is how we think of them.

-- johnS

-----Original Message-----
From: Shabtay Matalon [mailto:shabtay@cadence.com]
Sent: Wed 9/28/2005 9:45 PM
To: Stickley, John; itc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Action Item: Draft proposal for prevention of SCE-MI 1.1
and SCE-MI 2.0 model mixing

Hi John,



Can you explain the why SCE-MI 1.1 message port must be instantiated
only at the highest level of the hierarchy within the model and why DPI
function call is declared at the highest level of the hierarchy within
the model?



Thanks,



Shabtay



>1. At least one SCE-MI 1.1 message port or clock control macro

>    (but not clock port macro) is instantiated at the highest

>    level of the hierarchy within the model.

>

>1. At least one SCE-MI 2.0 DPI function call is declared

>    at the highest level of the hierarchy within the model.

>