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

Hi Per,

John clarified my "highest level" question and I agree with him. The way
I see it, I can create a single model (transactor) and instantiate one
SCE-MI 1.1 message port 5 levels down the hierarchy. Independently of
whether this makes much sense, it is still a legitimate SCE-MI 1.1 use
model. Correct? If not, I'd like to learn why not.

Thanks,

Shabtay

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Per
Bojsen
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:16 PM
>To: itc@eda.org
>Subject: RE: Action Item: Draft proposal for prevention of SCE-MI 1.1
>andSCE-MI 2.0 model mixing
>
>Hi Shabtay,
>
>> 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?
>
>John said `at least one SCE-MI 1.1 message port/clock control macro'
>must be instantiated at the highest level of the model.  He did not
>say that *all* message ports/clock control macros must be instantiated
>at that level.  Similarly for DPI.  So you can definitely have
>macros at any level of hierarchy below the top level of the model.
>Again, similarly for a SCE-MI 2.0 DPI model.
>
>Per
>