Re: [sv-cc] ptf-passed issues

Looking back over the minutes from the PTF meetings, the database
was never updated to reflect the decisions made at the 8/23/2004
and 9/20/2004 meetings.

The following PTF items are in a bad state:

  - PTF 530
  - PTF 605
  - PTF 622
  - PTF 623
  - PTF 329

We will discuss at today's SV-CC meeting how to proceed with
these.

   -Chas

Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com wrote:
> Charles,
>
> PTF 605 and 622 are still listed in the OPEN state.
>
> Shalom
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com wrote:
>
>
>>No. They were not passed by VSG.
>>In database, they still appear in proposal state, as far as I know,
>>not in PTF-passed state.
>>
>>Shalom
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Charles Dawson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Shalom,
>>>
>>>Does this mean they were added to the LRM or no?
>>>
>>> -Chas
>>>
>>>
>>>Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>I found the following from PTF meeting minutes:
>>>>
>>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:40:26 -0400
>>>>From: Charles Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
>>>>To: PTF <ptf@boyd.com>
>>>>Subject: PTF meeting minutes for 8/23/2004
>>>>
>>>>4. Discussed new business:
>>>>
>>>> - PTF 530
>>>> Chas commented that it looked good to him. Francoise
>>>> had comments, but they look like they've been resolved.
>>>> Francoise wanted to know if we should specify the order
>>>> that the arguments to the timing check should be returned.
>>>> Chas commented that there are other areas, such as ports
>>>> and args to systfs where we do not specify the order, yet
>>>> the order is pretty obvious (and therefore has not been a
>>>> problem). Francoise took an action to add a new PTF item
>>>> on to decide on what to do about the order issue.
>>>>
>>>> PASSED
>>>>
>>>> - Francoise to file PTF item on vpi_control() issue.
>>>> Filed PTF 605. Discussed. Chas brought up that the wording
>>>> in 27.3 on vpi_control() was not completely accurate.
>>>> Francoise's proposed change was dependent on this inaccuracy.
>>>> Francoise was concerned that if someone later fixed the
>>>> inaccuracy, her change here would be invalidated. The
>>>> consensus was that the inaccuracy was not critical, and should
>>>> therefore not be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> PASSED.
>>>>
>>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:05:32 -0400
>>>>From: Charles Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
>>>>To: PTF <ptf@boyd.com>
>>>>Subject: PTF meeting minutes for 9/20/2004
>>>>
>>>>4. Discussed new business:
>>>>
>>>> - PTF 622
>>>>
>>>> JimV/Steve. PTF 622 PASSED as proposed. Chas will work with
>>>> JimV to get the database updated with the proposal. Everyone
>>>> will read the proposal to make sure it is the same as what
>>>> we discussed.
>>>>
>>>> - PTF 623
>>>>
>>>> JimV had made a proposal for PTF 530 which solved the same
>>>> problem in diagram 26.6.17. Chas made a proposal and sent
>>>> a diagram that illustrates the change.
>>>>
>>>> JimV/JimG PASSED as proposed
>>>>
>>>> - PTF 329
>>>>
>>>> Chas had tried it and it works okay in NCV. Tapati will try
>>>> with her simulators. JimG/JimV. PASSED.
>>>
>

-- 
Charles Dawson
Senior Engineering Manager
NC-Verilog Team
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
270 Billerica Road
Chelmsford, MA  01824
(978) 262 - 6273
chas@cadence.com