RE: Structure of new P1666 standard

It is the position of Texas Instruments that TLM-1 should NOT be included in the P1666 standard. While the library may serve some purpose for some entities, it does not have the same impact and value as TLM-2 and adds a level of confusion. There is nothing preventing anyone from using TLM-1 without its inclusion into the IEEE standard. So option A.

Texas Instruments supports the inclusion of the process control primitives proposed by Cadence and considered by the LWG.

Best regards,

Tor Jeremiassen

---
Tor Jeremiassen, Ph.D.
Simulation and Modeling CTO
SDO Foundational Tools
Texas Instruments                    Ph:    281 274 3483
P.O. Box 1443, MS 730                Fax:   281 274 2703
Houston, TX 77251-1443               Email: tor@ti.com<mailto:tor@ti.com>
________________________________
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:21 AM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Structure of new P1666 standard
Hello Everybody,
You will find below what the contents of the revised P1666 standard would look like if we put the existing SystemC and TLM-2.0 LRMs back-to-back.
There will need to be some changes to the TLM-2.0 sections to meet IEEE guidelines and for consistency with the old 1666 std. The only major issue I see is that the TLM-1 / analysis port content will not be adequate as they stand. In my opinion, it either needs to be expanded and refined, or removed entirely. Perhaps this is where we should start the technical discussions, since it is one of the more substantive issues.
So, first question: Do we want to
A. Remove all mention of TLM-1 and analysis ports?
B. Include a full, detailed description of all aspects of TLM-1 and analysis ports as they was originally released in the TLM 1.0 standard?
C. Something in between?  In that case, I would propose we include only the TLM-1 core interfaces, including analysis ports, together with some definition of their minimal semantics (i.e. what blocking and non-blocking mean, whether you are allowed to modify the method arguments, transaction object lifetimes, and so forth). This would require some technical work to pin down what the "minimal semantics" actually are.
Opinions, anyone?
OVERVIEW
REFERENCES
Terminology and conventions used in this standard
SystemC  (from existing 1666-2005)
  Elaboration and simulation semantics
  Core language class definitions
  Predefined channel class definitions
  Data types
  Utility class definitions
TLM-2.0  (from existing OSCI LRM)
  INTRODUCTION
  TLM-2.0 CORE INTERFACES
  GLOBAL QUANTUM
  COMBINED INTERFACES AND SOCKETS
  GENERIC PAYLOAD
  BASE PROTOCOL AND PHASES
  UTILITIES
  TLM-1 AND ANALYSIS PORTS
    TLM-1 core interfaces
    TLM-1 fifo interfaces
    tlm_fifo
    Analysis interface and analysis ports
Annex A (informative) Introduction to SystemC
Annex B (informative) Glossary
Annex C (informative) Deprecated features
Annex D (informative) Changes between the different SystemC versions
Annex E (informative) Other stuff ....
INDEX
I will include my full email signature once for the record ;-)
--
John Aynsley
CTO
Doulos - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemVerilog * SystemC * PSL * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services
Doulos. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
Tel:  + 44 (0)1425 471223 (Ext 247)      Email: john.aynsley@doulos.com
Cell:  +44 (0)7798 837065
Fax:  +44 (0)1425 471573                        http://www.doulos.com<http://www.doulos.com/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doulos Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company no. 3723454
Its registered office is 4 Brackley Close, Bournemouth International Airport,
Christchurch, BH23 6SE, UK.
This message (and associated files) may contain information that is confidential,
proprietary, privileged, or subject to copyright. It is intended solely for the use
of the individual to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete all
copies. This message may contain personal views which are not the views of
Doulos, unless specifically stated.
--
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.