Re: specifying definition for tlm2 compliance in LRM..

Stuart, All,

From the point of view of model users, it is very important to define
"TLM2 base protocol" and "TLM2 custom protocol compliant". When we use
third vendor TLM models, our concern is whether we can connect them to
our own models and whether they can communicates. These definitions can
get rid of such concern.

So, the definitions of "TLM2 base protocol" and "TLM2 custom protocol
compliant" should be included in the LRM.

To check how compliant a model is, it is useful to define an API, like
sc_version(), which returns a value "TLM2 base protocol compliant" or
"TLM2 custom protocol compliant".

About "TLM2 compliant implementation", it seems ambiguous. We'd like to
make clear its meaning and understand the objective to define it.
Is "implementation" related to model implementation or SystemC
environment to provide TLM2?

Best regards,
Hiroshi Imai
Chair of SystemC WG, JEITA

At 11 Mar 2010 11:13:51 -0800 Stuart Swan wrote:
> John, All-
>
> I'd like to propose that we provide some precise definitions
> for terms like "TLM2 compliant" models and implementations within
> the IEEE LRM.
>
> My concern is that there may be model and tool builders out there
> who think that they can pick and choose which parts, and which rules,
> of the LRM that they want to implement/adhere to, and which ones they wish to
> ignore, and then go on to claim TLM2 compliance.
>
> As an example, the OSCI LRM has very clear rules about obligations on
> models if non-ignorable extensions are in use, but it is very easy for
> model developers and users to simply ignore these rules.
>
> I think we basically need to inform casual readers that they cannot
> simply choose to ignore rules in the LRM if they don't feel they suit their needs.
>
> I realize that we may need to define a number of terms .e.g "compliant
> with TLM2 base protocol and generic payload", etc., but I think it is worth
> the effort.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks
> Stuart
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Stuart Swan
> Senior Solutions Architect
> Cadence Verification Division
> stuart@cadence.com
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.