RE: specifying definition for tlm2 compliance in LRM..

Hiroshi-

"TLM2 compliant implementation" refers to the SystemC environment
that provides the required TLM2 services for various TLM2 models.

I don't think the API you propose is needed for determining base protocol
and custom protocol models since the sockets and traits classes already
provide this ability. The main point I was making is that the LRM needs
to clearly define these terms, since there seems to be confusion in people's
minds.

Thanks
Stuart

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hiroshi Imai [mailto:hiroshi3.imai@toshiba.co.jp]
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:48 AM
>To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org; Stuart Swan
>Subject: 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.