Re: specifying definition for tlm2 compliance in LRM..

Stuart,

Thanks for your explanation of "TLM2 compliant implementation". Its
meaning becomes clear to me. Thanks.

About API:
By using sockets and traits classes I can check the "base protocol
compliant" or "custom protocol compliant" at the compile time through
compile errors. Is my understanding correct?

About definition of compliant:
I agree with your main point. These definitions make clear the
difference between base-protocol-model and custom-protocol-model. Then,
they make it clear how much interoperable a model is.

Best regards,
Hiroshi Imai
Chair of SystemC WG, JEITA

At 29 Mar 2010 11:26:27 -0700 Stuart Swan wrote:
> 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.
>
>

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