Re: Multiple writers to sc_signal

I vote "Yes" - again if it's not too much trouble.

The particular use case I am thinking of is when dynamic processes drive
the same signal. Even though an earlier process (which drove the signal)
has terminated, in the OSCI implementation any new process driving the
same signal will result in the "multiple writers" error.

However I admit this isn't something that happens very often :-)

Alan

-- 
Alan Fitch
Senior Consultant
Doulos - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemVerilog * SystemC * PSL * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project 
Services
Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, 
UK
Tel:  + 44 (0)1425 471223                       Email: 
alan.fitch@doulos.com 
Fax:  +44 (0)1425 471573                        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.
From:
john.aynsley@doulos.com
To:
P1666 Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
08/11/2010 17:24
Subject:
Re: Multiple writers to sc_signal
Sent by:
owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Okay, let's have a straw poll. Please vote whether you would like the 
P1666 WG to pursue the proposal for having multiple writers to an 
sc_signal at this time - YES or NO. 
John A 
From: 
David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com> 
To: 
Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com> 
Cc: 
"Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>, 
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>, Bishnupriya 
Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>, Stuart Swan <stuart@cadence.com>, P1666 
Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org> 
Date: 
08/11/2010 16:13 
Subject: 
Re: Multiple writers to sc_signal
I would agree there are definite uses for such a model. I was sort of 
hoping Cadence would take up the cause. I really like Cadence previous 
proposal because it ensure the user is very aware of the issue. I was sort 
of hoping Cadence would take up the cause.
On Nov 8, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Jerome CORNET wrote:
> To concur with Philipp, we are currently evaluating internally the 
benefit of the proposal.
> In many cases indeed, this could ease the implementation, say of 
TLM->RTL transactors.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerome
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [
mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of Philipp A. 
Hartmann
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:37 PM
> To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
> Cc: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya; Stuart Swan; P1666 Technical WG
> Subject: Re: Multiple writers to sc_signal
> 
> All,
> 
> I find it somewhat sad, that this proposal is dropped for now.
> 
>  When writing transactors / adapters to RTL blocks with signal-level
> interfaces, a (restricted) policy for multiple drivers of a signal can
> ease the implementation in many cases.
> 
>  If the transactor already arbitrates concurrent requests, there may be
> technically multiple writers to a signal (due to different initiators),
> but the behaviour is still well-defined since there are no conflicting
> updates during the same delta cycle.  Thus, a policy that allows
> multiple drivers in separate deltas would both be useful and safe.
> 
>  But since there seems to be no strong interest in P1666 in such a
> feature, I think we can still pursue this topic inside OSCI after
> P1666-2011.
> 
> Greetings from Oldenburg,
> Philipp
> 
> 
> On 08/11/10 12:55, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
>> Okay. I'll close the issue of the sc_multiple_sig_writers_policy class.
>> 
>> John A
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From:
>> Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
>> To:
>> "john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>, Stuart Swan 
>> <stuart@cadence.com>
>> Cc:
>> P1666 Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
>> Date:
>> 08/11/2010 08:36
>> Subject:
>> RE: Multiple writers to sc_signal
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>> As Stuart also opined, there is currently no interest or motivation in 
>> pursuing a sc_multiple_sig_writers_policy class. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Bishnupriya
>> 
>> 
>> From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [
>> mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
>> john.aynsley@doulos.com
>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 5:00 AM
>> To: john.aynsley@doulos.com; Stuart Swan
>> Cc: P1666 Technical WG
>> Subject: Re: Multiple writers to sc_signal
>> 
>> Bishnupriya, Stuart, All,
>> 
>> In the past, Cadence made a proposal to add an 
>> sc_multiple_sig_writers_policy as a template parameter to sc_signal 
(see 
>> below). Do you, Bisnupriya and/or Stuart, still wish to champion this 
>> proposal? Do others think it is a good idea?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> John A 
>> 
>> -----owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org wrote: ----- 
>> To: bpriya@cadence.com, systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
>> From: john.aynsley@doulos.com
>> Sent by: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
>> Date: 11/02/2010 04:09PM
>> Subject: Multiple writers to sc_signal
>> 
>> Bishnupriya, All,
>> 
>> Next on the list is the issue of multiple writers to sc_signal.
>> 
>> As a reminder, I include some historical notes below.
>> 
>> John A
>> 
>> 
>> [BB]  6.4.4  The LRM states that it is an error for multiple processes 
to 
>> write to an sc_signal. The LRM also says it is ok to write to a 
sc_signal 
>> during elaboration in order to initialize it. The category of writes 
that 
>> the LRM does not specify are mainly those coming from sc_main and from 
>> other unusual places, like phase callbacks (e.g, start_of_simulation), 
a 
>> channel's update phase etc. This can all be generalized under the 
umbrella 
>> of writing to a signal from a non-process context (the current process 
is 
>> 0). We think extrapolating what the LRM says, all such writes to a 
signal 
>> can be considered ok, and do not contribute as a driver. It seem 
>> reasonable to have a consistent rule like sc_main (generally, any 
>> non-process context) never counts as a writer when writing to a signal.
>> 
>>  [JA] My take on it is that the LRM is explicit that sc_signal::write() 
>> calls request_update(), that update() changes the value and notifies an 
>> event. Moreover, request_update() can be called during elaboration (it 
is 
>> explicitly allowed in the callbacks). When multiple writes() are made 
in 
>> the same phase, the most recent write() wins. Writes from multiple 
>> processes instances are forbidden, the (implicit, unstated) reason 
being 
>> that the behaviour would be non-deterministic. Writes from outside 
>> processes are permitted, the (implicit, unstated) reason being that the 
>> behavior would be deterministic (because elaboration is 
single-threaded). 
>> I think that hangs together?
>> 
>>  However, I don't think there is a strong reason to change the OSCI 
>> simulator. Old code should still work (because the OSCI sim supports 
many 
>> deprecated features). New code should comply with 1666 (whether or not 
a 
>> tool implements the checks properly). In time, the OSCI sim may get 
>> changed to be less tolerant of legacy code.
>> 
>>  [AG] The existing simulator ignores initializations by sc_main if they 
>> occur before any process writes, but reports an error if sc_main tries 
to 
>> change a value that has been written by the process. I think I should 
just 
>> fix things to ignore writes out of the simulator's purview, e.g. by 
>> sc_main.
>> 
>>  [BB/JA] Need an LRM clarification to that effect
>> 
>> [BB]  6.4.4  The LRM clearly states that having multiple processes 
write 
>> to a sc_signal is an error. In the refsim, the implementation is 
somewhat 
>> flaky. The multiple writer check is performed only if the DEBUG_SYSTEMC 
>> macro is defined and is liable to break for pre-defined signals like 
>> sc_signal<bool> etc., if the systemc library is not compiled with 
>> DEBUG_SYSTEMC defined. It would be nice to have a cleaner solution.
>> 
>> From user experience, it turns out that people hardly ever have 
>> DEBUG_SYSTEMC on, and are often surprised in the case that 
DEBUG_SYSTEMC 
>> is on, and the check reports an error. It is not uncommon for a model 
to 
>> use to two different processes that write to the same signal in a 
mutually 
>> exclusive fashion, e.g., at the posedge and negedge of a clock, 
>> respectively. People expect such models to work and are surprised that 
the 
>> check rejects this.
>> 
>> In view of all of the above, in the past, Stuart has proposed that this 
>> fact be made explicit in the signal declaration by adding a second 
>> template parameter to sc_signal that specifies if multiple writers are 
ok 
>> or not, with the default value being not ok. I'm trying out an 
>> implementation at my end that explores this option.
>> 
>> enum sc_multiple_sig_writers_policy {
>>  SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_NOT_OK, // default
>>  SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_OK
>> };
>> 
>> template <class T,sc_multiple_sig_writers_policy POL = 
>> SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_NOT_OK>
>> class sc_signal { ... }; 
>> 
>> If the template parameter value is SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_NOT_OK, then 
>> sc_signal::write() checks for multiple writers and reports an error if 
>> more than one process writes to it. This check always happens 
irrespective 
>> of the DEBUG_SYSTEMC flag. 
>> 
>> If the template parameter value is SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_OK, then 
>> sc_signal::write() allows multiple writers and the last one wins. 
>> 
>> This is the basic proposal for sc_signal. Typically, users won't bother 
>> with the second template parameter, and by default it would perform the 
>> check, thus being LRM compliant. In the cases where users do want to 
have 
>> the convenience of multiple writers, they can specify the second 
template 
>> parameter value to be SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_OK. 
>> 
>> A related topic is for IP vendors writing a module with output ports - 
>> these output ports will be bound to signals externally and is not 
>> controlled by the IP vendor. However, the IP vendor may also choose to 
>> have the convenience of using multiple processes to write to an output 
>> port, in which case it will be an error if the sc_signal bound to that 
>> port does not allow multiple writers. There should then be a way for an 
IP 
>> vendor to specify that you can only connect a sc_signal that allows 
>> multiple writers to this output port. This is similar to the concept of 
>> the sc_out_resolved port, which can only be bound to a 
sc_signal_resolved. 
>> The port proposal is
>> 
>> template <class T> class sc_out_mw : public sc_out<T> { ... }; 
>> 
>> template <class T> class sc_inout_mw : public sc_inout<T> { ... }; 
>> 
>> Such a port cannot be bound to a resolved signal (sc_signal_resolved or 
>> sc_signal_rv) because it is inconsistent for the port to say I've 
multiple 
>> processes writing to me and the last one wins, and at the same time ask 
>> for resolution 
>> 
>> Such a port cannot be bound to a 
sc_signal<T,SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_NOT_OK> 
>> because it will generate a run time error due to multiple processes 
>> writing to the signal via the port 
>> 
>> Such a port can only be bound to a sc_signal<T,SC_MULTIPLE_WRITERS_OK> 
>> In its end_of_elaboration, this port type will check that it is bound 
to 
>> the correct type of sc_signal
> 
> 
> -- 
> Philipp A. Hartmann
> Hardware/Software Design Methodology Group
> 
> OFFIS Institute for Information Technology
> R&D Division Transportation · FuE-Bereich Verkehr
> Escherweg 2 · 26121 Oldenburg · Germany
> Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · http://www.offis.de/
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
------------------------------------------------------
David C Black, XtremeEDA ESL Practice Leader
http://www.Xtreme-EDA.com
(Consulting, Services & Training for all your ESL, verification and DFT 
needs)
Voice: 512.850.4322 Skype: dcblack FAX: 888.467.4609
-- 
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.