RE: transport_dbg and TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

John,

sorry again for the late response.

I am fine with your answer, as the goal of my request was to clarify that part in the standard.

I have a different proposal, but I am not pushing strongly for it to be adopted:


- Return 0 if the IGNORE command was “ignored” successfully

- Return any non-zero value if the IGNORE command together with the associated extension

was understood by the target.


Any comments, in particular on backward compatibility is welcome.

Jerome


From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:54 AM
To: Jerome CORNET; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: transport_dbg and TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

Jerome, All,

Let's see if we can deal with the easier issues.

Your original 4th point was about the value returned from transport_dbg for TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND. My answer was that an application is already free to return whatever value it likes without breaking the base protocol, although I would agree that is a matter of interpretation, and the LRM wording could be made more explicit.

In other words, TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND says that the target does not perform a BP read or write, but is free to do something else. The value returned from transport_dbg is tightly defined for read or write, but if the application is executing an extended command, the target is free to choose the return value.

Does that meet your requirement? Is everyone else okay with that?

Thanks,

John A

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