FW: Minor TLM enhancements/fixes

Resending mail below as there is some confusion on whether it reached the reflector or not.

-Bishnupriya
________________________________
From: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 11:29 PM
To: Stuart Swan; john.aynsley@doulos.com; Jerome CORNET
Cc: Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.com; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: Minor TLM enhancements/fixes

I think Stuart has put it very well. I strongly agree with him.

-Bishnupriya

________________________________
From: Stuart Swan
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:34 PM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com; Jerome CORNET
Cc: Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.com; Bishnupriya Bhattacharya; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: Minor TLM enhancements/fixes

John, All-

I think you should put these items up for a vote.

I vote yes on them. I'm in agreement with you that these enhancements are "a good thing", and I also agree that the argument on both sides are not black and white.

Where I differ is in yours and Bart's rather extreme concerns about backward compatibility. It seems to me that these concerns are overblown, and that even if such legacy models existed that exhibited the backward compatibility issues, we'd all agree that they were poorly written.

Also, I think we are making a mistake in viewing the OSCI TLM2.0 LRM as "perfect". In reality there are remaining HUGE open issues (e.g. endianness handling) with the OSCI TLM 2.0 LRM and there are all kinds of models being developed out there that claim TLM2.0 compliance when in fact they are not.

I think the kind of reasonable (and very minor) evolution of the standard that Jerome is proposing makes sense, and I imagine there will be more of it in the future.

Thanks
Stuart

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