RE: Jerome's proposal - RESET

Thanks John, this is clearer.

I will vote “yes” for the first question, and “yes” to the second one, in the sake
of minimizing future compatibility issues.
However, for the second question, if we can make adjustments that enhance backward
compatibility, I am well ready to discuss that with people that still consider it as an issue (notably Bart).

Thanks

Jerome

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:54 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Jerome's proposal - RESET

Folks,

Since I think I've caused some confusion, let me reset.

I think we have a good understanding of Jerome's proposal re. byte enables, streaming width, and response status for DMI and Debug.

So please vote on the following 2 + 2 options

"No" - no change

"Yes" - make the changes as proposed by Jerome

If "yes", should the LRM wording take the form of a strong recommendation that all models going forward should be written with the proposed changes in mind, and existing models re-written over time? (I am thinking about minimizing compatibility issues going forward by having all components initialize the byte enable, streaming, and response status fields for DMI and Debug and only using those fields ways compatible with the new intent) YES or NO.

Thanks

John A

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

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