RE: TLM extensions - status

John, All-
I’m in favor of John’s proposal as the way to move forward – essentially I’m voting ‘yes’ for it. I don’t have strong opinions on the small open details John mentions below.
Thanks
Stuart

From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:55 AM
To: Stuart Swan
Cc: Bart Vanthournout; Jerome CORNET; john.aynsley@doulos.com; Stan Krolikoski; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: TLM extensions - status

Stuart,

We are on the same page.

Users can do this RIGHT NOW with an ignorable extension but doing so does not provide interoperability, which I think was Jerome's objection

We could defined a standard extension in the LRM with the same effect, and that would provide interoperability. But a "standard extension" is a bit ugly

Hence my proposal for a new GP attribute.

I also had possible endianness changes in mind for the future (an issue I take seriously)

We would have to decide whether components are obliged to set the new flag for all transactions, or only for DMI and Debug.

To allow for future expansion, having two attributes (or some other more sophisticated scheme) might be an idea. A handshake is necessary. One attribute could signal the level of the initiator, and a second attribute the level of whatever component is playing the role of target (which could be an interconnect component in its day job).

John A

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