RE: TLM extensions - status

Bart,

great, we are progressing :-)

From: Bart Vanthournout [mailto:Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:23 PM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com; Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.COM
Cc: Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.COM; Jerome CORNET; stanleyk@cadence.com; Stuart Swan; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: TLM extensions - status


>> Btw: as you could assume I agree that the backwards compatibility issue is resolved with John’s proposal. Whether we add the attribute
>>through the extension mechanism or through a payload attribute isn’t a big deal, I understand that adding it to the payload will make it
>> clearer that this is part of the standard. I would go for the original proposal and have the attribute dedicated to this feature, it is still an
>> ignorable feature in the end…. (so not a ‘version’ label)

I understand your point of view here. However, if we were to adopt adding the attribute, probably
a clever way would be to provision possible needs for evolutions directly related to the base protocol,
and thus the attribute would not only server the current debug/streaming width/response status proposal,
but it could be used in the future for evolutions that would not be practical with extensions. Hence the possible
“version” label. At least this is how I see it.

In addition to being clearer, the extra attribute would make it the enhancement available as part of the standard kit
 and make it available right away (well at least right upon adoption of the new standard).

>>On the other hand: adding endianness to a TLM2.0 related topic is a guarantee for an endless discussion… here it just shows that there might >>be more of these ignorable features that we will want to add… which is why I prefer to use the extension mechanism… but I can live with the >>latest proposal, this time around.

Definitively in agreement with you: we had a hard time discussing endianness in the past within the TLM WG... this is
a complex topic.

And let me be clear: for stuff that is orthogonal to the base protocol (such as locking, or others), I am fully in favor
of... extensions, like you.

Jerome

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