RE: Proposal for DMI/Debug extensions

Agreed with John on this one.

But let’s tune the details so that everyone converge.

Jerome


From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:38 PM
To: Stuart Swan
Cc: Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.com; Philipp A Hartmann; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: Proposal for DMI/Debug extensions

I do not think anyone has yet spelled out the case for/against versioning. I guess if we were to introduce some "Base protocol version" or "TLM-2 version" then

a) that should probably be more along the lines of the tlm_version macro(s) and global function(s) (which we already have) and
b) does imply some kind of message about the evolution of TLM-2, which we have not worked out

My thinking was more pragmatic. We are just introducing a flag to indicate that previously unused / ambiguously defined fields can now optionally be used, without deprecating the old-style generic payload. Using gp_version >= rather than gp_version == just keeps the door open for future refinements without breaking backward compatibility. But it is not a show-stopper.

John A

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