RE: [tlmwg] Revisit of the TLM2.0 phases rules

>
Texas Instruments France SA, 821 Avenue Jack Kilby, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet. 036 420 040 R.C.S Antibes. Capital de EUR 753.920

-----Original Message-----

> From: tlmwg@lists.systemc.org
> [mailto:tlmwg@lists.systemc.org] On Behalf Of Engblom, Jakob
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 3:41 PM
> To: Robert Guenzel; Veller, Yossi
> Cc: tlmwg@lists.systemc.org; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [tlmwg] Revisit of the TLM2.0 phases rules
>
> > And since we have temporal decoupling at AT, in-order with
> respect to
> > timing would mean to have PEQs everywhere, and that would
> render the
> > whole idea of temporal decoupling meaningless (but I confess that I
> > always wondered if temporal decoupling at AT is really useful...).
>
> In my experience, you cannot really combine temporal
> decoupling to any useful extent with trying to model a shared
> blocking interconnect. The biggest interval you can use is
> something smaller than the minimal blocking time, and even
> anything bigger than one might cause unfairness in which
> requestors get access to the resource.
>
> /jakob
>

I am strong believer that one should try to make one's models as
integration-neutral as possible. I agree that timing annotation may
serve little purpose in a system simulation that is entirely AT,
because it gets removed by PEQs almost immediately. But any
component model might be pulled out of that environment and dropped
into a more loosely-timed simulation. So if the component model
is sufficently inaccurate that delays can be calculated, I
recommend calculating them, using timing annotation, and letting the
other guy decide whether a wait() is needed.

James

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