RE: TLM issues

Almost fine with that, except some minor details:

- section 10 makes explicit reference to TLM-1 "This version of the standard includes the core interfaces from TLM-1".

That sentence dates back from the OSCI TLM 2.0 LRM which was indeed including TLM-1. Maybe remove the sentence?

(since inclusion of TLM-1 is clear from the beginning of the IEEE LRM if we implement the proposed change).

- In my reading, the respective places of TLM-1 and TLM-2 are not so clear within the current version which just concatenate TLM-2 and TLM-1.

It would probably be better to replace section 11.1 (which additionally contains a set of inaccuracies) by something at the beginning that would state

"TLM-2 is for memory-mapped bus modeling", "TLM-1 is define as a support for other uses not covered by TLM-2". We agreed that TLM-2 and TLM-1

are not in opposition but rather complimentary (set aside legacy use of TLM-1).

Jerome

From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Jerome CORNET; bartv@synopsys.com
Cc: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: RE: TLM issues

Jerome, Bart, All,

Okay. I propose that for the generic case, we use the term "SystemC, TLM-1 and TLM-2.0 class libraries" i.e. in clauses 1.1, 1.2, and 4.1.2,

For specific section headings i.e. clause 10 through to clause 17 we retain the term "TLM-2.0".

Clause 18 will still refer to "TLM-1".

Does that work for you?

John A

From:

Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com>

To:

"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>, "systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>

Date:

11/01/2011 13:56

Subject:

RE: TLM issues

________________________________

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:22 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: TLM issues

Bart writes: 1.2, 1.3 (and other sections): you refer to 'SystemC and TLM-2.0 class libraries' although we also standardize TLM-1.0, so maybe leave out the version (we do the same for SystemC itself anyway)

[JA] I am reluctant to change from "TLM-2.0" to "TLM", because "TLM" is a generic term and this is a specific standard. With SystemC, on the other hand, the term "SystemC" is obviously already specific to SystemC.

Opinions?

I agree with Bart on the remark. Now, regarding the remedy there are multiple solutions.
Maybe "TLM Library" or "SystemC TLM Library" would avoid the confusion with the generic term.
Else, there is always the possibility to replace TLM-2.0 by "TLM-2.0 and TLM-1.0".

Regards,

Jerome

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