RE: TLM issues

Jerome,

I deliberately left in the sentence "This version of the standard includes
the core interfaces from TLM-1." because I think it is still accurate
("the standard" now referring to P1666). This sentence gives emphasis,
within the clause introducing TLM-2.0, to the fact that TLM-1 is also part
of P1666.

Re. 11.1, I agree this is carried forward from the OSCI TLM-2.0 LRM,
though reading through it again, I think it is still helpful to newcomers.
I see you have posted a separate email on that subject...

John A

From:
Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>, "bartv@synopsys.com"
<bartv@synopsys.com>
Cc:
"systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
11/01/2011 15:10
Subject:
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.