RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 4

John, all

comments below.

From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:23 PM
To: Jerome CORNET; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Re: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 4

Jerome, All,

Finally, Jerome from ST has raised 3 issues as follows. Comments please.

Issue #1. "The bibliography in "Reference" section is missing several references that were present in the latest draft document reviewed by the P1666 working group. Synchronize this section with the latest approved version discussed by the working group."

RESOLUTION:

The bibliography in question is the following:

The following books may provide useful background information:
Transaction-Level Modeling with SystemC, TLM Concepts and Applications for Embedded Systems, edited
by Frank Ghenassia, published by Springer 2005, ISBN 10 0 387-26232-6(HB), ISBN 13 978-0-387-26232-
1(HB)
Integrated System-Level Modeling of Network-on-Chip enabled Multi-Processor Platforms, by Tim Kogel,
Rainer Leupers, and Heinrich Meyr, published by Springer 2006, ISBN 10 1-4020-4825-4(HB), ISBN 13
978-1-4020-4825-4(HB)
ESL Design and Verification, by Brian Bailey, Grant Martin and Andrew Piziali, published by Morgan
Kaufmann/Elsevier 2007, ISBN 10 0 12 373551-3, ISBN 13 978 0 12 373551-5

This bibliography came from the OSCI TLM-2.0 LRM, not from the previous version of the 1666 SystemC standard, which had no bibliography. Under IEEE rules, it is not permissible to include non-normative references in the main body of the standard, which fact resulted in the draft LRM being initially rejected by the IEEE. Hence the bibliography was removed. (It would be possible to add back this bibliography as an Annex at the end of the LRM, but I do not propose to do this unless there is a consensus to do so.)
[JC] Just as a curiosity, what is the definition of "non-normative"? What makes the current reference to the "Requirements Specification for TLM 2" "normative"?

Issue #3. Subclause 17.1.1 ' "Pointers of references to shared memory should not be used as a backdoor mechanism". Re-reading and reviewing this section, I find this comment part misleading: existing TLM-1 protocols do make use of pointers to shared memory sometimes, which this comment seems to exclude. All in one, this part seems like an unnecessary restriction. Maybe it could be rephrased as "being careful with pointers or references to shared memory" or removed altogether (I don't think it reaches the original objectives for introducing this comment; tbd)'

RESOLUTION

This issue was previously debated in the Working Group and the conclusions agreed (with Jerome) and written up the LRM. Hence my default position is that I do not propose to make any changes. However, I would invite Jerome to seek support for his view on this reflector over the next 10 days.

[JC] This issue was briefly discussed in the Working Group, but its misleading character was uncovered afterwards. I think it is Stuart that wanted to introduce that
specific comment on backdoor mechanisms, which I now read as unnecessary restrictive. Stuart, could you comment?
Thanks,

Jerome

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