Subject: Re: Workgroup status (III)
From: Kevin Cameron x3251 (Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com)
Date: Thu Apr 05 2001 - 10:25:24 PDT
> From owner-verilog-ams@eda.org Wed Apr 4 18:24:50 2001
>
> There have been a couple of responses suggesting work on:
> a) backannotation of timing and parasitics
> b) scheduling semantics of analog events, e.g. timer
>
> I have suggested that we postpone (a) until after the 2.1 edit,
> since it is presently not in the DOs. This is not to suggest that
> it isn't important, but adding a DO is pretty weighty for now.
> Kevin is the champion for this functionality - anyone interested
> please look at his proposals and/or contact him.
I would just like to repeat: without back-annotation Verilog-AMS
is going to be difficult to adopt into SoC flows, and if you don't
consider it now and make sure that our current set of semantics
(discipline-resolution etc.) can be used effectively with existing
extraction tools (generating Spice) and we run into problems later
they will be harder to fix - and the adoption time will be even
longer.
We don't need the whole solution in 2.1, but nothing should
go into 2.1 that breaks any proposals for back-annotation.
Kev.
> I've added a group for (b) and put Sri, Graham and Peter in it
> as a first cut.
>
> There have also been a number of questions about the status of
> discipline resolution. Unfortunately I don't have time to go into
> this in detail rght now. Jon Sanders and I met a couple of weeks
> ago; at least we now have a clear picture of the gulf that exists.
> I will write this up in more detail when I get back on line.
>
> Proposed groups:
>
> (from previous email):
> >> Proposal for work groups and members:
>
> >> 1. Mixed signal initialization and simulation cycle (including
> >> alignment with VHDL-AMS semantics): Peter, Dan, Martin
>
> >> 2. Semantics and synchronization of cross-domain access: Ian,
> >> Martin, Graham
>
> 3. Scheduling semantics for analog events and operators: Sri,
> Graham, Peter
>
> >> Deliverables: statement of the issues and what the group expects
> >> to provide for resolution. If possible I'd like to have this
> >> available for a phone meeting some time next week (4/2 - 4/6).
>
> I am in major time trouble this week and will be away during the 2
> weeks starting 4/8. I would like to get the workgroups up and
> running NOW if possible. We can arrange a conference call some time
> in the next 2 days, or do it by email if preferred. Just let me know.
>
> --ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 10:28:25 PDT