Re: port_discipline

Marq -
Since, as you noted, the "integer" is wrong anyway, I'm not too concerned
with making the example erroneous.  (I don't think the ";" belongs, either.)

However, it would be nice to be able to declare *all* of the ports
rotational in one go, rather than having to do each one individually.

-Geoffrey


Marq Kole wrote:
> All,
> 
> In the LRM 2.2 Annex E.3.3.1 the discipline of analog primitives can be 
> resolved by means of the port_discipline arttibute. An example of this 
> port discipline attribute is given. It is:
> 
> resistor #(.r(1k)) (* integer port_discipline="electrical" ; *) r1
> (node1, node2); // not needed as default
> resistor #(.r(1k)) (* integer port_discipline="rotational" ; *) r2
> (node1, node2);
> 
> The integer type in these attribute instances is wrong anyway, so this 
> has to be changed.
> 
> Additionally, according to the syntax in Annex A of IEEE 1364-2005 as 
> well as the syntax proposal for LRM 2.3, this is not the correct place 
> for an attribute instance. Instead, the attribute instance should be in 
> front of each of the port connections. This would change the example to:
> 
> resistor #(.r(1k)) r1
> ((* port_discipline="electrical" ; *) node1, (* 
> port_discipline="electrical" ; *) node2); // not needed as default
> resistor #(.r(1k)) r2
> ((* port_discipline="rotational" ; *) node1, (* 
> port_discipline="rotational" ; *) node2);
> 
> This makes sense as the port_discipline should be related to the port, 
> not to the module instance. This allows also for multi discipline ports. 
> As an example, the self-heating version of the Mextram BJT model has 4 
> electrical ports and one thermal port. With the LRM 2.2 it would not be 
> possible to correctly set the port disciplines for this built-in model, 
> while the 1364-2005 compliant syntax would allow this.
> 
> Should we update the syntax to allow attribute instances in the location 
> suggested by LRM 2.2, or should we change the example in E.3.3.1 to 
> reflect the syntax of 1364-2005? I'm in favor of the latter, but I don't 
> know if there are backwards compatibility issues by explicitly making 
> the example E.3.3.1 erroneous.
> 
> Cheers,
> Marq
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 

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