RE: port_discipline

I also don't think attributes should carry over like this. They are only
meant to apply to the object they proceed.

However a way to solve this issue is to allow the attribute on the
instance and on the port names.

The port_discipline attribute before a port binding would apply to that
port.

The port_discipline attribute before the instance would allow to apply
to all the ports unless overwritten by another port_discipline attribute
before a port binding.

Hence for the self heating device you would have;

mextram504 (* port_discipline="electrical" *) q1 ( node1, node2, node3,
node4,
               (* port_discipline="thermal" *) nodet);

Thanks,
--Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Geoffrey.Coram
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:41 AM
To: Marq Kole
Cc: verilog-ams
Subject: Re: port_discipline

 > Another approach would be to have the port discipline of the first
port  > automatically apply to any successive ports, if those ports
following it  > do not have a port_discipline attribute specified. So:

In 1364-2005, does the attribute ever "carry over" in this fashion?
I suspect not, so I would be disinclined to make the discipline
attribute special in this way.

-Geoffrey

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


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