Re: Verilog-AMS meeting minutes - 17th April 2007

From: Kevin Cameron <Kevin.Cameron_at_.....>
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 18:21:15 PDT
David Sharrit wrote:
> In my opinion, this is not something that should be put into the next LRM
> draft at the last minute.  If anything, it much more logically belongs as
> part of the AMS subcommittee activities.
>
> I've attempted at least a couple times to understand the logic and reasoning
> behind the proposal, but so far I've been totally unsuccessful. 
>
> 1) It breaks backward compatibility for no purpose that I can understand.
>   
Have a look at the associated proposals for back-annotation and 
power-supply hook-up.

> 2) It seems to propose something quite illogical when applied to primitives.
> (You can't sensibly move the connect module inside of a primitive module.
> Why should you have to do so for other modules?)
>   

In what way illogical?

> 3) It seems to have a fundamental underlying philosophy change of connecting
> connect modules to drivers and receivers, instead of module ports.  But that
> seems fundamentally impossible when it comes to behavioral code.
>   

The ports approach has always been wrong, but that's a separate argument.

> 4) Philosophically, to me, it should be the parent (user/environment) of a
> (child) module's usage that establishes the required interfaces.  It
> shouldn't be the responsibility of the child to adapt to the parent's
> environment.
>   

None of the instances really change/adapt.

> 5) If the issue is access to potential supply nets in the child module that
> might not be present in the parent, then there are probably better ways to
> address that issue that don't have all the corresponding negative issues.
> 6) ....
>   

I would be happy to see other proposals for back-annotation and 
power-supply hook-up - I've been waiting a decade or so and nothing has 
turned up yet.

If you can find a clean way of doing those things without changing the 
connect module placement I'll be surprised.

Kev.

> David
>
>  
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On
>> Behalf Of Sri Chandra
>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:11 AM
>> To: Kevin Cameron
>> Cc: Verilog-AMS LRM Committee
>> Subject: Re: Verilog-AMS meeting minutes - 17th April 2007
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> We can discuss this part of the next meeting on May 1st and if its an
>> easy fix without much impact for sure we can put it in the next draft. I
>> am somehow worried that any fix with connect modules is not an easy fix
>> :) Hope you will be able to attend the meeting when this is discussed.
>>
>> As with couple of other emails i missed this one also. Sorry about that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sri
>>
>> Kevin Cameron wrote:
>>     
>>> Can we fix the connect module instance placement/naming in the next
>>>       
>> draft?
>>     
>>> http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2343
>>>
>>> Kev.
>>>
>>> Sri Chandra wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Date: 17th April
>>>> Attendees:
>>>>
>>>> Martin O'Leary, Cadence
>>>> Marek Mierzwinski, Tiburon
>>>> Stu Sutherland, Sutherland-HDL
>>>> Marq Kole, NXP
>>>> Patrick O'Halloran, Tiburon
>>>> Geoffrey Coram, Analog Devices
>>>> Sri Chandra, Freescale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> General:
>>>> * Copyrights say 2007, they should be changed to 2008 (ex: page1
>>>> footer says Copyright 1999-2007)
>>>> * Roman numeral numbering restarts on page 7 of the pdf file
>>>> * Change Ken's affiliation to "Designer's Guide Consulting"
>>>>
>>>> TOC:
>>>> * Page iii: Sub-section heading should be "Analog initial block" with
>>>> cap A.
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 3, Data types
>>>> * [Syntax 3-2, page 29]: "{}" should be in red in the syntax item
>>>> * [clause 3.4.1, page 30]: Reference to sub-clause 3.2.1 is wrong as
>>>> this does not exist. This should be changed to 4.2.1.1
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 4,
>>>> * [clause 4.4, page 62]: V(n1,n1) should be added to the table and
>>>> recorded as disallowed and return error (rather than allow with return
>>>> value of 0) - same as I(n1, n1). I forgot to discuss this in the
>>>> meeting yesterday. Marq had sent this email and there was agreement
>>>> with no disapproval :) Mantis also raised for the same (2345).
>>>> * [clause 4.5.3, page 63]: Not enough row height for the first
>>>> description of ddt(expr) in Table 4-17 (as seen in pdf)
>>>> * [clause 4.5.4, page 64]: Description of idt(expr) in Table 4-18
>>>> should not be italicized
>>>> * [clause 4.5.4, page 65]: When BNF is used in paragraph for idt etc
>>>> idt() will be used in courier font.
>>>> * [clause 4.5.5, page 66]: Description of idtmod(expr) in Table 4-19
>>>> should not be italicized
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 5, Analog behavior
>>>> * [clause 5.2, page 89]: "_" missing in syntax 5-1 in "analog initial
>>>> analog_function_statement". Same mistake made in A.6.2 on page 345.
>>>> * [clause 5.10.3, page 113]: This is applicable for cross/above/timer
>>>> sub-sections. The syntax box 5-16, 5-17, 5-18 (and also possibly
>>>> syntax 5-13] are missing the enable arguments. This needs to be
>>>> updated in BNF also (A.6.5)
>>>> * [clause 5.10.3, page 113]: Request for introducing new BNF which
>>>> allows user to specify null arguments for certain expressions instead
>>>> of adding extra [] to the syntax. It was agreed to create a new token
>>>> in the BNF, with slight modification to David's proposal. The square
>>>> brackets will be used for these expressions which denote they are
>>>> optional.
>>>>   - analog_expression_or_null ::= [analog_expression]
>>>>   - constant_expression_or_null ::= [analog_expression]
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 7, Mixed Signal
>>>> * [clause 7.2.4, page 150]: Typo on word tolerance (written as
>>>> tolerence). Was not discussed but minor typo, approved.
>>>> * [clause 7.3.2, page 152]: Reference to var should be changed to
>>>> AnalogVar
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 8, Scheduling semantics
>>>> * [clause 8.3.3.2, page 188]: change it's to its (it's wake-up event).
>>>> The same mistake occurs in the same paragraph again. This needs to be
>>>> checked globally to see where the ' is required.
>>>> * [Clause 8.3.3.3, page 190]: For some reason "ddiscrete" comes out as
>>>> "ddiscreteo" in the example. Needs to be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 9, System tasks and functions
>>>> * [clause 9.13.1, page 220]: Keep $random consistent with 1364. Remove
>>>> the non-variable options for the seed argument and remove type_string
>>>> also.
>>>> [$rdist will still keep their type_string and
>>>> integer_parameter_identifier]
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 10, Compiler directives
>>>> * [Clause 10.4, page 248]: Rephrase the last sentence to the following
>>>> as per Geoffrey's email.
>>>> The `undef compiler directive shall have no effect on predefined
>>>> Verilog-AMS macros; the simulator may issue a warning for an attempt
>>>> to undefine one of these macros.
>>>>
>>>> Annex A, BNF
>>>> * [clause A.2.5, page 339]: "{}" should be in red for value_range_type
>>>> * [clause A.6.2, page 345]: "_" missing in "analog initial
>>>> analog_function_statement"
>>>> * [clause A.6.5, page 347]: Add BNF for enable argument.
>>>> * [clause A.6.11, page 350]: With reference to assert severity_task
>>>> since $error, $fatal etc can be used in normal analog blocks it was
>>>> decided that the assert syntax references will be removed from the LRM
>>>> as its not used.
>>>>
>>>> Action Items:
>>>> * Martin to send proposal on analog random next week.
>>>> * I looked at the minutes (March 27th) and Martin was going to send
>>>> out the correct text on section 4.2.13 (array literal and
>>>> concatenation). Plan is to copy from 1364 for the concatenation
>>>>         
>> examples.
>>     
>>>> * Request to Martin to close the AIs next week for draft4 work.
>>>>
>>>> General:
>>>> * Stu, I remember we decided to put the chapter heading on the top of
>>>> the page (as part of the header). I remember discussing it but not
>>>> sure what we decided. I just wanted to understand that, and i think it
>>>> will be good to have the chapter heading.
>>>>
>>>> Draft4 date: This was discussed and Stu agreed to target this for
>>>> April 30th to be discussed on May 1st.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the items mentioned in these various emails sent out was
>>>> already captured as part of the meeting minutes and hence not detailed
>>>> here. Other emails that were sent out is planned to be taken up post
>>>> LRM2.3 and depending on the item, will be either taken up by the mixed
>>>> signal subcommittee or in the main stream committee for SystemVerilog
>>>> AMS integration.
>>>>
>>>> Next committee Meeting: May 1st 2008.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> References:
>>>> * Emails used for the committee meeting discussions sent to reflector:
>>>>   - Email from Geoffrey Coram, 28th March 2008 (Re: Comments on
>>>> Version 2.3 draft 3)
>>>>   - Email from Xavier Bestel, 28th March 2008 (Re: Comments on Version
>>>> 2.3 draft 3)
>>>>   - Email from Geoffrey Coram, 28th March 2008 (Re: Comments on
>>>> Version 2.3 draft 3): regarding _ missing in the BNF
>>>>   - Email from Geoffrey Coram, 28th March 2008 (Re: Comments on
>>>> Version 2.3 draft 3): Starts with comments from Page 152 (169 of PDF)
>>>>   - Email from Geoffrey Coram, 28th March 2008 (Re: Comments on
>>>> Version 2.3 draft 3): talks about `define and `undef
>>>>   - Mantis on V(n1,n1): http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2345
>>>>   - Email from Ken Kundert, 28th March 2008 (Comments on Version 2.3
>>>> draft 3)
>>>>   - enable argument missing in BNF for cross - email from Dave miller
>>>> on 3rd April
>>>>
>>>> * Reference to minutes on the two previous reviews
>>>>   - Minutes of meeting on March 27th
>>>>   - Subject: "Minutes of the Verilog-AMS call - 27 March 2008", sent
>>>> on 31st March 2008 by Sri
>>>>   - Subject: "Minutes Verilog-AMS committee meeting - 3rd April 2008",
>>>> sent on 4th April by Marq
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Sri
>>>>         
>>>       
>> --
>> Srikanth Chandrasekaran
>> Design Technology (Tools Development)
>> Freescale Semiconductor Inc.
>> T:+91-120-439 5000 p:x3824 f: x5199
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 
True Circuits Inc. - http://www.truecircuits.com
Tel: (650) 949 3400 Ext 3415


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Mon Apr 21 18:22:01 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 21 2008 - 18:22:07 PDT