Re: [sv-ac] Proposal uploaded for Mantis 2654 (Ballot Comment #93)

The committee should only be working on ballot feedback.

Based on this email thread it appears that you are now discussing making
changes to an additional set of figures. That is beyond the scope of the
work that you are authorized to be doing.


Neil



On 04/24/09 13:59, Eduard Cerny wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I thought that we would add a comment somewhere before the start of the figures that use sampled values to say that the figures show sampled values. Even if the figure shows it in the middle of a cycle, it is OK because $sampled is not on a clock, but on a time step. This fix might be simpler and make the concerned figures consistent with each other.
> 
> Best...
> ed
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM [mailto:Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:32 PM
>> To: Eduard Cerny
>> Cc: Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda.org
>> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Proposal uploaded for Mantis 2654 (Ballot Comment
>> #93)
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> Yes.  However, when I look at a waveform viewer I never see the sampled
>> value of a signal.  I only see the signal.  The text and diagrams will
>> be much more clear if they show actual signal values.  Note that Figure
>> 16-3 shows actual signal values changing in the middle of the cycle as
>> well.
>>
>> I have uploaded a new proposal which makes fixes to 16-12 and 16-13.  I
>> believe that both these figures are within the scope of this comment.
>> Fixes for 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16 will have to wait unless there is
>> another comment covering them.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 04/24/09 11:33, Eduard Cerny wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> Fig 16-14: if it shows sampled values, then I do not think the figure
>> is wrong, it is missing the failures, but the success is correct. The
>> figures rely on the fact that sampled values are shown.
>>> ed
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Thomas Thatcher
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 2:24 PM
>>>> To: Lisa Piper
>>>> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Proposal uploaded for Mantis 2654 (Ballot
>> Comment
>>>> #93)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lisa,
>>>>
>>>> The other diagram don't just LOOK off.  They are wrong!
>>>>
>>>> In Fig 16-13, the same waveform changes need to be made that I made
>> for
>>>> Fig 16-12.
>>>>
>>>> Fig 16-14 is just plain Wrong!  If you look at the property:
>>>>
>>>>      property data_end;
>>>>         @(posedge mclk)
>>>>         data_phase |-> ((irdy==0) && ($fell(trdy) || $fell(stop))) ;
>>>>      endproperty
>>>>
>>>> In the waveform given in 16-14, the property succeeds in cycle 7,
>> not
>>>> in
>>>> cycle 6.  However, the Property Fails in cycles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and
>> 9!
>>>> This is not shown in the figure.
>>>>
>>>> With this example, it might be better to just reverse the
>> implication.
>>>> The property as written doesn't really make sense.  i.e.
>>>>
>>>>         ((irdy==0) && ($fell(trdy) || $fell(stop))) |-> data_phase
>>>>
>>>> Figures 16-15 and 16-16 are wrong as well.  In Figure 16-15 the
>>>> sequence
>>>> data_end_exp should match in cycle 7, and data_end_rule should
>> evaluate
>>>> to true in cycle 9.  Figure 16-16 repeats the error from 16.14.
>>>>
>>>> However, since the comment only mentioned one figure, we probably
>> don't
>>>> have authority to change all four diagrams.  I will change both 16-
>> 12
>>>> and 16-13, as they are part of the same example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our options:
>>>> 1.  Make the change I suggested, moving the signal transitions to
>> the
>>>> middle of the cycle.
>>>> 2.  We could pull the signal transitions all the way to the previous
>>>> cycle.  If we did this, I would add the "the sampled value" to the
>> text
>>>> explanation below, like this:
>>>>
>>>>         Because the sampled value of signal burst_mode is hight at
>>>> clock
>>>>         tick 1 and low at clock tick 2 . . .
>>>>
>>>> 3.  We could leave the signal transitions alone.  If we did that, we
>>>> would need to edit the figure anyway to move the match indications
>> one
>>>> cycle later.  We would then need to edit the explanation text to
>> change
>>>> the cycle numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On 04/23/09 18:53, Lisa Piper wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem I have with this solution is that it makes other
>> diagrams
>>>>> look off too.  For example - Figure 16.13 and 16.14. I thought
>>>> someone
>>>>> (Ed??) was going to look at clarifying that the signals shown in
>> the
>>>>> diagram are actually depicting the sampled values of signals, in
>>>> which
>>>>> case the change would be to say:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Because the sampled value of signal burst_mode is high at clock
>> tick
>>>> 1
>>>>> and low at clock tick 2, $fell(burst_mode) is true at
>>>>>
>>>>> clock tick 2."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lisa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ps Figure 16.14 is misplaced too in my copy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-
>> ac@server.eda.org]
>>>> On
>>>>> Behalf Of Thomas Thatcher
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:59 PM
>>>>> To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
>>>>> Subject: [sv-ac] Proposal uploaded for Mantis 2654 (Ballot Comment
>>>> #93)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have uploaded a proposal for Mantis 2654 (ballot comment #93).
>> The
>>>>> solution for this comment was simply to edit Figure 16-12, and move
>>>> the
>>>>> signal transitions forward to the middle of the cycle, before the
>>>> clock
>>>>> edge.  I re-created part of the figure to illustrate the change.
>> Let
>>>> me
>>>>> know if I need to do something more to help the editor with this
>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
> 

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