Hi Dmitry, OK, I re-read the ballot comment and I do believe that if we stretch it a bit, you can claim this to be ballot feedback. Do however be careful that you don't attempt to make a set of risky changes at the last minute. Neil On 04/27/09 23:18, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote: > Hi Neil, > > We didn't make any changes in the figures that do not belong to 16.9.9 mentioned in this ballot issue. > > Regards, > Dmitry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:15 AM > To: Eduard Cerny > Cc: Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM; Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda.org > Subject: 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. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Israel (74) Limited > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Apr 29 17:53:19 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 29 2009 - 17:54:24 PDT