Re: [sv-dc] Draft of SV-DC roadmap - power/back-annotation

At end of B (Type Conversion and Compatibility) -

  R+1: [SHOULD] Mechanisms for type conversions to access nominal and
actual power supplies (for accurate conversion of logic values to
voltages etc.).

  R+2: [SHOULD] Mechanisms for back-annotating circuitry (parasitics and
wiring) that work with the above mechanisms (so that post
place-and-route simulations will work with the models using user-defined
wire types).

Note: for R+1 if you had AMS Disciplines you might want to use those to
get nominal voltages pre-synthesis, post-synthesis you want an actual
connection. Post P&R you want a connection into the back-annotated wiring.

My view is that you need to have a general scheme in mind that will
support this functionality in the long term or things will get really
messy. I.e. any proposal that cannot support back-annotation and power
supply connectivity at some point in the future should be rejected (the
Verilog-AMS connect-module methodology is partially broken in this respect).

Kev.

On 09/07/2010 08:36 AM, Little Scott-B11206 wrote:
> Hi Kevin:
>
> Would you please suggest some specific wording for the power supply
> connectivity and back-annotation items?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevin Cameron [mailto:edaorg@v-ms.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:47 PM
>> To: Little Scott-B11206
>> Cc: sv-dc@eda.org
>> Subject: Re: [sv-dc] Draft of SV-DC roadmap
>>
>>
>> I would prefer to see something like "user defined type" used instead
>> of
>> "real valued". The aim (I think) is to support low level hardware
>> modeling in ways that are not currently supported, which would include
>> RF modeling with types other than simple real values. SV has a whole
>> class type scheme already, seems limiting ourselves to "real valued"
>> probably won't simplify much.
>>
>> Is the "X" and "Z" stuff really a "must"?
>>
>> Might want to add a "could" or "should" for power supply connectivity,
>> and for back-annotation.
>>
>> Kev.
>>
>>
>> On 09/06/2010 08:01 PM, Little Scott-B11206 wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all:
>>>
>>> I have attached a draft of the SV-DC roadmap. We will discuss this
>>>
>> in
>>
>>> the SV-DC meeting on Wednesday. If you believe that the roadmap
>>>
>> needs
>>
>>> to be changed and would like to discuss it on the list prior to the
>>> meeting please send specific suggestions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

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