Re: [sv-dc] SV-DC roadmap update

On 9/15/2010 12:01 AM, Martin O'Leary wrote:
>
> I agree that SV-DC shouldn't be integrating SV and AMS standards.
> However, it does not serve the Mixed Signal users or the SV-AMS merger
> if SV-DC goes off in completely different directions and doesn't
> take account of Verilog-AMS.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we ignore V-AMS. I've
certainly never heard anyone say or insinuate that we should do
so.

There are a couple of issues with formally committing to do anything
cross-language:
   1) The IEEE does not own or control the V-AMS spec, nor does
      the 1800 committee. There are real issues in having the
      standard say anything normative outside its bounds.
   2) As Arturo noted as well, committing to defining mappings
      (assumably bi-directional) can overly constrain committees.
   3) Any commitment on this front would likely open up concerns
      and levels of discussion that are more appropriate when and
      if SV and V-AMS formally merge into some standard.

I think the wording we have strikes a good balance -- it clearly
acknowledges that the DC work does not exist in a vacuum and
clearly indicates that DC will consider V-AMS constructs in terms
of their relationship to SV-DC proposals *in order* to not
complicate any potential merge of the standards.

So, no, we're not committing to *do* the work involved with
a merge (or direct mapping of constructs), but we're definitely
committing to spending effort to understand alignment issues
and make intentional decisions about where the discrete modeling
functionality should go.

Gord.

> I would like to get a better understanding of your specific concerns
> at the call tomorrow.
>
> I am hopeful we can work out the wording needed to address all of
> our important concerns.
>
> Thanks,
> --Martin
>
>
>
> Martin O'Leary | AMS Designer Team | Cadence
> P: (408) 428 5206 www.cadence.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: Gordon Vreugdenhil; Martin O'Leary
> Cc: Achim Bauer; Ian Wilson; Little Scott-B11206; sv-dc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-dc] SV-DC roadmap update
>
> I share some of Gord's concerns. I believe the current roadmap text is good enough and needs no additional commitments that might over-constraint SV-DC and impede accomplishing its primary goals. It is not the charter of SV-DC to integrate the SV and AMS standards - that integration is a considerable effort that will happen in due time.
>
> Arturo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:09 PM
> To: Martin O'Leary
> Cc: Achim Bauer; Ian Wilson; Little Scott-B11206; sv-dc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-dc] SV-DC roadmap update
>
>
> Martin,
>
> I think that SV-DC should focus on its mandate -- how
> to introduce mechanisms for discrete modeling into SV.
> It is not part of our mandate to begin any AMS integration
> nor to define a definite mapping to AMS features. Given
> that there would likely be an expectation that such a
> mapping would be invertible, I'd likely oppose any commitment
> to such a mapping as there are aspects of current AMS
> definitions with which I seriously disagree.
>
> I think the current text in the roadmap strikes a reasonable
> balance -- it says that DC will be aware of and will
> consider AMS alignment points and future potential
> directions without any commitment or a priori constraints
> on solutions that while not exactly the same as AMS,
> may be more appropriate in a digital context.
>
> Gord.
>
> On 9/14/2010 1:53 PM, Martin O'Leary wrote:
>> I totally agree that better coordination with SV-DC and SV-AMS is needed.
>>
>> I think this is very important as they are both planning to do a lot of work in the next year or so and could easily trip over and undermine each.
>>
>> However I think the coordination mechanism needs to better defined and have clearer goals and responsbilities.
>>
>> Along the same line, section 3 of the roadmap (relationship to VerilogAMS) has a lot of words but doesn't seem to commit anything really. It seems
>>
>> pretty wishy, washy. One thing that would be helpful in this regard would be commitment to define the mapping rather than just study it.
>>
>> Without some clearer commitments including coordination mechanisms, I am very concerned that the committees won't coordinate very
>>
>> well, despite a significant amount of shared members.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Martin
>>
>> *Martin O'Leary* | AMS Designer Team | Cadence
>> P: (408) 428 5206 www.cadence.com<http://www.cadence.com>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Achim Bauer
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:34 PM
>> *To:* Ian Wilson; Little Scott-B11206
>> *Cc:* sv-dc@eda.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [sv-dc] SV-DC roadmap update
>>
>> Hi Ian, hi Scott,
>>
>> I think it is a great idea to have regular meetings for discussing issues of interest.
>>
>> A specific goal might be e.g. to develop a methodology for CM-insertion/resolution/synchronization
>>
>> of mixed nets that transport electrical, real/aggregate and digital data.
>>
>> Another (longterm-)issue might be to brainstorm about a clean integration of ASVA within analog Verilog-AMS blocks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Achim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Ian Wilson<mailto:ian.wilson@berkeley-da.com>
>>
>> *To:* Little Scott-B11206<mailto:B11206@freescale.com>
>>
>> *Cc:* sv-dc@eda.org<mailto:sv-dc@eda.org>
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:06 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [sv-dc] SV-DC roadmap update
>>
>> I agree that it would be a good idea to have a regular sync-up meeting.
>> Can we come up with a specific goal rather than to discuss issues of
>> interest?
>>
>> --ian
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> Ian M Wilson
>>
>> Architect
>>
>> Berkeley Design Automation
>>
>> Office: 408-496-6600 x238
>>
>> Cell: 714-272-7040
>>
>> ian.wilson@berkeley-da.com<mailto:ian.wilson@berkeley-da.com>
>>
>> http://www.berkeley-da.com
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> True SPICE accuracy, 5X-20X faster
>>
>> Don't Be Left Behind!
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Little Scott-B11206 wrote:
>>
>> Hi all:
>>
>>
>>
>> After attending the recent Verilog-AMS and SV-DC meetings and thinking
>>
>> about the happenings there it seems to me that it would be nice to have
>>
>> a regularly scheduled sync-up meeting to ensure that both groups are
>>
>> aware of each other's progress and technical issues of common interest.
>>
>> As such, I think we should add the following statement to the
>>
>> "Relationship to Verilog-AMS" section of the roadmap. Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Subgroups of the Verilog-AMS and SV-DC committees will meet regularly to
>>
>> discuss technical issues of interest between the two committees.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner*<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner*<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner*<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.