RE: [sv-dc] Disciplines from AMS

Hi Sundaram and Abhi:

Yes, I think we are all in agreement there. We don't want to complicate the future SV-VAMS merger. What isn't within our scope is to start the merger. We should be aware that disciplines exist and as such not propose a similar yet different solution to that problem.

Thanks,
Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sangameswaran, Sundaram [mailto:suam@ti.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:53 PM
> To: 'Abhi Kolpekwar'; Little Scott-B11206
> Cc: Kevin Cameron; sv-dc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-dc] Disciplines from AMS
>
> I am in agreement with Abhi. We have to make sure there are no future
> conflicts or complication.
>
> Regards
> sundaram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Abhi Kolpekwar
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:19 PM
> To: Little Scott-B11206
> Cc: Kevin Cameron; sv-dc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-dc] Disciplines from AMS
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> My thoughts -
>
> While it may be difficult to bring in AMS extensions (like disciplines)
> directly in the scope of SV-DC work, I think it is still very important
> for us to make sure we keep the door open for these and avoid creating
> any conflicts with future possibilities.
>
> The AMS extensions can act as guiding points for SV-DC proposal. For
> e.g. As Kevin stated, the disciplines in AMS are used to annotate
> properties that can be used to define a supply sensitivity of a given
> net. The SV-DC proposal should allow for this possibility and avoid
> embedding supply sensitivity information directly into SV net types as
> this can complicate SV-AMS work down the line.
>
> Thanks,
> Abhi
>
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> +Little Scott-B11206
> +Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:37 PM
> +To: Kevin Cameron; sv-dc@eda.org
> +Subject: RE: [sv-dc] Disciplines from AMS
> +
> +Hi Kevin:
> +
> +Yes, I object. The work currently being discussed in SV-DC must be
> +finished by Oct. 1, 2011. The merger between SV and VAMS will not be
> +completed in that time, so we should not assume anything from that
> +merger will be available to us. It is not within the scope of SV-DC
> to
> +do any merger work, so we should not consider adding disciplines to SV
> +as part of our work.
> +
> +Thanks,
> +Scott
> +
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> +> Kevin Cameron
> +> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 12:57 PM
> +> To: sv-dc@eda.org
> +> Subject: [sv-dc] Disciplines from AMS
> +>
> +>
> +> From the last AMS meeting it seems like there is a fairly strong
> +> commitment to bringing the Verilog-AMS stuff into SV sooner rather
> +than
> +> later.
> +>
> +> The disciplines section of Verilog-AMS is fairly independent, and is
> +> a useful framework for adding attributes to nets. Does anybody have
> +> an objection to assuming that it is available for the SV-DC work?
> +>
> +> Disciplines are the correct place to put attributes about Vdd/Vss,
> +> logic thresholds and other technology dependent info. It's useful
> for
> +> adding rules about what things can/cannot be connected, e.g. generic
> +> types like wreal can also be marked as having a discipline, and nets
> +> can only
> +have
> +> one base discipline, so you can avoid accidentally connecting an
> +> electrical wire to a fiber-optic, or a 1V logic to a 2V logic (by
> +> connect rules).
> +>
> +> Kev.
> +>
> +>
> +> --
> +> 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.
>
>

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