Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ipxact:design'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Accellera Systems Initiative
    • Information
    • Announcements
    • In the News
  • SystemC
    • SystemC Language
    • SystemC AMS (Analog/Mixed-Signal)
    • SystemC TLM (Transaction-level Modeling)
    • SystemC Verification (UVM-SystemC, SCV)
    • SystemC CCI Public Review
  • UVM (Universal Verification Methodology)
    • Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • Simulator Specific Issues
    • 1800.2-2017 Early Adopter Release
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM 1.2 Public Review
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus Discussion
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • OCP (Open Core Protocol)
  • UCIS (Unified Coverage Interoperability Standard)
  • Commercial Announcements
    • Announcements


  • SystemC
  • UVM
  • UCIS
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption


  • Community Calendar

Found 1 result

  1. Hi, Suppose we have an IP, e.g., IP_A, which instantiates a few sub-IPs, e.g., SUB_IP_X/Y/Z (which have ipxact component xml), and a few sub-modules which are not packaged in IP-XACT component XML. I'd like to track all the sub-IPs used by IP_A, but am not sure if ipxact:design is the right choice to describe the design hierarchy as the sub-level of IP_A includes both sub-IPs described using IP-XACT and sub-units that are not packaged using IP-XACT. Thanks, Justin