Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'socket'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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 (Configuration, Control & Inspection)
    • SystemC Datatypes
  • UVM (Universal Verification Methodology)
    • UVM 2017 - Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • UVM Simulator Specific Issues
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM (Pre-IEEE) Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM 1.2 Public Review
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus Pre-Release Discussion
    • Portable Stimulus 1.0
  • IP-XACT
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • OCP (Open Core Protocol)
  • UCIS (Unified Coverage Interoperability Standard)
  • Commercial Announcements
    • Announcements

Categories

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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


Company

Found 4 results

  1. Hello All I am trying to list out all the ports, sockets in a given SystemC platform. For that I am traversing the hierarchy using sc_get_top_level_object/get_child_object and able to list out all the ports and sockets. But for TLM 2 sockets I get two entries there for example - top_inst.init_inst.initiator_socket - top_inst.init_inst.initiator_socket_export_0 and - top_inst.memory_inst.target_socket - top_inst.memory_inst.target_socket_port_0 It is obvious because each TLM2 socket internally have one port and one sc_export. Is there a way that I get only those sockets which are visible in SystemC model header file for example I want to have only the following - top_inst.init_inst.initiator_socket - top_inst.memory_inst.target_socket Thanks Khushi
  2. I am looking at MultiSocketSimpleSwitchAT example, and I can't seem to figure out how to implement priority based request selection. For example, in this simple switch, if we get multiple request on a given time, I need a stage where after collecting all the requests I can arbitrate between request in Round Robin manner. In this example, it is just selecting first request that happens to execute. Any suggestion on how can I implement that. Thanks
  3. I have array of target sockets. sc_vector<target_socket_type> m_target_socket; which are bind to tagged nonblocking forward function and here is declaration of the function sync_enum_type my_forward_function(int port_id,...) { m_peq.notify(trans, phase, t); return tlm::TLM_ACCEPTED; } registered callback for peq is peq_cb. Is there a way for my callback to to know port_id? I need to send END_REQ back on same port's backward path, but I need to know id. Thanks
  4. Hi Accellera forum, I have an NoC Mesh that is using convenience tagged socket for its North, South, West, and East socket. Then I also have initiator socket and target socket, to connect this NoC node to the processor or memory or to any other peripherals in my SystemC-TLM platform. My question is can we implement more than one blocking transport function inside one SystemC module? Because the functionality of N,S,W,E socket are different with the target socket one. Several transaction are passed to the correct destination node, until at one point there is a transaction that has so big transaction.get_address( ) value (0xffffffe0) which leads to simulation error. It is clear that the transaction address can't be routed to any of the node because there isn't any address that large inside the platform architecture. I have test the application using processor - decoder - memory, and it works just fine. My best guess is that maybe my socket implementation is not correct 100%. Appreciate any suggestion and feedback. Thank you. Regards, Arya.
×