Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'uvm_sequence'.



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 3 results

  1. I've been using various types of calling uvm_sequences while developing sequences and every approach works. But I've a doubt what is the best one to be used when compared between using uvm_create, uvm_send and start_item, finish_item. In either cases the type and amount of control on the transactions is the same. Can anyone help me in understanding the differences better? Are there any guidelines to choose a specific style of coding for a given requirement? Thanks
  2. Hi there We want to traverse through all registers present in a UVM_REG_BLOCK based on increasing address. We have the following pseudocode: model.NTB_DB.get_registers(total_regs_ntb); foreach (total_regs_ntb) begin total_regs_btb.write(status, wdata, .parent(this)); end But, the above source code does not go through the registers space based on address. ie., When I have a 2-dimensional array of registers, array indices are chosen first(not addresses). Any help to workaround this problem is appreciated. Best regards Balasubramanian G
  3. Hi all, How to pass the value to the variable of uvm_sequence object? 1. use uvm_config_db 2. assign directly When i use the first way, i found that maybe uvm_config_db::get() can only use in the uvm_component class. Then i use the second way, I cann't pass the value to the variable successfully. Does anybody know the reason? Thanks in advance. pieces of code of the first way: In top: uvm_config_db#(uvm_bitstream_t)::set(uvm_root::get(), "*", "my_cpu_id", HOST_NUM); In my_sub_sequence which extends from uvm_sequence: void'(uvm_config_db#(uvm_bitstream_t)::get(this, "", "my_cpu_id", my_cpu_id)); Result: VCS reports error. pieces of code of the second way: In v_sequence: for (int i = 0; i < host_num; i++) begin inst_name = $sformatf("sub_seq[%0d]", i); //sub_seq[i] = my_sub_sequence::type_id::create(inst_name,,get_full_name()); sub_seq[i] = new(inst_name); sub_seq[i].my_cpu_id = i; end In my_sub_sequence: int my_cpu_id; ... virtual task body(); ... $display("my_cpu_id = %0d", my_cpu_id); ... endtask Result: every my_cpu_id's value display 0, not 0, 1, 2, 3.
×