Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'virtual interface'.



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 2 results

  1. Hi, I have a doubt regarding an interface "X" being defined as : Driver code of the VIP: *********************************************** protected virtual X ChipIf; function void connect phase(uvm_phase phase); Y vif_container; super.connect_phase(phase); // Assigning virtual interface assert(uvm_config_object::get(this, "","V_IF_CHIP", temp)); $cast(vif_container, temp); ChipIf = vif_container.get_v_if(); endfunction : connect_phase ********************************************************** From the tb_top of the SoC , where the above VIP pkg is imported along with uvm pkg:*,please let me know how can I "set" the virtual ChipIf?
  2. Hi Everyone, I got some strange code (at least strange to me) from a college of mine and I can not understand why it works, reading the code I expect the tools to fail at compilation and elaboration but to my surprise it works fine. This is a description of what he trying to accomplish and how he did it: We have chip and within it we have a register bank that use an interface with modports to all the subblocks in the design. My college use an SPI to access the register bank but needed to "control" some of the signals going from the subblock to the regbank which are internal and already connected. To control these signals he probed down to the regbank and connected a virtual interface to the interface of the regbank (the virtual interface declaration use the same modport as the regbank) To control the signal he now simple write "virtual_itf.signal_name = 1'b0" to override the value from the subblock. To me this is strange for the following reasons: The interface signals are declared as "logic" and since we now have multiple drivers I would expect the tools to complain Different signal values are driven by the subblock and the virtual interface. I would expect the result to be 'X' but apparently the virtual interface has higher precedence than the subblock but I can not understand why Virtual interface is declared with the same modport as the regbank which means the UVM testbench drives an input signal which should also be flagged. By the way we use Cadence irun(64): 14.20-s002 I'm not an expert in SystemVerilog/UVM verification so I'm grateful for any help to understand it for the RTL coder within me is just skeptic about how this is hooked up and that it will work for any other vendor than Cadence Thanks Mikael
×