Hi,
Recently I was working on updates to my environment and had to switch to set_inst_override from set_type_override to be able to override the base_sequence with a different sequence for different master agents.
Code in base_test to start sequence on master sequencer ::
master_base_seq seq = master_base_seq::type_id::create("seq",this,"masterName");
seq.start(top.virtual_sequencer.masterSequencer);
Code in test for initial override ::
master_base_seq::type_id::set_inst_override(master_user1_seq::get_type,"masterName.seq");
Now, later in test I need to change this override so that I can start another sequence on the same master.
Coming from the set_type_override usage, i ended up writing below code ::
master_base_seq::type_id::set_inst_override(master_user2_seq::get_type,"masterName.seq");
I observed that second time, the master still started the master_user1_seq instead the intended master_user2_seq.
I printed the factory to see whether the override was registered or not, and I got below print ::
# Instance Overrides:
#
# Requested Type Override Path Override Type
# ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
# master_base_seq masterName.seq master_user1_seq
# master_base_seq masterName.seq master_user2_seq
After some experiments, I found that second time I need to use below override to be able to start the master_user2_seq on the master ::
master_user1_seq::type_id::set_inst_override(master_user2_seq::get_type,"masterName.seq");
Above approach works, but have 2 issues ::
1. It's not consistent with the set_type_override usage.
2. This requires to keep track of last set_inst_override type in-order to override the inst with new type.
I ended-up updating the uvm-1.2 library in-order to make the set_inst_override usage in-line with set_type_override as below::
In the check_inst_override_exists method in uvm_factory_.svh file -
1. I commented the same override_type check
This way I only check whether the new request is for existing original_type and same full_inst_path.
2. When I get the match, I simply override the existing override with the new override_type and override_type_name.
Updated code looks as below ::
// check_inst_override_exists
// --------------------------
function bit uvm_default_factory::check_inst_override_exists (uvm_object_wrapper original_type,
uvm_object_wrapper override_type,
string full_inst_path);
uvm_factory_override override;
uvm_factory_queue_class qc;
if (m_inst_override_queues.exists(original_type))
qc = m_inst_override_queues[original_type];
else
return 0;
for (int index=0; index<qc.queue.size(); ++index) begin
override = qc.queue[index];
if (override.full_inst_path == full_inst_path &&
override.orig_type == original_type &&
/*override.ovrd_type == override_type &&*/ //Commented check
override.orig_type_name == original_type.get_type_name()) begin
uvm_report_info("DUPOVRD",{"Instance override for '",
original_type.get_type_name(),"' already exists: override type '",
override_type.get_type_name(),"' with full_inst_path '",
full_inst_path,"'"},UVM_HIGH);
override.ovrd_type = override_type; // New Line
override.ovrd_type_name = override_type.get_type_name(); //New Line
return 1;
end
end
return 0;
endfunction
With above change the set_inst_override usage becomes same as set_type_override.
I am able to override inst for a object/component any number of time while using the same base_type and full_inst_path.
Please, let me know, if this change or a batter solution can be incorporated in the next release.
Thanks,
Chintan
