jamal elhaitout

Hello Erwin, Thanks for your reply. I just was wondering if it would be possible for IP-XACT providers to contribute to the PSS stimulus generation. Best regards, Jamal

Dear all, I am wondering how much Portable Stimulus standard is compatible with IP-XACT ? is there any dependency ? How Portable Stimulus semantics can be supported in IP-XACT ? Thanks and best regards, Jamal

Dear PSWG, I am wondering how much Portable Stimulus standard is compatible with IP-XACT ? is there any dependency ? How Portable Stimulus semantics can be supported in IP-XACT ? Thanks and best regards, Jamal

Hi Richard, Thanks a lot for your answer. This makes the subject a bit clear. Sure we will contribute to this requirement (we have some people involved in this standard). Best regards, Jamal

Hi Erwin , Thanks a lot for your answer. This is exactly the ambiguity I have : Me as a developer I don't know what to generate(in UVM model) exactly when this field is true/false. Actually UVM provides some built-in tests (register access, reset test , bit bash test, ...), and provides some variables (i.e NO_REG_TESTS) to disable these tests for a given register. So my interpretation was to use "testable" field to disable these UVM tests, but I still have some doubts it is not the good interpretation. I am wondering if this ipxact field is related also to other things like coverage, backdoor , ... Best regards Jamal

Hi Erwin , Many Thanks for your reply! Yes , I read this on IPXACT standard, but still not clear for me. What we mean by an automated register test exactly ? the UVM built-in register tests ? Or something like ipxact2test flow ? Best regards, Jamal

Hi All , I am wondering what is the exact meaning of "testable" and "testConstraint" ip-xact fields ? how should UVM register model be generated for these fields? What we mean by an automated register test ? UVM built-in tests ? Thanks in advance! Best regards, Jamal