Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'uvm'.

  • 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 (IEEE 1800.2) - Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • UVM Simulator Specific Issues
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM (Pre-IEEE) Methodology and BCL Forum
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus Discussion
    • Portable Stimulus 2.0 Public Review Feedback
  • IP Security
    • SA-EDI Standard Discussion
    • IP Security Assurance Whitepaper Discussion
  • IP-XACT
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • 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

  1. This is a online training batch taught by experts working in Semiconductor Industry. Course starts with System Verilog and covers advanced level UVM. Course schedule is for 2.5 hours on Sat and Sun for 7 weeks. Graduates and working professionals can benefit from this training. Next batch starting on July 11th, 2015! For more details please email vlsitraining@artoflivinghet.org Course schedule is for 2.5 hours on Sat and Sun for 7 weeks. Graduates and working professionals can benefit from this training. For more details please email vlsitraining@artoflivinghet.org
  2. Hi why does phase.find_by_name(.name(uvm_main_phase::get().get_name()), .stay_in_scope(0)); from run_phase and uvm_pkg::uvm_phase run_phase = phase.find_by_name(.name(uvm_run_phase::get().get_name()), .stay_in_scope(0)); from main_phase return null. Is this intentional? I have created a sample example to check, or you can use the attached file as well. https://www.edaplayground.com/x/5Py7 test.svh
  3. Let's say I have the following DUT. The UVM environment contains a chain of models/predictors. Input data flows down this chain and generates the expected CHIP output, which is compared to actual. Pros: verifies top-level functionality. Cons: Does not verify block level functionality. A good start, but I'd like to also verify the blocks in a system setting. So, I create block-level environments, then reuse them at the top level. Awesome, but wait a minute. I still need the top-level verification (Input-to-Output) like in the first example. However, all 3 of my block predictors are being used in their corresponding environments' scoreboards, hooked up to the RTL, via agents. How does one do both? Surely I'm not supposed to instantiate duplicate copies of my block level predictors to create the end-to-end model chain...
  4. 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?
  5. The VCS implementation of uvm_reg_bit_bash_seq UVM register bit bash sequence performs a model.reset() in the sequence body, before starting the core do_block() task. Due to this reset, any configurations made to the DUT before starting the bit bash sequence is lost in the mirror model, while the DUT still has the configuration intact. This is causing failures during the bit-bash process, resulting in a test fail. There is no knob to override the reset functionality, nor can I extend the sequence and bypass the reset. Any thoughts on this? Any work around for this? ~Chethan
  6. I'm trying out the example for UVM-Connect 2.3 and I can't get a successful compile. The error message is about the "undefined reference to `m__uvm_report_dpi'. I'm using: GCC 4.5.2 on CentOS 5.11 VCS 2015.09-SP2-3 SystemC 2.3.1 SCV 2.0.0 UVM 1.2 UVMC 2.3.0 Appreciate all the help!
  7. Version 2014.02

    412 downloads

    Fixed few enum type-cast issues. Moved around the file ordering as needed by compilers. Added extra target for Riviera-Pro Fixed few issues in reg_models. Added Makefile targets for all 3 major EDA tools Steps to use ----------- tar xvfz uvm_ref_flow_2014.02.tgz cd run_dir make vcs make qsta make cdn make rvra
  8. The cook book from Mentor tells following and in another thread, the moderator also suggested against using the sub phases of run. However in one of my projects, I do find the need for using them (and infact we had an internal implemention of something similar in our previous OVM version). Are there any thing happening on this front? Is there a risk in using the sub phases if some of that changes in a future version? "The Accellera UVM committee is still developing the use models and APIs for new UVM phasing as it relates to sequences and transactors. In the mean time, our recommendation is to wait until that work is done and the API is stable. There are a number of future articles in this section which will be available here at that time, and which will describe our recommendations for using this technology. These include: How to make your testbench phase aware [Not yet available] How to manage sequences in the context of phasing [Not yet available] How to design reusable transactors that work in the context of phasing [Not yet available] "
  9. Hi, We are using snps ralgen to generate the regmodel. It appears that the ralgen creates only the default map. We would like to have 2 maps for 2 separated if masters. Is there an online example for such case? A post gen script can do one of the following 2 options: 1. add another instance of uvm_reg_map and copy/clone the ready map after finished build 2. add another instance of uvm_reg_map, and duplicate any map1.add_reg and map1.add_submap to map2 Which is preferable? Thanks! Elihai
  10. I see uvm_sequencer_base::wait_for_grant (UVM 1.1d) is a virtual task but accesses a local int g_request_id - is this not a bad coding style? If I were to override this virtual method for debug with much of the code intact tool throws an error for his local bar in a derived SQR class. I extended a SQR class and copied all the code for wait_for_grant and started tweaking - couldn't proceed with that debug due to this member being local. Should it be protected instead of local? Thanks Srini wwww.go2uvm.org
  11. Is it possible to do a uvm_config_db::set() for an object of derived class type using the base class handle and later do a uvm_config_db::get() of same object using the derived class handle Since a base class handle can be used to point to a derived class object and later typecase, I thought this would work, but doesn't seem to be so. Any help will be appreciated? Here is an example class BaseA ; endclass class DerivedA extends BaseA endclass 1) Set config_db DerivedA a1; a1 = DerivedA::create() uvm_config_db#(DerivedA)::set(this, "" , "myobj", a1); 2) Get config_db BaseA a1; DerivedA a2; uvm_config_db#(BaseA)::get(this, "" , "myobj", a1); $cast(a2, a1);
  12. I need to have two uvm_tlm_target_socket in a class and I need to do different set of things with the data received via two sockets. I was thinking if it is possible to have two implementation of b_transport task. I am aware of how we can have multiple analysis port imp and use uvm_analysis_imp_decl(_something) and we can have a "write_something" implementation. Is something similar available for uvm_tlm_target_socket? Regards, Gautam
  13. Version 2016-06-24

    417 downloads

    This document is a printable version of the Easier UVM Coding Guidelines from Doulos. You are free to use these guidelines directly, to merge them into your own company-specific UVM coding guidelines, or merely to borrow some of the ideas. These coding guidelines are offered by Doulos for the benefit of the UVM community. They are not officially endorsed by Accellera.
  14. Hi, I notice something interesting in the build_phase order of uvm_component. The uvm_component at the same level are build in the alphabetatical order of the instance name. I expect the build order would be the same as the order I call the factory create function. I am wondering is the alphabetatical build order an intended feature of UVM or just some artifact of the implementation? I couldn't find any reference to this behavior in the UVM user guide or the class reference library. Thanks. Horace
  15. I'm trying to run uvm-systemc on macosx. Link to download: http://accellera.org/images/downloads/drafts-review/uvm-systemc-1.0-alpha1.tar.gz In the install flow, ../configure works fine, but on make i get this error: Making all in macros CCLD libmacros.laar: no archive members specifiedusage: ar -d [-TLsv] archive file ... ar -m [-TLsv] archive file ... ar -m [-abiTLsv] position archive file ... ar -p [-TLsv] archive [file ...] ar -q [-cTLsv] archive file ... ar -r [-cuTLsv] archive file ... ar -r [-abciuTLsv] position archive file ... ar -t [-TLsv] archive [file ...] ar -x [-ouTLsv] archive [file ...]make[4]: *** [libmacros.la] Error 1make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1make[1]: *** [all] Error 2make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 I've looked online, and it seems that it is a makefile problem. However the uvm-systemc makefile is way to complex for me to comprehend where the issue could reside. Any ideas on why is this happening? Thanks
  16. In case of UVM ,config_db can be accessed in any component or object which helps mainly the dynamic creation of component/models.Whether any option is present in SYSTEM C ?
  17. Hi, I have a doubt about requirement of raise/drop_objection. Why does a compiler need objections in run_phase? Why can it not just wait for time given like 100ns as following example? Ex. task run_phase(uvm_phase phase); //phase.raise_objection(this); #100ns; //phase.drop_objection(this); endtask
  18. Hi all, I'm new with UVM and I came across a problem. I am working on an AXI RD VIP using UVM and I have the following issue. In the data_phase (the data channel driving) from the MASTER driver, I need to drive the RREADY signal. There are 3 handshake types described in the protocol specifications: valid before ready, ready before valid and ready and valid at the same time. In case of valid before ready, I want to wait a certain number of clock cycles ( delay ) from the time that RVALID asserted and then to assert the RREADY signal. From my understanding, all the delay information should come from the transaction(sequence_item). The problem is that I generate a new transaction (sequence_item) with get_next_item only when I drive the address channel (in address_phase); The data_phase works in parallel with the addr_phase and its independent of the address phase. Also the data_phase needs multiple delay values (one for each data received from DUT, ex. arlen+1) while I only generate one transaction that contains the address channel informations. Code example: task run_phase(uvm_phase phase) fork forever begin ... seq_item_port.get_next_item(req); address_phase(req); seq_item_port.item_done(); end forever begin data_phase(); end endtask : run_phase task address_phase(axi_item item); // Drive the address channel ... endtask : address_phase task data_phase(); // Wait for the rvalid signal while(!vif.rvalid) @(posedge vif.clk); // Insert delay between rvalid assertion and rready assertion repeat(<problem!!!!>) @(posedge vif.clk); rready = 1; ... endtask : data_phase I don't know what variable (sequence_item variable) to set in the <problem!!!> Can anyone give me an advice regarding this problem. I repeat, I want all timing related data to be set from the sequence_item Regards, Adrian
  19. Hello there, As per Mentor's UVM guidelines 5.2 [1], reset_phase() will be obsolete in future releases. During DVCon 2014, Cadence recommends to use run_phases() on slide 5 of [2]. With the release of UVM-1.2, I believed that the sub-phases of run_phase are now stable and clean. Now with the recommendations above, it seems that the it's better to stick with run_phase() itself. As UVM delelopers, what are your views about it ? What do you recommend ? My intention is not to start a flame war of any kind. But to understand which route to opt in order that most of my UVM code would be compatible with UVM 1.3. All in all, it appears that there is a miscommunication on the web. [1]: https://verificationacademy.com/cookbook/UVM/Guidelines [2]: http://proceedings.dvcon-europe.org/2014/presentations_and_papers/T5_3_presentation.pdf regards, Chitlesh
  20. Hi All, I have a sequence sending a created and randomized item using `uvm_send. The driver receives an item using try_next_item. Upon receiving, it drives the item and calls item_done. Using debug message after item_done, I can clearly see that item_done is called and returned but `uvm_send in sequence is still blocked and not doing forward to send next item (it implements a loop). Can anyone help me with possible reasons why `uvm_send would not return even when driver has called item_done and come out of item_done. Thanks in advance! Ninad
  21. Hi all, I'm doing verification for an PHY between SPI master and a memory chip. I make two agents one for master to transfer the request, one mimics the memory slave to reply. PHY will be hooked up to two interfaces that of SPI Master and Memory. During sending request and reply data, Chip Select Pin (in SPI interface) must go low to enable the transaction. But I don't know how to control this pin when It sends the reply from memory. Because this pin is not an interface of memory slave agent. Could anyone give me some advice? Could I use phases to control the env that has different agents? Thank you, Nhat
  22. Hello, I'm trying to implement an AXI Slave VIP and have few questions regarding the implementation. In this case, the DUT is the master. The AXI Slave checks the interface for valid read /write signals and performs a read/write operation from a memory model. It returns back the write response/read data back to the DUT. 1. Since this is a slave VIP , do I need a slave sequence which runs forever sending transactions to the driver ? This is similar to the UVM example where the monitor and sequencer are connected by an analysis port and the sequence calls the peek function to check if a valid transaction is available from the monitor. (OR) 2. Can I skip the sequence/sequencer part and just connect my monitor and driver using an analysis port and pass on the observed transaction from the monitor to the driver for further action ? (OR) 3. Im thinking of a 3rd alternative of just using the monitor to the observe the interface and drive back the write response/ read data back using the monitor itself and leave the driver empty. Please let me know your valuable thoughts and suggestions. Thanks, Madhu
  23. Hi, As per my understanding, connect_phase does not start until all build_phase do not complete. How is this mechanism controlled? I did not find anything in uvm reference manual about this. Please let me know if there is any. Thanks.
  24. Hi all I'm trying to build a generlc verification environment for specific modules of mine, that essentially only differ (besides their actual implementation) by the number of inputs/outputs of a certain interface standard and the data_size of each of these interfaces. This leads to the point, that I like to have an environment, where I can set the number of interfaces and for each of these interfaces the data_size. Unfortunately this simple setup of non-dynamic pre-compile settings is getting me in a lot of trouble. (1) Sequence_Item class input_item #(int unsigned data_size) extends uvm_sequence_item; `uvm_object_param_utils(input_item) rand logic[data_size-1:0] data; ....... The first question that comes to mind writing this code is the following: Is it possible to factory overwrite a param. class with another specilisation of that same class (e.g. define a driver with input_item<32> and then factory overwrite it with input_item<42>)? Otherwise a item_base class would be necessary that than would be extended by this class. (2) Analysis Ports class env extends uvm_env; .... // need N = number of interfaces analysis ports between each monitor and scoreboard uvm_analysis_port #(input_item#(17)) ap_1; uvm_analysis_port #(input_item#(12)) ap_2; ..... uvm_analysis_port #(input_item#(42)) ap_N; .... Due to the different input_items all ports are of a different type. Therefore it is not possible to create an array of N=number_of_interfaces, which leads to this not being possible to implement. Furthermore the analysis_port/export classes cannot be overwritten through the means of the factory. (3) Virtual Sequence class top_vseq_base extends uvm_sequence #(uvm_sequence_item); `uvm_object_utils(top_vseq_base) uvm_sequencer #(input_item#(17)) seq_1; uvm_sequencer #(input_item#(12)) seq_2; ... uvm_sequencer #(input_item#(42)) seq_N; In the virtual sequence I essentially run into two problems: 1. The first one is the same problem as in (2) of not being able to create an array of different types or having a pre-processor for-loop 2. The other one is the fact, that I'm not able to get access to the number N . Even if they were all of the same type and I would declare a dynamic array, there is no build_phase and no way to get informations through either the config_db or "p_sequencer.variable". I could put a member variable into the virtual sequencer, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea/possible to create a dynamic array in the body method. General Solutions so far: I only see two solutions here ... 1. Defining a gigantic input_item with data_size of 256/512 and then cut it everywhere. But unfortunately I will be in need of an array of completely different items in the next version of this environment anyhow. The reason for that is, that I would like to group a bunch of M different interfaces into one environment, all of them running a different item. Therefore the analysis_ports would all run a different item. 2. Just building a code generator, in which the user sets all parameters, creating the necessary environment for the given DUT. If you have any input, I would be glad to hear it. Thanks Marcel
  25. To view this announcement on the IEEE web site click here. Purpose Verification components and environments are currently created in different forms, making interoperability among verification tools and/or geographically-dispersed design environments both time consuming to develop and error prone. The results of the UVM standardization effort will improve interoperability and reduce the cost of repurchasing and rewriting Intellectual Property (IP) for each new project or electronic design automation tool, as well as make it easier to reuse verification components. Overall, the UVM standardization effort will lower verification costs and improve design quality throughout the industry. Need for the Project As the electronics industry builds more complex systems involving large numbers of components, the challenge of verifying such systems multiplies by orders of magnitude. In order to bring costs and time to market down, standardization must happen to enable as much modularity and reuse across verification components as possible. The UVM standard will propagate an API that will manage this explosion in verification complexity, allowing the entire industry to write and reuse verification components both (a) internally in companies having geographically widespread teams, and (externally between vendors and user companies in the electronics industry, who are developing, selling and using verification components Call for Contribution Please review the IEEE P1800.2 ™ PAR and, if you are interested in participating, Register for the first working group meeting scheduled to occur on August 6th, 2015 from 12pm – 2pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) / 9am – 11am Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). Please feel free to connect with the Working Group Chair, Thomas Alsop at thomas.r.alsop@intel.com or IEEE-SA staff Jonathan Goldberg at goldberg.j@ieee.org directly for further information.
×
×
  • Create New...