Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'coverage'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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
    • IP Security Assurance Whitepaper Discussion
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • Commercial Announcements
    • Announcements


  • SystemC
  • UVM
  • UCIS
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL












Found 4 results

  1. Does UVM_SC has support for coverage bin and coverpoints? Want to know if user can add functional coverage classes. Thanks Akhila
  2. I was under the assumption that once bins are created, the coverage would be collected only for those bins and the remaining combinations would be ignored. However, I noticed this was not the case when using intersect. Intention: Assuming there are 3 banks (0,1,2) and 3 requestors(a,b,c). I wanted to write a coverpoint that covers the case where all 3 banks are active at the same time. Example 1: No bins for coverpoints and use intersect for cross coverpoint cp_bank_0_hit: coverpoint req_a_bank_id == 0 || req_b_bank_id == 0 || req_c_bank_id == 0; cp_bank_1_hit: coverpoint req_a_bank_id == 1
  3. I need to implement coverage across multiple interfaces. For example in the arbitor designs, it is of interest to see if multiple requests from different agents are driven at the same time. All the texts have only discussed coverage specific to the interface or transaction. I have an idea of implementing this, but not sure if it is the right way forward. Here is my idea: First place, instead of extending the coverage class from uvm_subscriber, I intend to extend it from uvm_scoreboard. This is because, uvm_subscriber is tied to a transaction type, whereas uvm_scoreboard is not. The code bel
  4. I want to verify the following behavior: "DUT shall only accept command A, and reject all others while in the Powerup state. While not in Powerup, accept all commands" This is the state of the DUT following a reset. Option 1 - No covergroup After a reset, send all commands that are NOT A, followed by command A. If the scoreboard doesn't fail, then I'm good to go. Option 2 - Covergroup Have a monitor hanging off an agent that, when it detects a command is written, it crossed the state of the DUT with the command being written. With option 1, I have no coverage metric that the
  • Create New...