Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'covergroup'.

More search options

  • 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 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 1.0
    • Portable Stimulus Pre-Release Discussion
  • 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 1 result

  1. 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 below might not be syntactically right, and I intentionally leave the factory registration, new(), build() etc. in order to be concise. `uvm_analysis_imp_decl(_transaction_A) `uvm_analysis_imp_decl(_transaction_B ) `uvm_analysis_imp_decl(_transaction_C ) class coverage_class extends uvm_scoreboard; bit req_a; //request coming from transaction A bit req_b; //request coming from transaction B bit req_c; //request coming from transaction C uvm_analysis_imp_transaction_A #(trans_a, coverage_class) trans_a_port; uvm_analysis_imp_transaction_B #(trans_b, coverage_class) trans_b_port; uvm_analysis_imp_transaction_C #(trans_c, coverage_class) trans_c_port; covergroup cg; coverpoint req_a; coverpoint req_b; coverpoint req_c; cross req_a, req_b, req_c; //Want to capture a case where all 3 requests go high at the same time from 3 different interfaces. endgroup //write function to capture trans_a virtual function void write_transaction_A(trans_a t); req_a = t.req; cg.sample(); endfunction //write function to capture trans_b virtual function void write_transaction_B(trans_b t); req_b = t.req; cg.sample(); endfunction //write function to capture trans_c virtual function void write_transaction_C(trans_c t); req_c = t.req; cg.sample(); endfunction endclass I also realize that, when 2 requests are high at the same time, there might be a delta delay between the two. Say "write_transaction_A" happens a delta before "write_transaction_B" (still the same timestamp). So when transaction_A happens, req_a is set to 1 and the covergroup is sampled. At this delta time, transaction_B has not occurred so, req_b is still 0. In the next delta cycle, write_transaction_B happens and so, req_A as well as req_B is asserted, and covergroup is sampled again. I see 2 issues here: 1. We are sampling the covergroup more than actually required. Is there a better way of sampling the covergroup? 2. Where do we clear the req_A/req_B/req_C variables in order to be sampled again. Is there a better way of accomplishing the same task? Please share your thoughts.
  • Create New...