Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'uvm_reg_map'.

  • 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

Found 7 results

  1. UVM 1.2 manual documents that uvm_reg_map can be added as sub-map to multiple address maps (captured as below), But in the implementation, it is just throwing error when same map is added to 2nd map as submap. Is there any alternate solution recommended by UVM for this? // Cannot have more than one parent (currently) if (parent_map != null) begin `uvm_error("RegModel", {"Map '", child_map.get_full_name(), "' is already a child of map '", parent_map.get_full_name(), "'. Cannot also be a child of map '",
  2. I recently came upon an issue where attempting to write a memory via a backdoor yields a warning similar to the following: "reporter [RegModel] Memory 'tst_reg_blk.test_mem' is not contained within map 'Backdoor' (called from get_access())" In addition to the warning, it appears that due rw.map being overwritten (as explained in the second link), Read-Only memories can be written to via the backdoor, since get_access end up returning the default value of "RW". This appears to be in conflict with the Spec: Researching this warning turned up a couple prior forum posts from 201
  3. Hi , To whom may correspond I think there is some kind of error in the UVM 1.1d register model. I have been experimenting with the UVM register model and i have seen the following code in uvm_reg_map.svh task uvm_reg_map::do_bus_write (uvm_reg_item rw, uvm_sequencer_base sequencer, uvm_reg_adapter adapter); uvm_reg_addr_t addrs[$]; uvm_reg_map system_map = get_root_map(); int unsigned bus_width = get_n_bytes(); uvm_reg_byte_en_t byte_en = -1; uvm_reg_map_info map_info;
  4. Hi, While debugging a prediction error returned by "Bit Bashing Test Sequence", I came to read the uvm_reg_map::do_bus_read/do_bus_write methods which seems incorrect when it comes to computing the "byte enable" for the bus accesses (ie data member "byte_en" of the object of type uvm_bus_reg_op created by those functions) I'm explain the issue that I think I found here-below, can you please give me your feedback (Am i wrong or not?) My understanding about "uvm_reg_map::do_bus_read/do_bus_write" methods about is that these methods are called when I request a frontdoor rea
  5. In our DUT, we have two separate independent physical interfaces (APB & I2C) (active 1 at a time) through which all registers can can be accessed, Also in our register model, we created two reg_maps, one for each APB & I2C. Now through testcase, we want only one physical interface at a time, to be subjected to default uvm sequences (i.e. uvm_reg_access_seq, uvm_reg_bit_bash_seq,etc) but it is not possible as uvm_sequence will get all the maps using get_maps(); So without over-riding the default uvm_reg_access_seq, is it possible to achieve such type of configuration in test
  6. In the UVM register model, if you create a register or a field which is wider than the bus width there is no way to control what order the multiple bus operations occur to update the register/field value. In my case I was using BIG_ENDIAN addressing and the register model would always write the largest address first. My design spec required that the largest address be written last. I searched in vain for a way to change this but ended up overriding the 'do_bus_write' function in 'uvm_reg_map'. If you've run into a similar issue, here's my workaround. reversed_reg_order_map.sv `ifndef __RE
  7. In uvm_reg_map::do_bus_read() task, after the call to adapter.bus2reg() function, do_bus_read() function checks for any Xs in data field. Code from uvm_reg_map: uvm_reg_bus_op rw_access; uvm_reg_data_logic_t data; data = rw_access.data & ((1<<bus_width*8)-1); rw.status = rw_access.status; if (rw.status == UVM_IS_OK && (^data) === 1'bx) rw.status = UVM_HAS_X; Here, rw_access.data is of type "bit" and is assigned to data which is of type "logic". and then data is checked for Xs. But, as rw_access.data is "bit" type, it will
×
×
  • Create New...