uvm_config_db#(...) - Difference between set(null, "*", ...); -vs- set(uvm_root::get(), "*", ...); ??

[cliffc]

Hi, all -

 

When using uvm_config_db#(...)::set(...) from a top-module, is there any difference between using set-context=null and inst_name "*" and using set-context=uvm_root::get(), and inst_name "*"?

 

top-module examples:

uvm_config_db#(virtual dut_if)::set(null, "*", "vif", dif);

uvm_config_db#(virtual dut_if)::set(uvm_root::get(),, "*", "vif", dif);

 

Of course, per the UVM Class Reference, setting a context to null means that the inst_name provides the complete scope and "*" means any scope. Setting the context to uvm_top (returned by uvm_root::get()) and indicating "*" any scope in uvm_top seems to do the same thing.

 

It seems that both are making the dut_if handle globally accessible.

 

Comments?

 

Regards - Cliff Cummings

[uwes]

hi,

 

both should be equivalent ::set(null,....) and ::set(uvm_root::get(),....)

 

/uwe