uvm_reg_hw_reset_seq exclusions appear incorrect

[Taylor]

<UVM_HOME>/sv/src/reg/uvm_reg_field.svh
    // configure

    function void uvm_reg_field::configure(uvm_reg        parent,
                                           int unsigned   size,
                                           int unsigned   lsb_pos,
                                           string         access,
                                           bit            volatile,
                                           uvm_reg_data_t reset,
                                           bit            has_reset,
                                           bit            is_rand,
                                           bit            individually_accessible);
       ...

       if (has_reset)
          set_reset(reset);
       else
          uvm_resource_db#(bit)::set({"REG::", get_full_name()},
                                     "NO_REG_HW_RESET_TEST", 1);

The exclusions entry added into the resource_db uses the FIELD name.

<UVM_HOME>/sv/src/reg/sequences/uvm_reg_hw_reset_seq.svh
    class uvm_reg_hw_reset_seq extends uvm_reg_sequence #(uvm_sequence #(uvm_reg_item));

       ...
          if (uvm_resource_db#(bit)::get_by_name({"REG::",blk.get_full_name()},
                                                 "NO_REG_TESTS", 0) != null ||
              uvm_resource_db#(bit)::get_by_name({"REG::",blk.get_full_name()},
                                                 "NO_REG_HW_RESET_TEST", 0) != null ) begin
                return;

          end

The uvm_reg_hw_reset_seq looks for exclusions in the resource_db by BLOCK or REGISTER name, not on the FIELD name.

This discrepancy in the deposit vs. retrieval causes uvm_reg_hw_reset_seq to do reset testing on registers that should be excluded.  The deposit of the FIELD name is orphaned and unused.

[Justin Refice]

I've opened this as an issue at on mantishub: 0007404: uvm_reg_hw_reset_seq exclusions appear incorrect - Accellera Mantis (mantishub.io)

Thanks!