Jump to content

ipxact ports enclosed in a ifdef macro


Recommended Posts

Hello

Is it possible in ipxact to describe ports which are enclosed in ifdef macro. For example

module m(
    input [31:0] addr,
    output [31:0] data,
`ifdef ABC
	in abc_in,
	out abc_out,
`endif
);
endmodule

If yes, how to describe such ports in ipxact. If not, then what is the recommended way to model such RTL IP

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kushi,

The idea of 1685-2014 is to support this with the isPresent element. This functionality has been removed in 1685-2022 but it can be supported with the Accellera Vendor Extensions for 1685-2022. Please see https://accellera.org/images/downloads/standards/ip-xact/1685-2022-VE-1.0-Specification.zip

My own opinion is that this RTL code describes 2 different IPs (one with ABC defined and one with ABC undefined) and that you should create two different IP-XACT components to describe those two different RTL IPs. This is an example of a configurable IP that can be used to create two configured IPs. The configured IPs are supported by the IP-XACT component schema. The configurable IP must be handled with a generator (e.g. using TGI). The generator takes the value of ABC as input and generates the IP-XACT component for the configured IP.

Best regards,
Erwin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Thank you Erwin.

Yes, a configurable IPXact make more sense for this. But as isPresent is going away, can we use multiple component views to handle this so that we are more aligned with native standard.

Can you think of adding "ifdef" capability in next revision of the standards. It can be just an optional element in port definition which specify the macro name  and if present it means the generator needs to wrap that port in a ifdef

Thanks you

Khushi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Kushi,

I suggest you use the Accellera Vendor Extensions for 1685-2022 (accellera-cond:isPresent). It is not likely that we will re-introduce conditionality in the IEEE standard again.

Best regards,
Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...