Open Core Protocol International Partnership Governing ... - OCP-IP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Drew said that the third SWG issue was a proposal to expand the current configuration space toinclude Table 28 on Write Parameters. Drew said that none of the write type commands hadresponses if they were set to 0, and all of them had responses if they were set to 1. Drew saidthe proposal was to fill in the “illegal” corner of the table with the Toshiba proposal. Drew saidthis would enable regular write command and write nonpost commands, so that only the regularwrites would have responses. Drew said that there was the belief that this would offer higherperformance. Drew said he was not sure if this performance gain was possible in real systems.Drew said that other justifications for this inclusion were that it would make OCP easier tounderstand and would make it more consistent with packet style systems like PCI Express. Drewsaid the SWG had separated out writes with responses and writes without responses. Drew saidthat argument against it was that it went against the table and it went against how parameterscurrently worked. Drew said there was significant investment around the current model. Drewsaid the combination of putting this into the protocol and recommending it in profiles meant theywere asking the OCP community to implement it. Drew said that this also violated the principalthat OCP had numerous layered choices. Drew explained that this change could create somenon-obvious choices. Drew said that another argument against this was that the proposal wasnot consistent with other on-chip interfaces. Drew said that current OCP was more like PCI thanPCI Express. Drew stated that this was the first time the SWG had ever had contention around afeature request.Drew asked the group how this issue should be resolved. Drew asked if the issue should bevoted on in the GSC or in the SWG. Ian said that the entire organization was governed by simplemajority voting. Ian said he did not know if they had ever had a vote where people voted againstan issue and he did not think the board should be voting on technical issues. Ian went on to saythat the vote should be inside the SWG, and the board would either agree or disagree. Drew saidthat the SWG was already close to being split on this issue. James said that obviously TexasInstruments was supporting this proposal. Ian said he did not have an opinion on it, but it notbeing consistent with other on-chip interfaces bothered him. James said that the way OCP dealtwith write responses was not consistent with AMBA either. Drew said that the bridging betweenOCP and AMBA would be more difficult. Ian asked if the solution would be backwardscompatible if implemented. Drew said they would have to manage legacy. Ian said that giving upperformance in the high speed profile bothered him as well. Ian suggested that they do adecision analysis. Drew said the issue was centered on what the organization valued most.Yoshimori-san said that this was not a special proposal, and that it was very natural to do this.Drew said that he had conversations where they had shown it was feasible to do suchimplementations. Drew said he had not received a follow up from Nakada-san after their lastdiscussion. Nakada-san said he had requested to discuss the issue with others in Toshiba, buthad not yet done so.James agreed with Drew that write responses were not needed to build something, but he addedthat sometimes one does not have the option to rebuild. Vesa asked James if Texas Instrumentswas already using this. James replied that it was in development. James said that if OCP-IPdecided against this proposal, it would cause some major problems within Texas Instruments.Vesa said that it was Nokia’s view that all of their writes had responses. Vesa said if it was takeninto profile three it would not be an issue for Nokia. Drew said that MIPS had a problem withwrite responses in general. James said this would mean that they did not care one way or theother. Ralph said that he was not sure if it was an issue for Synopsys or not. Yoshimori-san saidthat it would be beneficial to everyone to set up the third profile as soon as possible. Drew saidthat they needed to schedule a time to resolve the current issue with Toshiba. Drew went on tosay that maybe there was a performance problem that he just could not see. Ian asked if thereneeded to be a separate teleconference. Vesa said that the issue just needed to be resolved.AI (Drew): Forward email containing Toshiba’s write model extension proposal to Ralph.(November 10, 2007)OCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 16 of 22
Drew clarified that the GSC had decided against a Specification version 2.3, but instead haddecided to produce a new document revision 2.2A that would include the first two consensusprofiles, which did not change the Specification, and the errata. Drew continued that a documentneeded to be created that described the agreed upon extensions that were on hold forSpecification version 3.0. Drew said this was his plan of record. Drew asked if the GSC wascomfortable with this plan. The group said they were. Ian added that a vote was not required onthis issue as the discussion was captured in the meeting minutes.Motion to AdjournDrew motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ralph seconded the motion. The vote was approved: 5yeas, 0 nays and 0 abstentions. The meeting was adjourned at 12:39 P.M.Ian called the meeting to order at 1:29 P.M PST.AI (Ralph): Provide feedback on Synopsys’ posted write position. (November 16, 2007)AI (Nakada-san): Confirm discussion between Toshiba and Sonics will occur within twoweeks. (November 16, 2007)AI (Drew): Take vote on posted write issue within 2 ½ weeks. (November 22, 2007)AI (Drew/James): Have power management discussion closed within three weeks.(November 29, 2007)Japan Recruiting PlanNakada-san said that Toshiba continued to collaborate with STARC on TLMs. Nakada-sanstated that the STARC TLM Working Group was developing guidelines and there was someadditional development, which was all related to the OSCI TLM definition. Nakada-san said thatafter publishing TLM 2.0, the STARC guideline would be revised to TLM 2.0.Nakada-san explained that the current STARC development model was almost finished and wasabout to be approved by STARC management. Nakada-san said it would be supplied to STARCmember companies in Japanese by the end of the month. Nakada-san went on to say that thegroup was developing an English language version of the guideline that would be published nextmonth. Nakada-san said that, ordinarily, STARC published this kind of document on their Website or in a book. Nakada-san said that the OSCI TLM Working Group was designing a TLM 2.0draft. Nakada-san explained that the STARC group had experienced some delays in the creationof this draft.Nakada-san said that STARC was always open to collaboration with other organizations intechnology development or standards creation. Nakada-san reviewed the five STARC groupsthat were developing SoC design technology: Process Friendly Design Technologies, System-Level Design Technologies, Test & Diagnosis Technologies, Mixed Signal Design Technologiesand Standardization. Nakada-san said that there were significant opportunities for collaborationbetween these groups. Nakada-san asked if there was any GSC interest in any of these groups.Nakada-san said Toshiba would coordinate any discussions with STARC. Drew asked if whenthe processes were completed they would be published in Japanese and English. Yoshimori-sanreplied that they were put into Japanese first, and then it was situation based. Drew said that theStandard Test Interface Language Guide could be close to FVWG activities. Drew said if it wasin English they could see if there were opportunities for collaboration.AI (Nakada-san): Provide OCP-IP with English language STIL (Standard Test InterfaceLanguage) guide. (November 29, 2007)AI (VTM): Pass STIL (Standard Test Interface Language) guide to Steve to evaluateopportunities for collaboration. (November 29, 2007)OCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 17 of 22
Page 1 and 2: Open Core Protocol International Pa
Page 3 and 4: AI (VTM): Allow debug specification
Page 6 and 7: James reviewed the SLD WG’s statu
Page 8 and 9: to be well thought out because it w
Page 10 and 11: Ian said that the FVWG did not have
Page 12 and 13: Ian said that OCP-IP was working wi
Page 14 and 15: to release the NoC definition speci
Page 18 and 19: AI (Nakada-san): Provide GSC with a
Page 20 and 21: Mentor’s activities. Drew said th
Page 22: Recruiting UpdateJoe and Ian review

Open Core Protocol International Partnership Governing ... - OCP-IP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?