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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

James reviewed the SLD WG’s status table. James explained that the color red on line one oftable meant that there was no interconnect model. James said nobody was currently working oncreating an interconnect model either. Drew said he thought that the original idea of Greensocsand the Green Bus was to build something similar to the interconnect model and then map it on toOCP. James said that Greensocs had built it and was doing XML configuration with SPIRIT, butthat it was not their main motivation. James said that the highest level of abstraction was just arouter that was being used to do IP Exact experiments. James went on to say that Greensocs’motivation had always been interfaces like OCP. Drew said the TVWG had included this itembecause they believed that it would serve as a useful reference file for the community. Drewasked if Mark was de-emphasizing it in his planning. James replied that he did not think that itwas ever in his plans. James went on to say that there may be a disconnect between Mark andthe TVWG. James asked if OCP-IP really needed this. James said that it could be a Greensocswork item, which could then be linked to the OCP-IP Web site. Drew said the interconnect modelwould be another deliverable made available to the community. James said this item wassomething to raise at the start of the next year. Drew said he encouraged James to speak withMark about it in the meantime.AI (James): Discuss interconnect model availability with Mark in order to determine itspriority by the next TVWG session. (February 14, 2008)James said that the second line in the table, simulation performance, had been completed, butthe status column had not yet been updated. James said the SLD WG had performed afeasibility study on the third line, the functional versus implementation separation. James saidthey had looked at how the SystemC code was being organized so that there could be morereuse between different layers of abstraction. James went on to say that it was done in thecontext of a study, not to change the code. James said that the fourth item in the table,abstraction layers, had the same status. James said that he had many discussions with Jeda onthe SystemC protocol checker on line five. Drew asked if this was what Jeda had released as aproduct. James said that Jeda released a TL1 protocol checker at the RTL level. James saidthat it could tie to the TL1 channel in SystemC. James went on to say that OCP-IP members hadaccess to one version, which was smaller than the product version. James said that it was a sortof bait. Drew asked if this was a useful deliverable. James said that Texas Instruments had beenworking with Jeda on their product side, and had no experience with what they put into OCP-IP.Drew said that Sonics was working with Jeda on the product side as well. Drew said that it was ared flag if nobody knew anyone who was using the Jeda protocol checker.AI (James): Find out who is using the Jeda protocol checker by raising the issue in theSLD WG. (November 29, 2007)James said that line number six was a functional review, which was related to what the SLD WGhad been working on previously. James said this was a drive of the OCP functional viewthroughout the industry. James went on to say that OCSI was about to release a TLM model thatwas a functional view of what a memory map bus was conceptually. Vesa asked James if he washappy with what was coming out. James said he was. James said that this moved him on to thenext line dealing with collaboration. James said that there were six things that needed beresolved before the public release of the OSCI TLMs. James said that the second draft releaseof TLM 2 had received a negative public review. James said that in his opinion the last versionwas much better than what was released a year ago. James said that it met the TexasInstruments’ world view, and that which Greensocs had also been propagating. James went onto say that one of the reasons OCP was interesting to people was because of its configurability.James added that a large portion of OCP could be modeled at a functional level. Drew askedJames if what came out of OSCI would be a layer above what had been done in OCP-IP, and if arefinement downward to lower levels of abstraction would be as straightforward as possible.James said that this was possible and that it was exactly what he wanted. James went on to sayOCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 6 of 22
that there was a deadline for the OSCI release. James said that the intention was to have atomictransactions in the release, but the schedule had so far not allowed that.James said that the SLD WG was in good shape with OSCI. James said that they had a voice,had an overlap in membership, and were providing valuable input to OSCI. James said thatSPIRIT was the opposite, and that they had no idea what was going on inside that group. Jamessaid that only CoWare was in both groups. James said that SPIRIT did not seem to beprogressing quickly or in the right direction. James said that SPIRIT was looking for ways todocument interfaces and levels of abstraction. Drew said that there would be a discussion onSPIRIT later in the meeting.James said that the last item in the status table was regarding the NoC BWG. James said that atthe moment it looked easy for the SLD WG to align on nomenclature and they could implementthings in SystemC that would make the performance measurement visible. James went on to saythat any deeper interaction was not being strongly pursued at the moment. James said thatpeople in the SLD WG were reviewing documents from the NoC BWG and that people wereinterested, but at the moment the SLD WG did not see clear goals to work towards. Ian addedthat Mark was active in the NoC BWG.James said that the SLD WG wanted to upgrade their entire kit to reflect a style of modeling beingproposed by Greensocs and OSCI, and in order to make it simpler, faster, and easier to maintain.Ian said that the GSC needed to decide what to do about the TLM kits. James passed out copiesof the Greensocs proposal that the GSC had been voting on. James said that Greensocs did afeasibility study, based on the ideas of Green Bus, to improve the quality of the system design kit.James said that the proposal included general improvements and alignments. James added thatat higher levels this was aligned with OSCI. Ian said that the original Statement of Work wasindeed well aligned with OSCI and all GSC members had been asked to pay for a piece. Ianwent on to say that in reviewing the votes, Texas Instruments and Toshiba had voted yes, Vesasaid he had to get back in mid-November with an answer because of internal complications,Synopsys said no because they believed there may be other ways of doing this work, and Drewsaid verbally that he was interested in trading work instead of payment. Ian said that there was afairly comprehensive list of things that needed to be done to the kit, but the question was how toget them done.Drew said that Sonics’ view was that this was important work to be done, but that the proposal leftSonics feeling unsatisfied with respect to quality. Drew went on to say that Sonics thought thiswas addressable though. Drew said that he was worried, because Sonics was heavily invested inthe current channels. Drew said Sonics had worked a lot on both the internals and externals, aswell as maintaining the adapters for the last few years. Drew said the big concern was that thisproposal only served OCP-IP if it was completed to the point of a production design. Drew saidthat in terms of proposed financial arrangements, Sonics’ counter-proposal would be ‘work inkind’ and they would continue to do the adapter maintenance. Drew said that Sonics volunteeringto do the adapters would be approximately 1/5 of the budget. Drew said that Sonics relied moreheavily than others on the adapters. Ian said that because of slips at SPIRIT and OSCI, thedelay on deciding upon an SLD kit strategy had caused OCP-IP problems yet. Ian added that thework needed to get underway as soon as possible. Drew reiterated that there could becontributions in kind and that a clause in the proposal said that Greensocs did not have to do allof the work themselves.James said that Texas Instruments had had a relationship with Greensocs for almost two yearsand they pay them to be in the SLD WG. James went on to say Texas Instruments was happywith Greensocs’ work. James said that one of his motivations for favoring Greensocs was RobertGuenzel. James said that Robert was a person who was very familiar with OCP and whohappened to be looking for a project at the moment, which he could turn into his PhD thesis.James said he believed that Robert’s work would be very high quality. Drew said that fromSonics’ perspective there was no issue in giving Greensocs money. Drew said that this neededOCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 7 of 22
Page 1 and 2: Open Core Protocol International Pa
Page 3 and 4: AI (VTM): Allow debug specification
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 16 and 17: Drew said that the third SWG issue
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?