I am to integrate a checker implemented in SystemVerilog, to a mostly e verification environment. How can this SV checker connect to my vr_ad? Or should I implement the registers model also in SV?
You don't need to implement vr_ad in SV. You can stil implement it in e code and connect it to SV through vr_ad sequences. This feature is new to version 14.1.
No need to rewrite register model. Starting version 14.1 one can access vr_ad objects and fields directly from SV.
Starting from 14.1 version, you can connect vr_ad to sv code as well.
Related
I'm just kinda curious if there is a way to use the mocker driver alongside or instead of the docker one? How does fn even decide which one to use if there is more than one? The reason would be that if it's possible I might try to implement another real driver for another container engine.
So far I managed mocker to show up as a driver but still haven't found out how to get fn to use that instead of docker.
There is an example for building an fn with extensions located here: https://github.com/fnproject/fn/blob/master/examples/extensions/main.go#L16 -- for building with a custom driver, at the moment it requires using that same process (i.e. there's no way to configure another driver at runtime from fn core's binary without extending it).
In order to build with an alternative driver such as mocker, a user would use the agent.WithDockerDriver option to specify a driver when creating the agent, documented here https://godoc.org/github.com/fnproject/fn/api/agent#AgentOption and sample follows:
func main() {
mocker := mock.New()
// configure logstore, mq
da := agent.NewDirectCallDataAccess(logstore, mq)
magent := agent.New(da, agent.WithDockerDriver(mocker))
fns := server.New(server.WithAgent(magent), /*other options*/)
fns.Start(context.Background())
}
we need to tidy up the agent interface to make them easier to create (data access stuff is convoluted), but is not too bad. most of this can be stolen from this file https://github.com/fnproject/fn/blob/master/api/server/server.go -- we need to name it to WithDriver as well :)
assuming you're looking at using something like rkt or a more robust driver on the backend, it's possible to hook this up by implementing the driver interface and in the past we have tried it but we are not maintaining it at present since it was not a viable option (performance issues, perhaps improved since). would be cool to see if you manage to get rkt working, gladly take a PR for it and figure out where to put it :)
We are in process to migrate our TB to UVM.
I am working on first IP that will be verified using UVM.
I have to find out if it is possible to reuse my uvm_sequences in SOC that remains in OVM mean time.
In case it is possible , like find example how it's done.
Thanks in advance.
You cannot mix OVM and UVM that way. You should be able to write your uvm_sequence in such a way that it work in both by simply changing your u's to o's. You would have to limit your sequence to functionality that exists in both.
If you use UVM RAL. there is a package that integrates that functionality back into OVM.
There is another package, ovm_container, that gives you the functionality of uvm_config_db.
I have a question related to V4L-DVB drivers. Following the
Building/Compiling the Latest V4L-DVB Source Code link, there are 3 ways to
compile. I am curious about the last approach (More "Manually
Intensive" Approach). It allows me to choose the components that I
wish to build and install using the "make menuconfig". Some of these components (i.e. "CONFIG_MEDIA_ATTACH") are used in pre-processor directives that define a function in one shape if defined, and a function in another if not defined (i.e.
dvb_attach, dvb_detach) in the resulting modules (i.e. dvb_core.ko)
that will be loaded by most of the DVB drivers. What happens if there are two
drivers (*.ko modules) on the same host machine, one that needs dvb_core.ko with
CONFIG_MEDIA_ATTACH defined and another that needs dvb_core.ko with
CONFIG_MEDIA_ATTACH undefined, is there a clean way to handle this?
What is also not clear to me is: Since the V4L compilation environment seems very customizable (by setting the .config file), if I develop a driver using V4L-DVB structures, there is a big chance that it has conflicts with other drivers since each driver has its own custom settings. Is my understanding correct?
Thanks!
Dave
Due to http://hart.sourceforge.net/, code generation should work for rt_preempt kernels, when using scilab 5.3.2 and hart toolsbox.
I installed both on ubuntu 12.04 LTS sucessfully, but I'm kind of lost with the code generation. I use one of the hart toolbox examples (realtime_demo), and try to compile and generate code.
First off all: Are these samples supposed to work with rt_preempt or only with RTAI? what code generation commands do I have to use for rt_preempt kernels?
If anybody managed code generation for rt_preempt kernels, I would aapreciate every hint I can get!
Code generation for rt_preempt is automatically enabled, if the hart-toolbox did not detect RTAI during installation. Thus, if you don't have RTAI, by compiling your schematic you should get code that runs using rt_preemption (if this is also not available, then your code will run as a normal Linux process). However at the moment there is no way to get data in or out of the real-time process, as the RTAI scopes, meters can not be used. To overcome this communication issue and also other limitations of Xcos concerning the implementation of real-time systems, you could also have a look at OpenRTDynamics as an alternative.
I am using Simulink to simualte turning on/off leds on a hardware board. I am using the TCP/IP block provided by instrument control toolbox to communicate data between the Simulink block and the board. So my Simulink model is the client. I want to generate C code of the model but the generated code doesn't include the TCP/IP block. Do you guys have any ideas why I got this problem? Do you know how can I implement my own TCP/IP block that might be generated to c code? Thanks for helping
I assume the rtw file is created in your case and you are using Simulink Coder or Real Time Workshop.
To create C-Code from specific block (as your TCP/IP-Block) you need a block specific tlc-File.
TLC = Target Language Compiler
Taken from TLC documentation: http://www.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/rtw/rtw_tlc.pdf
Real-Time Workshop invokes the TLC after a Simulink model is compiled
into an intermediate form (model.rtw) that is suitable for generating
code. To generate code apropriately, the TLC uses its library of
functions to transform
two classes of target files:
•System target files
•Block target files
I guess the block target file of the Tcp/Ip - Block is missing.
If you don't have it or get you have to implement the tcp/ip functionality in TLC.
(Please bear with me, I do not have privileges to add comments, yet)