Home

TLM and VMM – What is it all for?

TLM and VMM – What is it all for?
Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 15:26 by John Aynsley from the site Verification Martial Arts
  John Aynsley, CTO, Doulos Having discussed some of the technical details of the implementation of the TLM-2 standard in VMM 1.2 in previous posts, it is time to stand back and ask what it is all for, especially considering that VMM must now co-exist alongside UVM in some projects. Fortunately, using the OSCI TLM standard as a basis for communication takes us a long way down the road toward interoperability, both between VMM and UVM and between VMM and SystemC. We have seen that VMM 1.2 now supports the concept of ports and exports borrowed from SystemC and the closely related concept of sockets from the TLM-2 standard. Armed with these new concepts, VMM now offers two alternative communication mechanisms: communication between a producer and a consumer through an intermediate channel (the vmm_channel), and communication using direct function calls from producer to consumer (and vice versa) through ports and sockets. So what? Well, the benefits of direct communication were reviewed in an earlier post, but in summary, the simplicity of direct communication can speed up simulation by removing the number of context switches between processes and can provide an easy-to-follow completion model for knowing when a transaction is over. VMM users now have the choice between channel-based communication and direct communication. Channel-based communication works just fine, and may be preferred in native VMM environments. Direct communication is closer to the communication model used in UVM and in SystemC TLM-2.0, so may be preferred when working in a mixed environment, such as when integrating VMM and UVM components or when driving SystemC models from a VMM test bench. We have also seen that VMM 1.2 supports the generic payload and extension mechanism from the SystemC TLM-2.0 standard. Frankly, this addition is unlikely to be of much interest in native VMM environments, but could be critical when it comes to including SystemC reference models in a VMM test bench. Say you have an existing SystemC reference model written to the TLM-2.0 standard, and you want to drive it from a VMM test bench. The new features in VMM 1.2 would allow you to construct a transaction within the VMM environment that has precisely the attributes expected by the TLM-2.0 standard generic payload, and then to pass that transaction over the fence from SystemVerilog to SystemC. It is possible to code the SystemVerilog-to-SystemC interface yourself using the DPI (for details see http://www.doulos.com/knowhow/sysverilog/DVCon10_dpi_paper) or to use the TLI (Transaction Level Interface) provided by Synopsys. I will say more about the TLI in a later post. I have heard some VMM users say that they like the idea of being able to use the industry standard blocking transaction-level interface in VMM. Indeed, given the relatively small size of the overall hardware verification community and the cost of maintaining multiple standards, the sharing of ideas between standards in this way has to be a good thing. The early adopter release of UVM, the Universal Verification Methodology from Accellera, uses communication based on the SystemC TLM-1 standard. Even as I write this post, Accellera are considering the best way to incorporate the TLM-2-style interfaces as used in VMM into UVM, which should help make transaction-level communication between the two methodologies a little easier.  
John Aynsley
  John Aynsley, CTO, Doulos Having discussed some of the technical details of the implementation of the TLM-2 standard in VMM 1.2 in previous posts, it is time to stand back and ask what it is all for, especially considering that VMM must now co-exist alongside UVM in some projects. Fortunately, using the OSCI TLM standard as a basis for communication takes us a long way down the road toward interoperability, both between VMM and UVM and between VMM and SystemC. We have seen that VMM 1.2 now supports the concept of ports and exports borrowed from SystemC and the closely related concept of sockets from the TLM-2 standard. Armed with these new concepts, VMM now offers two alternative communication mechanisms: communication between a producer and a consumer through an intermediate channel (the vmm_channel), and communication using direct function calls from producer to consumer (and vice versa) through ports and sockets. So what? Well, the benefits of direct communication were reviewed in an earlier post, but in summary, the simplicity of direct communication can speed up simulation by removing the number of context switches between processes and can provide an easy-to-follow completion model for knowing when a transaction is over. VMM users now have the choice between channel-based communication and direct communication. Channel-based communication works just fine, and may be preferred in native VMM environments. Direct communication is closer to the communication model used in UVM and in SystemC TLM-2.0, so may be preferred when working in a mixed environment, such as when integrating VMM and UVM components or when driving SystemC models from a VMM test bench. We have also seen that VMM 1.2 supports the generic payload and extension mechanism from the SystemC TLM-2.0 standard. Frankly, this addition is unlikely to be of much interest in native VMM environments, but could be critical when it comes to including SystemC reference models in a VMM test bench. Say you have an existing SystemC reference model written to the TLM-2.0 standard, and you want to drive it from a VMM test bench. The new features in VMM 1.2 would allow you to construct a transaction within the VMM environment that has precisely the attributes expected by the TLM-2.0 standard generic payload, and then to pass that transaction over the fence from SystemVerilog to SystemC. It is possible to code the SystemVerilog-to-SystemC interface yourself using the DPI (for details see http://www.doulos.com/knowhow/sysverilog/DVCon10_dpi_paper) or to use the TLI (Transaction Level Interface) provided by Synopsys. I will say more about the TLI in a later post. I have heard some VMM users say that they like the idea of being able to use the industry standard blocking transaction-level interface in VMM. Indeed, given the relatively small size of the overall hardware verification community and the cost of maintaining multiple standards, the sharing of ideas between standards in this way has to be a good thing. The early adopter release of UVM, the Universal Verification Methodology from Accellera, uses communication based on the SystemC TLM-1 standard. Even as I write this post, Accellera are considering the best way to incorporate the TLM-2-style interfaces as used in VMM into UVM, which should help make transaction-level communication between the two methodologies a little easier.  
Posted in
Syndicate content