search

efabless / caravel_user_project

https://caravel-user-project.readthedocs.io
Apache License 2.0
176 stars 326 forks source link

cleanup gds directory #131

Open proppy opened 2 years ago

proppy commented 2 years ago

Is it intentional that the gds/ directory already contains the hardened project + wrapper?

This could be confusing for developers who expect that the test and mpmprecheck would fails until they actually go thru the step of hardening their design.

SaraEfabless commented 1 year ago

we purposely want the GDS there, so, ppl dont have to generate it to see the design or to run check LVS, maybe in the future to have a GDS inside the repo.

proppy commented 1 year ago

I'd like us to revisit this, since this is causing extra confusion with the recent gf180mcu support, see https://github.com/efabless/caravel_user_project/issues/176

The project being used as a multi-technology template now, its result dirs should really be empty.

mattvenn commented 1 year ago

Yes I just got hit by this myself. I think especially now we are supporting multiple PDKs, these binaries should be deleted.

mattvenn commented 1 year ago

@SaraEfabless it's kind of difficult to just run LVS on its own. IMO it's better if people build the GDS, then they can check all the results and know that the artifacts are generated by the current tools and pdk.

proppy commented 1 year ago

alternatively, the github action could generate the gds for sky130 and gf180mcu and commit them to a different branch?

That would be assuming that the efabless platform is capable of fetching a different branch than the default one for a given tapeout.

@jeffdi any thoughts?

proppy commented 1 year ago

One possible way to address this could be for the efabless platform to support pulling artefacts from non-default branches allowing users of this repo to keep main for designs and configurations and keep all the generated files in dedicated technology-specific branches.

Curious what others think? @mattvenn @QuantamHD @mithro @RTimothyEdwards @jeffdi

mattvenn commented 1 year ago

I think having a different branch specified would be good. Then it could be possible to have one repo for gf180 and sky130