search

openhwgroup / core-v-xif

RISC-V eXtension interface that provides a generalized framework suitable to implement custom coprocessors and ISA extensions
https://docs.openhwgroup.org/projects/openhw-group-core-v-xif/en
Other
53 stars 23 forks source link

adding SV reference design for interface #108

Closed davideschiavone closed 5 months ago

davideschiavone commented 7 months ago
  1. AFAIK, parameters in packages cannot change --> move to interface?
  2. Interfaces of interfaces? A main core_v_xif interface which has inside all the sub-interfaces?
Gchauvon commented 7 months ago

Should we also add structures on top of the ones you defined to hold the handshake signals (valid/ready) ?

Gchauvon commented 7 months ago

A way to manage parameters in packages :

https://github.com/openhwgroup/cva6/blob/master/core/include/config_pkg.sv https://github.com/openhwgroup/cva6/blob/master/core/include/cv32a6_embedded_config_pkg.sv

christian-herber-nxp commented 7 months ago

update verilog parts in specification

christian-herber-nxp commented 5 months ago

@davideschiavone : when will there be the next heatbeat on this PR?

davideschiavone commented 5 months ago

@davideschiavone : when will there be the next heatbeat on this PR?

hi @christian-herber-nxp - I had more into the stack with upcoming deadlines and trips to deal with but should be on it again before or immediatly after the Tristan Rearsal

davideschiavone commented 5 months ago

@michael-platzer, @moimfeld I added your names in the contributions as I got inspired/copied by your SV files - is that ok?

moimfeld commented 5 months ago

@michael-platzer, @moimfeld I added your names in the contributions as I got inspired/copied by your SV files - is that ok?

Yes, that's great 😃 Thanks @davideschiavone!

christian-herber-nxp commented 5 months ago

I just had a look at the license and header situation now. This is looking complicated. There are now different licenses, but it is not clear what part of the file falls under which license. Maybe its something to discuss tomorrow, but i would hope to get everything under a single license. Otherwise it is not practical

davideschiavone commented 5 months ago

I just had a look at the license and header situation now. This is looking complicated. There are now different licenses, but it is not clear what part of the file falls under which license. Maybe its something to discuss tomorrow, but i would hope to get everything under a single license. Otherwise it is not practical

Can you please point me to the files? It seems they are all 0.51 Solderpad

christian-herber-nxp commented 5 months ago

I just had a look at the license and header situation now. This is looking complicated. There are now different licenses, but it is not clear what part of the file falls under which license. Maybe its something to discuss tomorrow, but i would hope to get everything under a single license. Otherwise it is not practical

Can you please point me to the files? It seems they are all 0.51 Solderpad

the .sv file had three separate headers in the file, some with 2.1 and some with 0.51

davideschiavone commented 5 months ago

I just had a look at the license and header situation now. This is looking complicated. There are now different licenses, but it is not clear what part of the file falls under which license. Maybe its something to discuss tomorrow, but i would hope to get everything under a single license. Otherwise it is not practical

Can you please point me to the files? It seems they are all 0.51 Solderpad

the .sv file had three separate headers in the file, some with 2.1 and some with 0.51

true - @DBees , how do we address this issue?

davideschiavone commented 5 months ago

@mp-17 can you check if ETH Z is ok to move to SHL 2?

mp-17 commented 5 months ago
  • [ ] Move LICENSE.md into the src folder
  • [ ] Change everything to SHL 2-0

@mp-17 can you check if ETH Z is ok to move to SHL 2?

Hey @davideschiavone, I asked internally; green light from us to move to Solderpad 2.0!

DBees commented 5 months ago

@davideschiavone I believe this spec is being published by OpenHW on behalf of its members. Members have granted OpenHW a sublicensable copyright license to do so. I don't think the spec needs to list each member's license on their own particular part of the spec. Pardon me if I didn't follow the gist of the question above

davideschiavone commented 5 months ago

hi @moimfeld , can we change the license to 2.0?

christian-herber-nxp commented 5 months ago

I think we would want to change to 2.1?

moimfeld commented 5 months ago

Hi @davideschiavone and @christian-herber-nxp Both the change to Solderpad 2.0 and Solderpad 2.1 are fine for me.