Open jjscheel opened 6 months ago
@allenjbaum, I'd love your feedback on this SOW.
Per discussion in the 5/14 DevPartner meeting, I've updated the SOW description in the first entry to require the ACTs to be self-checking so that they may be used by Sail as BVTs.
@billmcspadden-riscv and @allenjbaum, please review and let me know if anything else should be adjusted.
Finally getting a moment to breathe and review this.
Sail configurability.
RE: tests should be self checking, because ACTs compare the Sail results with DUT results, and if Sail can't be configured, but the DUT can be, you'll get a mismatch. If Sail can' t be configured, they're not useful for BVTs. You can make them self checking, and they might work for some DUTs, but not for others. The may not even work for Sail vs. Spike.....
The coverage models can be riscv-ctg YAML or the compressed coverpoint schema translated into YAML
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 9:57 AM Jeff Scheel @.***> wrote:
@allenjbaum https://github.com/allenjbaum, I'd love your feedback on this SOW.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/riscv-admin/dev-partners/issues/43#issuecomment-2103047551, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPXVJU5TL7ZX5MEED5FYM3ZBOTF3AVCNFSM6AAAAABHM7GPSGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBTGA2DONJVGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Thanks, @allenjbaum. My responses:
4 also need footnote1: need hypervisor support
Added.
6 footnote 3 is misleading, in my opinion. The issue is entirely
Sail configurability.
I extended statement to read "3. May have some challenges with the writability of those fields configurable in the mode in Sail (only).".
RE: tests should be self checking, because ACTs compare the Sail results with DUT results, and if Sail can't be configured, but the DUT can be, you'll get a mismatch. If Sail can' t be configured, they're not useful for BVTs. You can make them self checking, and they might work for some DUTs, but not for others. The may not even work for Sail vs. Spike.....
I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing the tests for Priv 1.13 CANNOT be self-checking? If so, I'll need you and @billmcspadden-riscv to discuss this more.
The coverage models can be riscv-ctg YAML or the compressed coverpoint schema translated into YAML
Will update.
IT is difficult to make any test self checking if it has multiple possible answers, Basically, you need to have a separate test for each possibility, and either
IF Sail doesn't have the configurability for some possibility, there is no point in running the test as part of Sail C/I -tt will always fail the test for that possibility (and we should be testing all possibilities)
Another interesting development is using the Verilog coverpoint definition. Umer is looking to this. It's a major change, but it will be worth it if we can get it to work.
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 8:23 AM Jeff Scheel @.***> wrote:
Thanks, @allenjbaum https://github.com/allenjbaum. My responses:
4 https://github.com/riscv-admin/dev-partners/issues/4 also need
footnote1: need hypervisor support
Added.
6 https://github.com/riscv-admin/dev-partners/issues/6 footnote 3 is
misleading, in my opinion. The issue is entirely Sail configurability.
I extended statement to read "3. May have some challenges with the writability of those fields configurable in the mode in Sail (only).".
RE: tests should be self checking, because ACTs compare the Sail results with DUT results, and if Sail can't be configured, but the DUT can be, you'll get a mismatch. If Sail can' t be configured, they're not useful for BVTs. You can make them self checking, and they might work for some DUTs, but not for others. The may not even work for Sail vs. Spike.....
I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing the tests for Priv 1.13 CANNOT be self-checking? If so, I'll need you and @billmcspadden-riscv https://github.com/billmcspadden-riscv to discuss this more.
The coverage models can be riscv-ctg YAML or the compressed coverpoint schema translated into YAML
Will update.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/riscv-admin/dev-partners/issues/43#issuecomment-2117837623, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPXVJRKFQSVA6DGQJFVO3DZCYOFLAVCNFSM6AAAAABHM7GPSGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJXHAZTONRSGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
No resources at this time.
Technical Group
Privileged Spec IC
ratification-pkg
Priv 1.13
Technical Liaison
Greg Favor
Task Category
Arch Tests
Task Sub Category
Ratification Target
3Q2024
Statement of Work (SOW)
Component names: Priv 1.13
Requirements: Provide tests for the following Priv 1.13 updates:
The following footnotes clarify level of support:
Note: the following features of Priv 1.13 require ACT infrastructure that prevent their implementation at this time:
Deliverables:
Note: because of the nature of the Priv 1.13 tests, they should be written as self-checking so that they can be used both in ACTs and in the Sail model BVTs (build verification tests).
Acceptance Criteria:
Projected timeframe: (best guess date) 2 person months (part time)
SOW Signoffs: (delete those not needed)
Waiver
Pull Request Details
No response