[rom_ctrl, dv] Exclusion of non-occuring cases for tlul_adapter_sram #25585
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
It looks like we diagnosed this wrongly, which is causing CI failures from e.g. the |
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
tlul_adapter_sram
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4d7a1de to
720b25c
Compare
KinzaQamar
changed the title
rswarbrick
reviewed
Dec 12, 2024
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
tlul_adapter_sram
branch
3 times, most recently
from
6bbaaf8 to
4d96421
Compare
rswarbrick
reviewed
Dec 17, 2024
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
tlul_adapter_sram
branch
from
4d96421 to
fa225ab
Compare
It is impossible to see !tl_i_int.a_valid & !error_internal. When a_valid is false, it is seen in u_err inside tlul_adapter_sram.sv. This will make a_config_allowed inside u_err false as it depends on addr_sz_chk, mask_chk and fulldata_chk. All of them are false if a_valid is false. This means that in u_err, the first term of err_o becomes true. Next, err_o become visible to error_det as tlul_error inside tlul_adapter_sram and it will be true if tlul_error is true. error_det will then be seen as error_i to u_sram_byte inside tlul_adapter_sram. Since EnableIntg parameter is 0 for rom_ctrl, error_i comes out as error_o from u_sram_byte. Then error_o would be seen as error_internal to tlul_adapter_sram and the conditional statement is not able to cover 01 case for this reason. It is impossible to get sram_ack & we_o. we_o becomes true when there is an a_valid and a_opcode as Put. But when a_opcode is a Put, wr_vld_error in the adapter becomes true as ErrOnWrite is true for the adapter in case of rom_ctrl. wr_vld_error lets error_det become true. Since rom_ctrl doesn't enable integrity errors, error_det comes out as error_internal directly from u_sram_byte. But this makes req_o false and hence sram_ack false. Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <[email protected]>
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
tlul_adapter_sram
branch
from
fa225ab to
145b3e1
Compare
rswarbrick
approved these changes
Dec 18, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
t is impossible to see !tl_i_int.a_valid & !error_internal. When a_valid is false, it is seen
in u_err inside tlul_adapter_sram.sv. This will make a_config_allowed inside u_err false as it
depends on addr_sz_chk, mask_chk and fulldata_chk. All of them are false if a_valid is false.
This means that the first term inside err_o definition in u_err is false which raised err_o.
Next, err_o become visible to error_det as tlul_error inside tlul_adapter_sram and it will
be true if tlul_error is true. error_det will then be seen as error_i to u_sram_byte inside
tlul_adapter_sram.
Since EnableIntg parameter is 0 for rom_ctrl, error_i comes out as error_o from u_sram_byte.
Then error_o would be seen as error_internal to tlul_adapter_sram and the conditional statement
is not able to cover 00 case for this reason.
It is impossible to get sram_ack & we_o. if sram_ack is true, then we have (req_o & gnt_i) = 1.
For req_o to become true requires error_internal as false. we_o become true when there is an
a_valid and a_opcode as Put. But when a_opcode is a Put, wr_vld_error in the adapter becomes
true as ErrOnWrite is true for the adapter in case of rom_ctrl. Which means that error_internal
is true and req_o is false, which leads to sram_ack being false.