suppose in my test bench, i had following signals
top.module0.expect
top.module1.expect
yes, we instantiates module0/1 with same module
now, in a function get_expect_sig(int module_idx) (module_idx could be 0 or 1), i want to get the signal according to module_idx
what i'm currently do is as follow:
if (module_idx == 0) return top.module0.expect;
else if (module_idx == 1) return top.module1.expect;
this solution is pretty ugly.
if there any brilliant method that help me with this? because i got 32 modules, not 2 modules
thanks!
A case statement would be slightly less ugly. Since your design choose to instantiate the modules with unique names instead of an array of instances, there is no way to iterate over them.
Some tools allow you to look up a signal's value using a string name. Then you could format the string using the index value. You'll need to read your tools manual.
If this is testbench code (non-synthesizable), if module 0 and module 1 are instances of the same module, you could bind an interface to it. A bind statement will cause this interface to be instantiated in all instances of the module. You could then put some helper code in this interface to 'register' with a configuration class. In UVM, this could be the config db, but in SystemVerilog you could use a static or singleton class.
Example: https://www.edaplayground.com/x/5ZUG
This uses a few concepts (abstract-concrete polymorphic interfaces) that you may need to read about. But hopefully the example is clear enough.
Related
I am trying to add custom instruction to RISC-V by using ROCC, and my base is the rocket-chip.
Some of the accelerators requires additional IO to be added to the RoCCIO class.
I am trying to understand the conditional instantiation of additional IO's, like in the case of the Floating point unit & page table walker (PTW) ,I am new to Chisel & Scala so it very cryptic to me.
Can someone explain how this code implement conditional instantiation:
class RoCCIO(outer: LazyRoCC)(implicit p: Parameters) extends RoCCCoreIO()(p) {
val ptw = Vec(p(RoccNPTWPorts), new TLBPTWIO)
val fpu_req = Decoupled(new FPInput)
val fpu_resp = Decoupled(new FPResult).flip
}
Your example of RoCC is using dead code elimination (however, you must be careful to tie off the signals you aren't using just to be sure).
You can instead use Option to perform conditional instantiation in your IO bundle declaration:
val a = if (cond) Some(UInt(width=5.W)) else None
This question is probably better suited for the rocket-chip repository so those developers will see it: https://github.com/freechipsproject/rocket-chip/issues
That being said, there are a couple of ways things can be conditionally instantiated in Chisel code.
Inheritance: when a Bundle extends another Bundle it can add additional fields, thus the inclusion of those fields is conditional upon which Bundle is actually being instantiated
Dead Code Elimination: Chisel/FIRRTL has robust Dead Code Elimination so if some ports are unused they will simply be removed. Thus the fields can be conditionally removed in configurations that do not use them. I believe this is the case here (but am unsure).
I am mocking an interface array which throws java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot subclass final class class.
Following are the changes I did.
Added the following annotations at class level in this exact order:
#Runwith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ Array1[].class, Array2[].class })
Inside the class I am doing like this:
Array1[] test1= PowerMockito.mock(Array1[].class);
Array2[] test2= PowerMockito.mock(Array2[].class);
and inside test method:
Mockito.when(staticclass.somemethod()).thenReturn(test1);
Mockito.when(staticclass.somediffmethod()).thenReturn(test2);
Basically I need to mock an array of interfaces.
Any help would be appreciated.
Opening up another perspective on your problem: I think you are getting unit tests wrong.
You only use mocking frameworks in order to control the behavior of individual objects that you provide to your code under test. But there is no sense in mocking an array of something.
When your "class under test" needs to deal with some array, list, map, whatever, then you provide an array, a list, or a map to it - you just make sure that the elements within that array/collection ... are as you need them. Maybe the array is empty for one test, maybe it contains a null for another test, and maybe it contains a mocked object for a third test.
Meaning - you don't do:
SomeInterface[] test1 = PowerMock.mock() ...
Instead you do:
SomeInterface[] test1 = new SomeInterface[] { PowerMock.mock(SomeInterface.class) };
And allow for some notes:
At least in your code, it looks like you called your interface "Array1" and "Array2". That is highly misleading. Give interfaces names that say what their behavior is about. The fact that you later create arrays containing objects of that interface ... doesn't matter at all!
Unless you have good reasons - consider not using PowerMock. PowerMock relies on byte-code manipulation; and can simply cause a lot of problems. In most situations, people wrote untestable code; and then they turn to PowerMock to somehow test that. But the correct answer is to rework that broken design, and to use a mocking framework that comes without "power" in its name. You can watch those videos giving you lengthy explanations how to write testable code!
Sorry if I had this stupid question...I've been trying to google for answer but couldn't find one. :(
I have a problem assigning a variable to a virtual interface. For example:
Param.sv
...
string MyInput[3];
MyInput[0] = Signal_CLK; //Storing SignalName to in an Array.
MyInput[1] = Signal_Tx;
MyInput[2] = Signal_Rx;
...
MyInterface.sv
...
Signal_CLK = dut.MicroController.Source.clk; //Signal destination
Signal_Tx = dut.MicroController.Tx_01;
Signal_Rx = dut.MicroController.Rx_01;
...
Test.sv
virtual MyInterface my_vif
logic [7:0] read_value;
....
for (i = 0; i <3; i++ )
begin
read_value = my_vif.My_Input[i];
..
//some logic to compare read_value with spec//
..
end
The problem is when compiling, it doesn't translate my_vif.My_Input[0] into my_vif.***dut.MicroController.Source.clk***. Instead, it thinks that the path is my_vif.***My_Input[i]***.
The reason the compiler thinks you are trying to access my_vif.My_Input[i] is because you are. The My_Input[] array is a completely separate string array; not part of the virtual interface. When using the "thing.thing.thing" syntax, the compiler will loyally follow it, so it will expect there to be something called My_Input that has some elements (as its an array) as a member of the interface given by my_vif.
However, looking over youre code, you are trying to have My_Input[i] replaced at compile time, which is very different. The compiler will not run your loop, look in My_Input[i] and find the string "Signal_CLK" and replace that as part of the path to get the path my_vif.Signal_CLK. Nor can it do that at run time.
I dont know of a generic solution to looking over any variables in an interface; though Im also not sure if thats really what you want. IF you provide more details on the rest of your checker, we might be able to help you more.
You cannot use strings to look up identifiers by name within SystemVerilog. There are tool specific and C interfaces that may let you do this, but that would be very inefficient. The best way to do this by using a combination of abstract/concrete classes and the bind construct. See these references: http://events.dvcon.org/2012/proceedings/papers/01P_3.pdf and http://www.doulos.com/knowhow/sysverilog/DVCon08/DVCon08_SysVlog.php
I have a library of domain objects which need to be used in the project, however we've found a couple of the classes haven't got an equals or hashCode method implemented.
I'm looking for the simplest (and Grooviest) way to add those methods. Obviously I could create a subclass which only adds the methods, but this would be confusing for developers used to the library and would mean we'd have to refactor existing code.
It is not possible to get the source changed (currently).
If I could edit the class I would just use the #EqualsAndHashCode annotation to carry out an AST transformation (at compile time?), but I can't find a way to instruct the compiler to carry out the transformation on a class which I can't directly annotate.
I'm currently trying to work up an example using the ExpandoMetaClass, so I'd do something like:
MySuperClass.metaClass.hashCode = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
MySuperClass.metaClass.equals = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
I don't really want to hand-code the hashCode/equals methods for each class, so I'm looking for something dyamic (like #EqualsAndHashCode) which will work with this.
Am I on the right track? Is there a groovier way?
AST Transforms are only applied at compile time, so you'll get no help from the likes of #EqualsAndHashCode. MetaClass hacks are going to be your only option. That said, there are more-elegant ways to impose MetaClass behavior.
Shameless Self Plug I did a talk about this kind of stuff last year at SpringOne 2GX: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/groovy-app-architecture
In short, you might find benefit in creating extensions (unless you're in Grails) - http://mrhaki.blogspot.com/2013/01/groovy-goodness-adding-extra-methods.html, or by explicitly adding mixins - http://groovy.codehaus.org/Runtime+mixins ... But in general, these are just cleaner ways to do the exact same thing you're already doing.
I have a question that keeps bothering me. Currently, I have started using Kohana 3.2 Framework. I've written a helper to handle some functionality - I have a number of methods, which are (as it should be) declared STATIC. But, all of these methods are somehow working with the database, so I need to load a model. Currently, every method has a non-static variable like this:
$comment = new Model_Comments;
$comment->addComment("abc");
OK, it seems to be working, but then I wanted to get rid of this redundancy by using class attribute to hold the instance of the model (with is class as well).
Something like this:
private static $comment; // Declaring attribute
self::$comment = new Model_Comment; // This is done within helper __constuct method
self::$comment->addComment("abc"); // And call it within the method.
But, I got failed with: Call to a member function addComment() on a non-object
Question is: is it possible to do it ? Maybe there are some other approaches ?
Sorry for a long story and, thanks in advice! :P
A static method cannot call a non-static method without operating on an instance of the class. So, what you're proposing won't work. There may be a way do accomplish something similar, but what about trying the following:
You could implement the singleton or factory pattern for your "helper" class. Then, you could create the model (as an attribute) as you instantiate/return the instance. With an actual instance of your "helper" class, you won't have to worry about the static scope issues.
In other words, you can create a helper-like class as a "normal" class in your application that, upon creation, always has the necessary model available.
I'd be happy to help further if this approach makes sense.
David