This was mantis 629 (IEEE Ballot issue 246). There was a heated debate about the compositional view of nested modport versus a hierarchical view. In the end, both forms were rejected. You cannot use nested modports. Your only choice is to bring individual nested signals up into a modport expression. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On > Behalf Of Brad Pierce > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:20 AM > To: sv-bc@server.eda.org > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Port of a modport can be an another modport ? > > Dhiraj, > > Your example is not generated by the BNF. And it is not in the spirit > of the following restriction from 20.4 > > "All of the names used in a modport declaration shall be declared by > the same interface as the modport itself." > > But what if you had used a modport expression (20.4.4)? Would a > modport_identifier (or, in your case, an XMR to a modport_identifier) be > a valid expression? > > -- Brad > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of > Dhiraj Kumar Prasad > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:20 AM > To: sv-bc@eda.org > Cc: beacon-sv@cal.interrasystems.com > Subject: [sv-bc] Port of a modport can be an another modport ? > > Hi, > > According to LRM P1800.2005,section 20.4 > > interface i2; > wire a, b, c, d; > modport master (input a, b, output c, d); modport slave (output a, b, > input c, d); endinterface > > module m (i2.master i); > ... > endmodule > > Above testcase is valid but can you let me know that whether the > following testcase is valid or not? > > interface i1; > interface i2; > wire a, b, c, d; > modport master (input a, b, output c, d); modport slave (output a, b, > input c, d); endinterface > i2 tmp1(.*), tmp2(.*); > modport master1 (tmp1.master,tmp1.slave); modport > slave2(tmp2.master,tmp2.slave); endinterface > > module m(); > endmodule > > Here in above testcase the port of modport is an another modport which > is declared through hierarchical reference through instance. so is it a > valid testcase? > > > Thanks, > Dhiraj > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue May 22 07:44:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 22 2007 - 07:45:24 PDT