Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FEATURE] AHB interface support #119

Open
Blebowski opened this issue Oct 1, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

[FEATURE] AHB interface support #119

Blebowski opened this issue Oct 1, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
feature request New feature or request

Comments

@Blebowski
Copy link

Describe the problem/limitation you think should be addressed

It would be nice if there was an option to generate register map with AHB interface.

@arnonsha
Copy link

arnonsha commented Oct 1, 2024

A built in AHB interface is indeed something that I miss. There are still processors without AXI interface where data transfer speed is important.

@amykyta3
Copy link
Member

Will do!
Not a huge fan of AHB, but I do recognize it is still somewhat prevalent

@amykyta3 amykyta3 added the feature request New feature or request label Oct 10, 2024
@arnonsha
Copy link

thank you very much @amykyta3 for your support !

@Blebowski
Copy link
Author

Hi,

@amykyta3

do you have any plan / roadmap on when could this be available ?

We at Tropic Square are currently evaluating PeakRDL toolchain
as we would like to replace ORDT with it. But we see that the development more-less stalled in the last
half year. We are coming to a point where would would need some extra features, e.g.:
Feature: Generate covergroup for accesses to registers
Latex output

we would likely be able to provide some engineering effort to look into these,
but we would like to discuss on how to cooperate on the development.
If you are open to this discussion, we would appreciate it, we are waiting for your response.

We have brought-up the Questa test environment on our side (for regblock and UVM).
We would need an info on when could a merge requests be reviewed and how often do you do releases?
If we want to use the project out of official packages, we need to get new things into it quite quickly (e.g. bi-weekly
basis).

Since the current development seems to be stalled, this does not seem to be the case.
We are considering to create a fork of all the sub-tools, package locally in our network via poetry,
and do our own release scheme. In my experience then it always ends in fork changes diverging
from mainline and never getting back...

@amykyta3
Copy link
Member

Indeed the project has been a bit quiet lately but it is certainly not abandoned. PeakRDL and related tools are all something I develop in my free time outside of work. I have taken a little bit of a sabbatical from working on it due to some other volunteer work I have been involved with this past year that has been taking a priority, but should be wrapping up in the next couple weeks. Don't worry - I fully intend to resume work on PeakRDL once my spare time frees up again, including reviewing some of the contributions from the community.

If you are able to implement the AHB layer on your end, please know that you can always contribute this feature as a pull request so that others can benefit. Open-source can be a thankless endeavor, but contributing is the best way to give back to the community and grow the tools.

@Blebowski
Copy link
Author

Blebowski commented Nov 15, 2024

Hi @amykyta3 ,

thanks for your reply. Its good to know that the you aim to continue with the project.
I hope you had a good rest (the penguin is super cute) doing something usefull.

Would you be willing to discuss possible collaboration on PeakRDL on a call ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New feature or request
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants