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

[sram_ctrl,dv] Add cov exclusion for tlul_lc_gate #25731

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nasahlpa
Copy link
Member

Excluding as we cannot reach the else condition in this module. Detailed description is available in the .el file.

@nasahlpa nasahlpa requested a review from a team as a code owner December 20, 2024 15:14
Copy link
Contributor

@rswarbrick rswarbrick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm really sorry but I'm not really convinced by this reasoning. I was trying to write up another version of the same thing and I think the coverage item might be attainable. I'm not convinced it's worth caring about, but...

My notes:

// The condition we are excluding here is when outstanding_txn is nonzero when passing through the
// StErrorOutstanding state.
//
// For this to happen, we'd need to have an incomplete TL transaction pending (where the A side had
// happened but not the D side) when the gate became enabled, caused by the lc_en_i becoming On.
//
// The FSM state comes out of reset as StError but the lc_en_i signal is On at reset in sram_ctrl,
// so the FSM will follow the states StError (cycle 0), StErrorOutstanding (cycle 1), StActive
// (cycle 2). It *is* theoretically possible for a transaction to be enqueued in cycle zero because
// the TL inputs are top-level ports.

Excluding as we cannot reach the else condition in this module.
Detailed description is available in the .el file.

Signed-off-by: Pascal Nasahl <nasahlpa@lowrisc.org>
Co-authored-by: Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick@lowrisc.org>
@nasahlpa
Copy link
Member Author

nasahlpa commented Jan 3, 2025

Thanks @rswarbrick! I assumed that issuing a transaction in the very first cycles is not possible. However, you are right - as we can control the input ports we certainly also can issue such a transaction (though not sure if this is possible with the current TL-UL DV environment). I've updated the description according to your suggestion.

@rswarbrick
Copy link
Contributor

I'm really sorry, but the text I put was me being lazy and copy-pasting from my notes when I was trying to prove the correctness of the waiver :-) Would you mind expanding on them a little and explaining why we're not worried about waiving it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants