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] EQC of tlul_sram_byte #23364

Closed
nasahlpa opened this issue May 29, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

[sram_ctrl/dv] EQC of tlul_sram_byte #23364

nasahlpa opened this issue May 29, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
Component:DV DV issue: testbench, test case, etc. IP:sram_ctrl Triage Priority Issue to be discussed with priority in the next triage meeting

Comments

@nasahlpa
Copy link
Member

Description

The SRAM readback feature (c.f., #23212) introduced a couple of changes in the tlul_sram_byte module. The feature can be disabled with the SRAM_CTRL.READBACK CSR.
When disabled, the tlul_sram_byte module should behave as before this PR. To make sure that this is the case, we should run some equivalence checking (EQC).

@nasahlpa nasahlpa added Component:DV DV issue: testbench, test case, etc. IP:sram_ctrl labels May 29, 2024
@nasahlpa nasahlpa added this to the Earlgrey-PROD.M5 milestone May 29, 2024
@vogelpi
Copy link
Contributor

vogelpi commented Jun 4, 2024

This would be nice to have but I fear we have too many other higher priority things to take care of for TO.

@vogelpi
Copy link
Contributor

vogelpi commented Jun 27, 2024

When readback is disabled, we still have the block-level throughput test which verifies the throughput. I don't think we would gain much by this. Thus moved to M7.

@vogelpi vogelpi added the Triage Priority Issue to be discussed with priority in the next triage meeting label Dec 9, 2024
@vogelpi
Copy link
Contributor

vogelpi commented Dec 9, 2024

The block-level throughput test has now been adapted to work w/ and w/o readback being enabled (see #25145 for details) meaning we have very high confidence that the readback feature "impacts" the design exactly the way intended.

I no longer think we should actually implement the LEC proposed by this issue. This was proposed at the time when we implemented the change to de-risk the tapeout while doing the real DV work in parallel. But since then, we've implemented all remaining tests (thanks @nasahlpa !) and I seriously think we wouldn't gain anything more from implementing this LEC. I am thus closing the issue as not planned and put the issue onto the agenda for the next triaging meeting. Feel free to re-open if you don't agree.

FYI @andreaskurth

@vogelpi vogelpi closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Dec 9, 2024
@andreaskurth
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed, we're closing the coverage of this feature like we do for all other features.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component:DV DV issue: testbench, test case, etc. IP:sram_ctrl Triage Priority Issue to be discussed with priority in the next triage meeting
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants