Re: [myhdl-list] Integrating MyHDL into a more "traditional" design work flow

[Christopher F. <chr...@gm...>]

<snip>
>
>
>>> Anyway, since this process seems easy to automate (I can't really
>>> tell, since I don't really understand it), the obvious question is why
>>> not make MyHDL itself automate it for us? That should put to rest the
>>> question of generating hierarchical VHDL or Verilog code which seems
>>> to crop up regularly on this list and on other online discussions
>>> about MyHDL!
>>
>> The obvious question is why someone interested in a
>> feature doesn't propose a MEP and a patch?
>
> That is a fair point. I am still "testing the waters" with MyHDL so to
> speak, so for now I am just raising the concerns that I come up with.
>
> I could try to write a MEP but first I'd like to see if there is some
> consensus that this could be a worthy idea (as I believe it is). Also,
> what would be the preferred way to indicate that a group of generators
> should be grouped into an entity and placed on their own file?
>
> For example, in the case that you described, imagine that you had had
> a magic wand that let you modify MyHDL in a way that you could have
> avoided all the manual work involved in solving your problem. How
> would you have liked to be able to tell MyHDL that you wanted to place
> "submodule" on its own file?
>
> Contributing a patch is another matter though. I am quite busy
> contributing to TortoiseHg at the moment and I don't know how complex
> the MyHDL code base is. I don't know that I'd have the time to dig
> deep enough into it to contribute such a patch.
>

I am having a hard time following you.  At one point
you comment

    "since this process seems easy to automate ..."

then you comment

    "... the amount of steps would be great"
    (implying difficulty)

But if it is easy to automate why would we be concerned
with the number of steps?

I also get confused if you are only interested in an
existing solution or you are willing to experiment and
be part of a development.  This conversation seems to
bounce back and forth between wanting a working solution
and "testing the waters".  I am never sure which I am
replying to.  Given the comments above, I assume you
are mainly interested in existing and working solutions.

Maintaining hierarchy during conversion is a reasonable
feature request.  But the priority of the feature?  And
the best path forward?  I think it is safe to say, given
the resources available this feature will not be added
any time soon.  I think you are simply trying to stimulate
conversation and ideas (which is good!).  But I don't believe
anyone has the bandwidth to experiment and implement the
feature.

Regards,
Chris