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

[Angel E. <ang...@gm...>]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Christopher Felton
<chr...@gm...> wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 10:46 AM, Angel Ezquerra wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Christopher Felton
>> <chr...@gm...> wrote:
>>> <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 should have been more clear:
>> - The process "seems easy to automate" according to what you said.
>> - But it _currently_ requires a great number of steps since it must be
>> performed _manually_ (which does not necessarily mean that it would be
>> hard, just tiresome).
>>
>> That is, currently MyHDL does not provide a way to make this without
>> too much effort, but apparently (from what you said) it should be
>> possible to make it automatic.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm mostly interested on working solutions, but since it seems there
>> are none (at least not experimental ones), I want to spur the
>> conversation some and show that there are people (at least one! :-)
>> interested on this feature.
>>
>> As for contributing I have a few small patches ready that I will send
>> to the list shortly. These address some of small issues regarding VHDL
>> code generation that I identified on another email.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Angel
>>
>
> Angel,
>
> Make sure you review the "Guide for Developers":
> http://www.myhdl.org/doku.php/dev:patches
>
> Jan D. has put together a comprehensive guide for contributing
> to the project.
>
> Also note,  Jan D. has the final say on all bundles submitted.
>
> Thanks for interest in contributing!
>
> Regards,
> Chris

OK, I did not know about that document. Sorry.

Apparently it seems Jan prefers to receive bundles directly on his
email address. I sent a patch series to the list because that is the
way things are done on the tortoisehg and on the mercurial mailing
list itself. The document seems to suggest that it is ok to send
patches to the list for discussion though, so I guess what I did is
kind of ok.

Cheers,

Angel