Re: [myhdl-list] Integrating MyHDL into a more "traditional" design work flow
Brought to you by:
jandecaluwe
From: Christopher F. <chr...@gm...> - 2012-10-10 16:09:27
|
On 10/10/2012 11:04 AM, Angel Ezquerra wrote: > 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 > I usually send patches/bundles directly to the mailing-list (good or bad). The issue can be if it is large for some reason. I don't believe it is bad to send patches to the mailing-list. .chris |