Re: [myhdl-list] MEP - keep hierarchy in conversion

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

>
>> Do you really want that?
>
>
> I did.  So, I created it, and I'm not forcing this patch on anyone.  I
> offered it in case anyone else finds it useful, just as I found myhdl
> useful.
>
> - David
>

That is fair and it is great that folks are experimenting
and presenting ideas!

But you did solicit feedback:

> There was an old thread regarding MEP 110, but I've come up with an
> alternative "solution", and I'm looking for your comments.  (call it MEP
> 110-alt?)

It is a little odd to back track?  The idea of preserving
hierarchy has been around awhile, this is a good topic to
debate, bounce around ideas, and see if some form should
be part of myhdl or kept as separate tools.

In my experience I have had no need for manual placement
or explicit hierarchy control in the lower level formats.
But I have been convinced by others (I can look up the old
threads if needed) that it should be considered.  But I am
also under the opinion that the hierarchy conversion can be
a separate function outside the actual conversion.

> Decoupling the design hierarchy from the physical hierarchy is exactly what
> you want!
(above quote from Per)

This is what flat conversion gives you?  Complete decoupling
between design hierarchy and implementation.  You have design
hierarchy, it is flattened, and then the tools can organize
arrange as needed.  The question seems to be if there needs
to be some sort of steering(?) and where how that should
exist?

I might be wrong but I think the current PaR tools will
let you combine "logic" into a placement based on the
behavioral block labels.  I would have to spend some time
researching it but I think you can tell the placement tool
"place [list of labels] together".

Regards,
Chris Felton