dita-sidsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita-sidsc] Follow-up: handling multiple instances/instanceBase
- From: "Park Seth-R01164" <seth.park@freescale.com>
- To: "Semiconductor Information Design Subcommittee" <dita-sidsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:28:56 -0700
Hi Alan. Thanks for your thoughts!
Slide 6:
UARTA and UART B are instances of a UART component. For
multiple instances of components, you use <instanceParameters>, which is
slightly different from <dimension> (dimension is only for registers). It
is assumed that component instances will be small in number and will
not conform to a pattern. That's why you provide an offset and
qualifier for each instance as a comma-delimited string in the corresponding
elements.
Register repetition can be very large in number and
will likely have a linear pattern (only integer values are allowed). If there is
no linear pattern, the amount of effort required to designate an offset and
qualifier for each instances would be burdensome.
Do you think we need to support pattern-less register
repetition similar to how we handle component repetition?
Other comments
We wont be able to use conref-push-replace or keyref
until DITA 1.2 is released, but the sidsc-design map provides the semantics to
change the meaning of specific component data depending on the the IC RTL
parameters.
Does this cover all of your
concerns?
-seth park
Dear Team,
Attendance Note:
Unfortunately I have a running conflict with the SIDSC
meetings now. And just when I was starting to have time to get passionate
again....
Here's more feedback. Sorry I won't be there to
explain if i'm not making myself clear.
Feedback On slide 6 "Publishing
ramifications.":
More Feedback on where instances
belong:
-
I'm probably missing something but let me try to
elaborate on my perspective: I think instance structures belong
outside the scope of the generic component structure. Embedding
instance structures within the generic component implies the instance is
subordinate (but it's super-ordinate if that's a word).
-
Also, there is a business need to document the
generic component in its standalone fully parameterizable glory for internal
audiences at least if not external. So, could the proposed instance
structures be ignored or otherwise handled in this case?
Thanks.
-Alan
Thanks for the great work, Seth.
Your proposal makes sense, but looking at slides 7 &8,
regarding the "instanceOffset" variable...
To me it makes more sense to talk about an "instanceBase"
instead of an "instanceOffset" variable. At least I don't think
about component instances being placed in the system memory map relative to each
other. This approach would also resolve your questions at the bottom
of slide 8. Of course it might break other things, but this is my
perspective.
In general, I see needing to use an instance container
(even if we have just one instance of the component) to inform processing
and to populate variables inside the generic component
model.
Thanks
again.
-Alan
If it's unclear, we
might want to schedule a brief interim call so that the official call is
productive.
-seth
park
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]