Re: [cdt-dev] IP-XACT for register definitions

["Spear, Aaron" <aaron_spear@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I can't help but think that "*Cortex* Microcontroller Software Interface
Standard" is a funny name for a "vendor neutral" standard ;-)

I was heavily involved with IP-XACT back in early DSDP days because it
seemed like a really good idea to me to get descriptions of boards/SoC's
directly from the EDA tools used to create them.  We had an IPXACT debug
working group for a couple of years where we were pushing extensions
into the standard for stuff we needed that IPXACT didn't cover (e.g. CPU
internal registers, bit field detail).  We were just at the point of
pushing it into the next standard release when I regrettably had to
withdraw my involvement due to resource constraints.  I am frankly not
sure where it ended up. I would be interested to know.  On the surface
it seems that many companies have scaled back their involvement with
IPXACT.

Regardless of what it is, I still feel there is a need for a *standard*
description format for debuggers.   I believe it is more realistic to
have minimal standard that meets our needs, and then just have tools to
easily do transforms from other formats to this format.  IPXACT had way
more than a debugger needs (e.g. bus details) and yet was missing things
that a debugger needs (cpu registers)

Cheers,

Aaron Spear
Mentor Graphics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of dmsubs
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:11 AM
> To: 'CDT General developers list.'
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] IP-XACT for register definitions
> 
> AFAIK, IP-XACT is not being used for this purpose.
> 
> ARM (who I believe contributed the IP-XACT plugin) have a defined a
new
> standard for this, and quite a few tools vendors are now adopting it,
> and
> Semiconductor vendors are producing chip definitions for it. It is
> called
> CMSIS-SVD. If you are interested, you can download the spec from:
> http://www.onarm.com/cmsis/download/
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Alexiev, Dobrin
> > Sent: 09 December 2010 19:58
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] IP-XACT for register definitions
> >
> > TI's IDE is using proprietary xml files for the registers
description
> data.
> >
> > Regards
> > Dobrin
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Pawel Piech
> > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:15 PM
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Cc: Christophe.Augier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [cdt-dev] IP-XACT for register definitions
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> > In early DSDP days we had a lot of discussions about standardizing
on
> IP-XACT
> > for register definitions and for other debugger needs.  I just got a
> question
> > internally about whether anyone is using IP-XACT out there?
> >
> > So is anyone out there in CDT land using it now and if so what's
been
> your
> > experience?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pawel
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev