Cited By
View all- Goli MDrechsler R(2021)ATLaSProceedings of the 26th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference10.1145/3394885.3431591(67-72)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2021
Automatic equivalence checking for SystemC-TLM 2.0 models against their formal specifications
Abstract
The necessity to handle the increasing complexity of digital circuits has led to the usage of more and more abstract design paradigms. In particular, the Electronic System Level (ESL) has become an area of active research and industrial application, especially via SystemC and its Transaction Level Modeling (TLM) framework. Additionally, the usage of formal specification languages such as the Unified Modeling Language (UML) prior to the implementation (even at higher abstraction levels) is now a broadly accepted workflow.
Utilizing this layered approach leaves the translation from the specification to the implementation to the designer, leaving the question unanswered how the equivalence of these should be verified. This paper proposes a novel, non-intrusive and broadly applicable approach to automatically validate the equivalence of the structural and behavioral information of a SystemC-TLM 2.0 model and its formal specification.
References
[1]
IEEE Standard SystemC Language Reference Manual. IEEE Std 1666--2005, pages 1--423, 2006.
[2]
J. Aynsley. TLM-2.0 base protocol checker. https://www.doulos.com/knowhow/systemc/tlm2/at_example. Accessed: 2016-01-30.
[3]
M. Bawadekji, D. Große, and R. Drechsler. TLM protocol compliance checking at the electronic system level. In Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits Systems (DDECS), pages 435--440, 2011.
[4]
W. Ecker, V. Esen, T. Steininger, M. Velten, and M. Hull. Interactive presentation: Implementation of a transaction level assertion framework in SystemC. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), pages 894--899, 2007.
[5]
L. Ferro and L. Pierre. Formal semantics for PSL modeling layer and application to the verification of transactional models. In Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pages 1207--1212, 2010.
[6]
M. Goli, J. Stoppe, and R. Drechsler. AIBA: an Automated Intra-cycle Behavioral Analysis for SystemC-based design exploration. In proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD), 2016.
[7]
A. Habibi and S. Tahar. Design and verification of SystemC transaction-level models. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, pages 57--68, 2006.
[8]
V. Jain, A. Kumar, and P. Panda. Exploiting UML based validation for compliance checking of TLM 2 based models. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, pages 93--113, 2012.
[9]
V. Jain, A. Kumar, and P. R. Panda. A SysML profile for development and early validation of TLM 2.0 models. In European Conference Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA), pages 299--311, 2011.
[10]
D. Karlsson, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. Formal verification of SystemC designs using a petri-net based representation. In Design, Automation and Test (DATE), pages 1228--1233, 2006.
[11]
Moy, Maraninchi, and Maillet-Contoz. LusSy: A toolbox for the analysis of systems-on-a-chip at the transactional level. In Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD), pages 26--35, 2005.
[12]
W. Mueller, A. Rosti, S. Bocchio, E. Riccobene, P. Scandurra, W. Dehaene, and Y. Vanderperren. UML for ESL design: basic principles, tools, and applications. In International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), pages 73--80, 2006.
[13]
E. Riccobene, P. Scandurra, A. Rosti, and S. Bocchio. a UML 2.0 profile for SystemC: Toward high-level SoC design. In ACM International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pages 138--141, 2005.
[14]
J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch, editors. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. 1999.
[15]
C. Schulz-Key, M. Winterholer, T. Schweizer, T. Kuhn, and W. Rosentiel. Object-oriented modeling and synthesis of SystemC specifications. In Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), pages 238--243, 2004.
[16]
H. Sohofi and Z. Navabi. Assertion-based verification for system-level designs. In Fifteenth International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design, pages 582--588, 2014.
[17]
R. Stallman. Debugging with GDB. Free Software Foundation, 2011.
[18]
J. Stoppe, R. Wille, and R. Drechsler. Data extraction from SystemC designs using debug symbols and the SystemC API. In IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI), pages 26--31, 2013.
[19]
J. Stoppe, R. Wille, and R. Drechsler. Validating SystemC implementations against their formal specifications. In Symposium on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design, (SBCCI), pages 1--8, 2014.
Recommendations
Automatic RTL Test Generation from SystemC TLM Specifications
SystemC transaction-level modeling (TLM) is widely used to enable early exploration for both hardware and software designs. It can reduce the overall design and validation effort of complex system-on-chip (SOC) architectures. However, due to lack of ...
A Comparison of Two SystemC/TLM Semantics for Formal Verification
MEMOCODE '08: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-DesignThe development of complex systems mixing hardware and software starts more and more by the design of functional models written in SystemC/TLM. These models are used as golden models for embedded software validation and for hardware verification, ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
March 2017
1814 pages
Publisher
European Design and Automation Association
Leuven, Belgium
Publication History
Published: 27 March 2017
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 49Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)12
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Goli MDrechsler R(2021)ATLaSProceedings of the 26th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference10.1145/3394885.3431591(67-72)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2021
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in