Communication and co-simulation infrastructure for heterogeneous system integration

ABSTRACT

With the increasing complexity and heterogeneity of embedded electronic systems, a unified design methodology at higher levels of abstraction becomes a necessity. Meanwhile, it is also important to incorporate the current design practice emphasizing IP reuse at various abstraction levels. However, the abstraction gap prohibits easy communication and synchronization in IP integration and co-simulation. In this paper, we present a communication infrastructure for an integrated design framework that enables co-design and co-simulation of heterogeneous design components specified at different abstraction levels and in different languages. The core of the approach is to abstract different communication interfaces or protocols to a common high level communication semantics. Designers only need to specify the interfaces of the design components using extended regular expressions; communication adapters can then be automatically generated for the co-simulation or other co-design and co-verification purposes.

REFERENCES

• 1: http://www.eda.org/vfv, 2003.
• 2: CORBA homepage. http://www.corba.org, 2005.
• 3: Alexandre Amory , Fernando Moraes , Leandro Oliveira , Ney Calazans , Fabiano Hessel, A Heterogeneous and Distributed Co-Simulation Environment, Proceedings of the 15th symposium on Integrated circuits and systems design, p.115, September 09-14, 2002
• 4: A. Bakshi , V. K. Prasanna , A. Ledeczi, MILAN: A Model Based Integrated Simulation Framework for Design of Embedded Systems, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Languages, compilers and tools for embedded systems, p.82-93, August 2001, Snow Bird, Utah, United States
• 5: Felice Balarin , Yosinori Watanabe , Harry Hsieh , Luciano Lavagno , Claudio Passerone , Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Metropolis: An Integrated Electronic System Design Environment, Computer, v.36 n.4, p.45-52, April 2003 [doi>10.1109/MC.2003.1193228]
• 6: Felice Balarin , Roberto Passerone, Functional verification methodology based on formal interface specification and transactor generation, Proceedings of the conference on Design, automation and test in Europe: Proceedings, March 06-10, 2006, Munich, Germany
• 7: C. Eisner and D. Fisman. Sugar 2.0 proposal presented to the accellera formal verification technical committee. Mar. 2002.
• 8: K. Keutzer and et. al. System level design: orthogonalization of concerns and platform-based design. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, 19(12):1523--1543, Dec. 2000.
• 9: C. Kreiner, C. Steger, and R. Weiss. A hardware/software cosimulation environment for DSP applications. In Proceedings of 25th Euromicro Conference, 1999.
• 10: A. Ledeczi and et. al. Overview of the model-based integrated simulation framework. Technical Report ISIS-01-201, Vanderbilt University, Jan. 2001.
• 11: A. Lee and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. A framework for comparing models of computation. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 17(12):1217--29, Dec 1998.
• 12: Marcio T. Oliveira , Alan J. Hu, High-Level specification and automatic generation of IP interface monitors, Proceedings of the 39th conference on Design automation, June 10-14, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA [doi>10.1145/513918.513952]
• 13: A. Seawright , J. Buck , U. Holtmann , W. Meyer , B. Pangrle , R. Verbrugghe, A system for compiling and debugging structured data processing controllers, Proceedings of the conference on European design automation, p.86-91, September 1996, Geneva, Switzerland
• 14: C. A. Valderrama , F. Nacabal , P. Paulin , A. A. Jerraya, Automatic generation of interfaces for distributed C-VHDL cosimulation of embedded systems: an industrial experience, Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP '96), p.72, June 19-21, 1996