Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remove clock and cond from probe force/release API #3605

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Oct 26, 2023

Conversation

debs-sifive
Copy link
Contributor

Contributor Checklist

  • Did you add Scaladoc to every public function/method?
  • Did you add at least one test demonstrating the PR?
  • Did you delete any extraneous printlns/debugging code?
  • Did you specify the type of improvement?
  • Did you add appropriate documentation in docs/src?
  • Did you request a desired merge strategy?
  • Did you add text to be included in the Release Notes for this change?

Type of Improvement

  • API modification

Desired Merge Strategy

  • Squash: The PR will be squashed and merged (choose this if you have no preference).

Release Notes

Remove clock and cond from probe force and release methods.

Reviewer Checklist (only modified by reviewer)

  • Did you add the appropriate labels? (Select the most appropriate one based on the "Type of Improvement")
  • Did you mark the proper milestone (Bug fix: 3.5.x, 3.6.x, or 5.x depending on impact, API modification or big change: 6.0)?
  • Did you review?
  • Did you check whether all relevant Contributor checkboxes have been checked?
  • Did you do one of the following when ready to merge:
    • Squash: You/ the contributor Enable auto-merge (squash), clean up the commit message, and label with Please Merge.
    • Merge: Ensure that contributor has cleaned up their commit history, then merge with Create a merge commit.

@@ -101,14 +101,18 @@ package object probe extends SourceInfoDoc {
}

/** Override existing driver of a writable probe. */
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

while we are add it can we scaladoc the probe and value fields? SHould we mention in the scaladoc that the when condition is used...?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO, I don't think we should mention the when stuff in the ScalaDoc b/c that's more of a firtool implementation detail. But will def add the other fields.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wouldn't call it an implementation detail. The semantic is that these ops only occur when the when condition is true.

For example, the ScalaDoc for printf says:

Prints a message every cycle. If defined within the scope of a when block, the message will only be printed on cycles that the when condition is true.

Does not fire when in reset (defined as the encapsulating Module's reset). If your definition of reset is not the encapsulating Module's reset, you will need to gate this externally.

I think we need something similar in these APIs, except instead of not firing when in reset, it doesn't fire "until reset has been asserted and then deasserted" through the Disable API (link to Disable).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Gotcha, that makes sense.

Copy link
Contributor

@mwachs5 mwachs5 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good to me! just always lobbying for more scaladoc :)

@jackkoenig jackkoenig added this to the 6.0 milestone Oct 26, 2023
@jackkoenig jackkoenig merged commit 45eaa63 into main Oct 26, 2023
15 checks passed
@jackkoenig jackkoenig deleted the forcerelease-cleanup branch October 26, 2023 17:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants