M
Mike Treseler
Michael said:In the case of the RAM model selection, this means changing all the entities
in the instantiation path so that I can thread a 'generic' value through to
them - yuck. Possibly an feasible option for the device-under-test
selection, though - although here, the configuration is fairly simple to
write, and arguably neater.
After having tried out the idea for synthesis,
I would now say that a special compile script
or separate top entities is less trouble.
Configurations are neater once finished.
However, it can be mind-numbing getting them that way.
The real downside for me is maintaining the components and
entities separately and verifying that the complete
set of tools can understand them.
That doesn't work, because the default generics (from the RTL entity) are
not what I want: I want no generics when I am plugging in the gatelevel
model in place of the RTL. ModelSim gives me an error "Entity does not have
a generic named xxx" when I try to compile the configuration without a
generic map. I can define a completely different generic map if I want, but
I don't know how to specify an empty generic map. An omisssion from the
language spec?
If the base entity has a generic, it always has some value.
All you can do is leave it alone or map it to some other value.
As far as I can see, I also can't apply a configuration to anything below a
directly instantiated entity/architecture in the instantiation tree - is
this true, or is it that I just don't know the correct syntax to do it?
Direct instances and configurations don't mix.
See the rest of this thread for other discussion.
-- Mike Treseler