Cool Verification

Doxygen Docs for OVM, VMM and Teal/Truss

This post will be short but sweet.  I've recently come across an interesting site, IntelligentDV, that has generated Doxygen documentation for the OVM, VMM and Teal/Truss.  I wasn't able to figure out whether the code required to generate the documentation (i.e. the filter for Doxygen) is on the site or not.  If it was that would certainly be something many people would be interested in.  Anyone with more details about the site and its contents?  If so, I'd appreciate it if you could leave a comment here or send me a mail at jl at coolverification dot com with more info.

OVM World Summit and OVM 2.0

Last Thursday at DAC I participated in a panel discussion at the OVM World Summit.  Unfortunately, I arrived a few minutes late as I went to the Marriott instead of the Sheraton (oops!).  Luckily things had just gotten started and we had an interesting discussion about the benefits of OVM and whether the industry needs a single standard language and methodology for verification. 

Goering on Open Sourcing the VMM

Richard Goering has just posted an article over at SCDsource on today's announcement that the VMM is now available under an open source license - it's a good read, made even better by some thoughtful quotes from yours truly!

Synopsys Open Sources the VMM

Newsflash - I just got a note from Karen Bartleson at Synopsys letting me know that the VMM is now available for download under an Apache 2.0 open source license!  This is good news - for months the debate between OVM and VMM has been centered around the licensing terms required for each.  Now we can focus on the actual technical differences between the libraries.  I'm also hoping that it won't be long before we see new simulator versions from Cadence, Mentor, and Synopsys that can read both libraries (given the interest each vendor will have in stealing away customers from one another).  This should certainly add some spice to the work of the Accellera VIP TSC!

Also, on another interesting note, I just noticed today that Janick Bergeron of VMM fame has now started his very own blog, Verification Martial Arts.  Welcome to the blogosphere, Janick!  Now we just need to get some folks from Mentor and Cadence blogging and we can have all sorts of fun :-).

On SystemVerilog VIP Interoperability

As I mentioned last week, Verilab is now a member of Accellera.  I've been involved with the newly formed Verification IP Technical Standards Committee.  One of the first objectives of the committee will be to create a Design Objectives Document, otherwise known as a DOD.  Some possible objectives of the committee were presented yesterday during the weekly TSC conference call which spawned an email thread between some of the participants (including myself).  The issue being - what is the scope of the committee?  Is it to come up with a common methodology to be used by all vendors?  Is it to create an API to be used to allow communication between competing methodologies?  Or, is the purpose of the committee more basic than that? 

VMM - Robust and Open, Stale and Proprietary or Somewhere In Between?

Last week I wrote an article about what appears to be an upcoming standards battle pitting the OVM vs. the VMM.  My comments seem to have touched a nerve with a large number of people and prompted comments from Janick Bergeron of Synopsys, Dennis Brophy of Mentor and Ambar Sarkar of Paradigm Works, among others.  Since this thread is starting to take the form of an all out smack-down, I figured perhaps the readers of this site could help me pick out appropriate avatars for Janick, Ambar, Dennis, and myself.  Figured out who's who?   Good, now let's continue!

Janick was concerned that my argument contained some factual errors - specifically with my assertions that:

1. The VMM is not open.
2. The VMM is not as feature-rich as the OVM. 

Ambar commented on the need for an open reference implementation of any potential standard verification methodology library.  He also bemoaned the lack of support for the SystemVerilog standard among the EDA vendors, and ended with a comment that the verification community "may not have the stamina or patience for morphing VMM/OVM into yet another methodology." 

Finally, Dennis challenged Synopsys to "post their customer & partner license terms and conditions," the implication being that Synopsys uses restrictive licensing agreements with its customers. 

The Brewing Standards War - Verification Methodology

Back in August when the OVM was announced one of the big unknowns was how Synopsys was going to respond.  If Karen Bartleson's recent post on standardizing verification methodologies is any indication, the response is going to be to attempt to slow down and gain some element of control of the OVM via a drawn out battle in an Accellera standards committee. 

OVM Now Available

FYI... The OVM is now available for download from the new OVM website. 

I'm really sick and tired of vendors making users jump through hoops to "register" for something that is pushed as being free.  I think the "Please have a [Cadence|Mentor] Representative Contact Me" buttons at the bottom of the 20 entry registration form (all fields required) is what has really pushed me over the top here.  Since Cadence and Mentor already have my contact info, I guess I'll be signing up later when I have the patience to fill out the form. 

OVM - A Quick Update

One of my main goals during my trip to CDNLive! in San Jose a couple of weeks ago was to find out more about the Mentor/Cadence OVM SystemVerilog library.  I spoke with several folks from Cadence, and also pinged someone from Mentor Graphics who was attending the EDA Tech Forum over in Santa Clara.  The big question in my mind has been trying to understand how the AVM and URM were going to be merged together into a common library that would remain compatible with legacy environments. 

Synopsys/Intel and the OVM

This morning I got another one of Cooley's Industry Gadfly's via email.  According to Cooley (and Yahoo Finance), Synopsys announced that they are now Intel's "primary electronic design automation supplier."  Cooley was surprised that Intel would ever announce a preferred supplier like this.  So am I.  During the time I worked at Intel we were not supposed to share info about who our suppliers were, and suppliers were also not allowed to mention they were selling to us.  Cooley was also shocked ("WTF????" was the exact phrase he used) that Cadence wasn't the one to pull this off, given the fact that Mike Fister spent 17 years at Intel before joining Cadence as the CEO. 

For my part, I'm curious to know how much Cadence and Mentor lost out on the deal, given that each one likely has/had decently sized agreements to sell specific tools to Intel.  I also got to thinking - could last week's announcement of the OVM be somehow related?  The Synopsys/Intel announcement seems like just the thing to pull Cadence and Mentor together.  Am I the only one who has had this thought?  As always, comments welcome.