[i2c, dv] I2C V1 sign-off#616
Conversation
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_v1_signoff
branch
from
2090013 to
0541ff3
Compare
KinzaQamar
requested review from
elliotb-lowrisc,
marnovandermaas and
martin-velay
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_v1_signoff
branch
from
0541ff3 to
eddb068
Compare
marnovandermaas
left a comment
marnovandermaas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some initial nits from my end.
| * 7-bit target address | ||
| * all the mandatory features listed for controllers in [Table 2: I2C specification Rev 6][] | ||
| * multi-controller features such as bus arbitration and controller-controller clock synchronization | ||
| * clock stretching in both controller and target modes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * clock stretching in both controller and target modes | |
| * clock stretching in both controller and target modes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am confused. In your other comment on L7 you are suggesting to remove a .
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_v1_signoff
branch
8 times, most recently
from
ba9e25e to
8130f70
Compare
| | Review | DESIGN_SPEC_REVIEWED | Waived | The specification was reviewed through the OpenTitan sign-off process and the block was imported without functional changes | | ||
| | Review | TESTPLAN_REVIEWED | Done | The vendored [OpenTitan I2C checklist][] records the testplan review as complete | | ||
| | Review | STD_TEST_CATEGORIES_PLANNED | Done | Error scenarios, performance, overflow, timeout, glitch, and stress tests are covered in the [I2C testplan][]; | ||
| | | | | security bus-integrity testing is currently out of scope for Mocha; power and debug are N/A | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This adds a new line and makes things unclear. I think You are looking for something like that instead <br/>
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_v1_signoff
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5a61f14 to
b0b3b04
Compare
Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <kqzaman@lowrisc.org>
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_v1_signoff
branch
from
b0b3b04 to
7796102
Compare
| | Simulation | SIM_TB_ENV_CREATED | Done | CIP-based UVM environment with I2C agent and scoreboard | | ||
| | Tests | SIM_SMOKE_TEST_PASSING | Done | `host_smoke` and `target_smoke`: 50/50 passed with Xcelium on June 18, 2026 at commit `9173e84` | | ||
| | Regression | SIM_SMOKE_REGRESSION_SETUP | Done | `smoke` regression in `i2c_sim_cfg.hjson` selects `i2c_host_smoke`; the aggregate Mocha config imports the I2C <br/> simulation config | | ||
| | Regression | SIM_NIGHTLY_REGRESSION_SETUP | Done | I2C is included in `mocha_sim_cfgs.hjson`; results are published on the a private regression dashboard | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| | Regression | SIM_NIGHTLY_REGRESSION_SETUP | Done | I2C is included in `mocha_sim_cfgs.hjson`; results are published on the a private regression dashboard | | |
| | Regression | SIM_NIGHTLY_REGRESSION_SETUP | Done | I2C is included in `mocha_sim_cfgs.hjson`; results are published on a private regression dashboard | |
|
|
||
| <!-- External references --> | ||
| [Table 2: I2C specification Rev 6]: https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/user-manual/UM10204.pdf | ||
| [COSMIC reports dashboard]: https://dashboard.reports.lowrisc.org/cosmic/mocha/dashboard.html |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I misunderstood you here:
you can say that you've checked on our private regressions and provide the date and share the Git hash mentioned in there, as such lowRISC fellows can cross-check at least. But please keep the public dashboard link as done in the template
I thought you were suggesting to keep the link but remove the usage and once the link is fixed then put it back
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, and think I was right. I'd like to keep the public link even though the results are old, as new will come soon. What do you think @marnovandermaas ?
| <!-- Replace the d1-commit hash once I2C D1 sign-off happens. --> | ||
| [d1-commit]: https://github.com/lowRISC/mocha/commit/1234def |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understood well @marnovandermaas preference was to remove these 2 lines related to D1. Correct Marno?
martin-velay
left a comment
martin-velay
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR LGTM, there are only 2 points I defer to Marno to decide on. Thanks Kinza!
marnovandermaas
left a comment
marnovandermaas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's wait until I2C D1 is in before merging this.
3 participants
No description provided.