Transparent IP Cores Integration Based on the Distributed Object Paradigm
Heterogeneous system architectures are currently the main platform on which an ever increasing number of innovative applications (i.e. smart home or ambient intelligence applications) rely. When designing these complex systems, one of the most time-consuming tasks is the definition of the communication interfaces between the different components through a number of scattered heterogeneous processing nodes. That is not only a complex task, but also very specific for a particular implementation, which may limit the flexibility of the system, and makes the solutions difficult to reuse. In this chapter, we describe how to provide a unified abstraction for both hardware and software components that have to cooperate with each other, independently of their implementation and their location. Based on this abstraction, we define a low-overhead system-wide communication architecture that offers total communication transparency between any kind of components. Since the architecture is highly compatible with standard objectoriented distributed software systems, it also enables seamless interaction with any other kind of external network.
KeywordsSystem-on-Chip IP CORE Distribuited Object HW/SW codesign
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Opencores; http://www.opencores.org); last visited June, 27, 2008.
- 2.Open Core Protocol (OCP); http://www.ocpip.org, last visited June, 27, 2008.
- 3.Internet Communication Engine (ICE); http://zeroc.com, las t visited June, 27, 2008.
- 4.Keutzer, K., Newton, A.R., Rabaey, J.M., and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. System-level design: orthogonalization of concerns and platform-based design. IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 19, 12 (Dec. 2000).Google Scholar
- 5.W. Cesario, L. Gauthier, D. Lyonnard, G. Nicolescu, and A.A. Jerraya. Object-based hardware/software component interconnection model for interface design in system-ona- chip circuits. The Journal of Systems and Software, 70, 2004.Google Scholar
- 6.A. Gerstlauer, D. Shin, R. Dmer, and D. D. Gajski. System-level communication modeling for network-on-chip synthesis. In Proceedings of theASP-DAC, 2004.Google Scholar
- 7.J-Y. Mignolet, V. Nollet, P. Coene, D. Verkest, S. Vernalde, and R. Lauwereins. Infrastructure for design and management of relocatable tasks in a heterogeneous reconfigurable system-on-chip. In Proceedings of the DATE ’03 Conference, 2003.Google Scholar
- 8.P.G. Paulin, C. Pilkington, M. Langevin, E. Bensoudane, O. Benny, D. Lyonnard, B. Lavigueur, and D. Lo. Distributed object models for multi-processor SoC’s, with application to low-power multimedia wireless systems. In Proceedings of the DATE ’06 Conference, Munich, Germany, 2006.Google Scholar
- 9.R. Hecht, S. Kubish, H. Michelsen, E. Zeeb, and D. Timmermann. A distributed object system approach for dynamic reconfiguration. In Reconfigurable Architectures Workshop (RAW 06), Rhodos, Greece, April 2006.Google Scholar
- 10.V. D’silva, S. Ramesh, and A. Sowmya. Bridge over troubled wrappers: Automated interface synthesis. In Proceedings of the Intl. Conf. on VLSI Design, 2004.Google Scholar
- 11.A. Gerstlauer. Communication abstractions for system-level design and synthesis. Technical Report CECS-TR-03-30, UC Irvine, 2003.Google Scholar
- 12.Grimpe, E., and Oppenheimer, F. Extending the SystemC Synthesis Subset by Object- Oriented Features. In Proceedings of CODES+ISSS, Oct. 2003.Google Scholar
- 13.Schulz-Key, C., Winterholer, M., Schweizer, T., Kuhn, T., and Rosenstiel, W. Object- Oriented Modeling and Synthesis of SystemC Specifications. In Proceedings of theASPDAC, 2004.Google Scholar