On Construction of Cycle Approximate Bus TLMs

  • Martin Radetzki
  • Rauf Salimi Khaligh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 10)


Transaction level models (TLMs) can be constructed at different levels of abstraction, denoted as untimed (UT), cycle-approximate (CX), and cycle accurate (CA) in this contribution. The choice of a level has an impact on simulation accuracy and performance and makes a level suitable for specific use cases, e.g. virtual prototyping, architectural exploration, and verification. Whereas the untimed and cycle-accurate levels have a relatively precise definition, cycle-approximate spans a wide space of modelling alternatives between UT and CA, which makes it a class of levels rather than a single level. In this contribution we review these modelling alternatives in the context of SystemC and with focus on bus models, provide quantitative measurements on major alternatives, and propose a CX modelling level that allows to obtain almost cycle accuracy and a simulation performance significantly above CA models.


Transaction-level modelling SystemC embedded systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ARM Ltd.: AMBA Specification (Revision 2.0). Document ID: ARM IHI 011A,, accessed 7.11.2006.
  2. 2.
    ARM Ltd.: Cycle Accurate Simulation Interface (CASI)., accessed 11.10.2006.
  3. 3.
    L. Cai, D. Gajski: Transaction Level Modeling: An Overview. Proc. CODES + ISSS, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Donlin: Transaction Level Modeling: Flows and Use Models. Proc. CODES + ISSS, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Dömer, A. Gerstlauer, D. Gaijski: SpecC Language Reference Manual (Version 2.0). University of California, Irvine, CA,, accessed 7.11.2006.
  6. 6.
    F. Ghenassia (Ed.): Transaction-Level Modeling with SystemC – TLM Concepts and Applications for Embedded Systems. Springer, Dordrecht, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEEE Standard 1666–2005: SystemC 2.1 Language Reference Manual. IEEE, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Klingauf, R. Günzel, O. Bringmann, P. Parfuntseu, M. Burton: GreenBus–A Generic Interconnect Fabric for Transaction Level Modelling. Proc. 43rd Design Automation Conference (DAC). San Francisco, CA, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OCP International Partnership: Open Core Protocol Specification (Release 2.1)., 2006.
  10. 10.
    Open SystemC Initiative: TLM 1.0 API and Library., 2005.
  11. 11.
    M. Radetzki: Object-Oriented Transaction Level Modelling. In S. Huss (Ed.): Advances in Design and Specification Languages for Embedded Systems. Springer, Dordrecht, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Radetzki: Modellierung mit Guarded Transactions zum robusten Entwurf von Hardware-Software-Systemen in SystemC. Proc. 1. GMM/GI/ITG Fachtagung Zuverlässigkeit und Entwurf, München, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Salimi Khaligh, M. Radetzki: Efficient and Extensible Transaction Level Modeling Based on an Object-Oriented Model of Bus Transactions. Proc. Int’l Embedded Systems Symposium (IESS). Irvine, CA, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Schirner, R. Dömer: Fast and Accurate Transaction Level Models using Result Oriented Modeling. Proc. Int’l Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD). San Jose, CA, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Radetzki
    • 1
  • Rauf Salimi Khaligh
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Technische InformatikStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations