Modeling and Specification of SoC Designs

  • Mingsong Chen
  • Xiaoke Qin
  • Heon-Mo Koo
  • Prabhat Mishra


System-level specifications are widely used to capture a wide spectrum of SoC designs. To enable early stage exploration, it is required that system-level specifications should have both formal (unambiguous) semantics and easy correlation with the architecture manual. However, most system-level specifications are still written in an informal manner. Since informal specifications are not amenable to automated analysis, there are possibilities of ambiguity, incompleteness, and contradiction, which can lead to different interpretations of specifications. This chapter introduces two of the most widely used system-level specifications: SystemC TLMs for hardware modeling, and UML activity diagrams for software modeling. To enable the automated validation, this chapter presents how to extract formal models from these specifications.


  1. 1.
    Rose A, Swan S, Pierce J, Fernandez J (2005) Transaction level modeling in SystemC. Open SystemC Initiative.
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group (2006) UML profile for system on a chip (SoC), v 1.0.1.
  3. 3.
    Riccobene E, Scandurra P, Rosti A, Bocchio S (2005) A UML 2.0 profile for systemc: toward high-level soc design. In: Proceedings of ACM international conference on embedded software, pp 38–141Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chureau A, Savaria Y, Aboulhamid EM (2005) The role of model-level transactors and UML in functional prototyping of systems-on-chip: a software-radio application. In: Proceedings of design automation and test in Europe (DATE), pp 698–703Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mueller W, Rosti A, Bocchio S, Riccobene E, Scandurra P, Dehaene W, Vanderperren Y (2006) UML for ESL design: basic principles, tools, and applications. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer-aided design (ICCAD), pp 73–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ammann P, Black P, Majurski W (1998) Using model checking to generate tests from specifications. In: Proceedings of international conference on formal engineering methods (ICFEM), pp 46–54Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mishra P, Dutt N (2008) Processor description languages. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hennessy J, Patterson D (2003) Computer architecture: a quantitative approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopcroft JE, Motwani R, Ullman FD (2006) Introduction to automata theory, language, and computation 3rd edn. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Open SystemC Initiative (OSCI) (2006) Systemc.
  11. 11.
    Cai L, Gajski D (2003) Transaction level modeling: an overview. In: Proceedings of international conference on hardware/software codesign and system, synthesis (CODES+ISSS), pp 19–24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghenassia F (2005) Transaction level modeling with systemC. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abdi S, Gajski D (2005) A formalism for functionality preserving system level transformations. In: Proceedings of Asia and South Pacific design automation conference (ASPDAC), pp 139–144Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kroening D, Sharygina N (2005) Formal verification of systemc by automatic hardware/software partitioning. In: Proceedings of international conference on formal methods and models for co-design (MEMOCODE), pp 101–110Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moy M, Maraninchi F, Maillet-Contoz L (2005) Lussy: A toolbox for the analysis of systems-on-a-chip at the transactional level. In: Proceedings of the international conference on application of concurrency to system design, pp 26–35Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karlsson D, Eles P, Peng Z (2006) Formal verification of systemc designs using a petri-net based representation. In: Proceedings of design, automation, and test in Europe (DATE), pp 1228–1233Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Habibi A, Tahar S (2006) Design and verification of systemC transaction-level models. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr Syst (TVLSI) 14(1):57–68Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan KL (OSCI) (2006) SMV model checker.
  19. 19.
    Unhelkar B (2005) Verification and Validation for Quality of UML 2.0 Models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen M, Qiu X, Li X (2006) Automatic test case generation for uml activity diagrams. In: Proceedings of international workshop on automation on software test, pp 2–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen M, Qiu X, Xu W, Wang L, Zhao J, Li X (2009) UML activity diagram based automatic test case generation for java programs. Comput J 52(5):545–556Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eshuis R (2006) Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams. ACM Trans on Softw Eng Methodol 15(1):1–38Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cimatti A, Clarke EM, Giunchiglia F, Roveri M (1999) NUSMV: A new symbolic model verifier. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer aided verification (CAV), pp 495–499Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guelfi N, Mammar A (2005) NUSMV: A formal semantics of timed activity diagrams and its Promela translation. In: Proceedings of Asia-Pacific software engineering conference (APSEC), pp 283–290Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Das D, Kumar R, Chakrabarti PP (2006) Timing verification of UML activity diagram based code block level models for real time multiprocessor system-on-chip applications. In: Proceedings of Asia-Pacific software engineering conference (APSEC), pp 199–208Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Object Management Group (2007) UML superstructure V2.1.2.
  27. 27.
    Peterson J (1981) Petri nets theory and the modeling of systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ericsson M (2004) Activity diagrams: what they are and how to use them. The Rational Edge

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingsong Chen
    • 1
  • Xiaoke Qin
    • 2
  • Heon-Mo Koo
    • 3
  • Prabhat Mishra
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Engineering InstituteEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information Science and EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainsvilleUSA
  3. 3.Intel corporationSantaUSA

Personalised recommendations