Runtime Verification of Typical Requirements for a Space Critical SoC Platform

  • Luca Ferro
  • Laurence Pierre
  • Zeineb Bel Hadj Amor
  • Jérôme Lachaize
  • Vincent Lefftz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6959)


SystemC TLM (Transaction Level Modeling) enables the description of complex Systems on Chip (SoC) at a high level of abstraction. It offers a number of advantages regarding architecture exploration, simulation performance, and early software development. The tendency is therefore to use TLM-based descriptions of SoC platforms as golden models that, by essence, must be flawless.

In this paper, a SoC critical embedded platform under development by Astrium is used as proof-of-concept demonstrator, to assess the ISIS prototype tool which is devoted to the verification of SystemC TLM designs. Given temporal properties that capture the intended requirements, ISIS automatically instruments the design with ad hoc checkers that inform about the satisfaction of the properties during simulation.

After a description of the target platform design, we show that the PSL language enables the unambiguous expression of the required properties, and that the checkers produced by ISIS verify their satisfaction with a limited simulation time overhead.


Source Address Typical Requirement Transaction Level Transaction Level Modeling Convolution Processing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    IEEE Std 1666-2005, IEEE Standard System C Language Reference Manual. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IEEE Std 1800-2005, IEEE Standard for System Verilog: Unified Hardware Design, Specification and Verification Language. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEEE Std 1850-2005, IEEE Standard for Property Specification Language (PSL). IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avinun, R.: Validate hardware/software for nextgen mobile/consumer apps using software-on-chip system development tools. EETimes (December 2010),
  5. 5.
    Cornet, J.: Separation of Functional and Non-Functional Aspects in Transactional Level Models of Systems-on-Chip. PhD thesis, INP Grenoble (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ecker, W., Esen, V., Hull, M.: Specification Language for Transaction Level Assertions. In: Proc. HLDVT 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ecker, W., Esen, V., Hull, M.: Implementation of a Transaction Level Assertion Framework in SystemC. In: Proc. DATE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferro, L., Pierre, L.: Formal Semantics for PSL Modeling Layer and Application to the Verification of Transactional Models. In: Proc. DATE 2010 (March 2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferro, L., Pierre, L.: ISIS: Runtime Verification of TLM Platforms. In: Advances in Design Methods from Modeling Languages for Embedded Systems and SoC’s. LNEE, vol. 63. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghenassia, F. (ed.): Transaction-Level Modeling with SystemC. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goering, R.: Transaction models offer new deal for EDA. EETimes (March 2006),
  12. 12.
    Große, D., Drechsler, R.: Checkers for SystemC Designs. In: Proc. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Habibi, A., Tahar, S.: Design and Verification of SystemC Transaction Level Models. IEEE Transactions on VLSI Systems 14(1) (January 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karlsson, D., Eles, P., Peng, Z.: Formal Verification of SystemC Designs Using a Petri-Net Based Representation. In: Proc. DATE 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klingauf, W., Burton, M., Günzel, R., Golze, U.: Why We Need Standards for Transaction-Level Modeling. SOC Central (April 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lahbib, Y., Perrin, A., Maillet-Contoz, L., Clouard, A., Ghenassia, F., Tourki, R.: Enriching the Boolean and the Modeling Layers of PSL with SystemC and TLM Flavors. In: Proc. FDL 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lahbib, Y.: Extension of Assertion-Based Verification Approaches for the Verification of SystemC SoC Models. PhD thesis, Univ. of Monastir, Tunisia (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lefftz, V., Bertrand, J., Cassé, H., Clienti, C., Coussy, P., Maillet-Contoz, L., Mercier, P., Moreau, P., Pierre, L., Vaumorin, E.: A Design Flow for Critical Embedded Systems. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES) (July 2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jon Michelson and Faisal Haque. Assertions Improve Productivity for All Development Phases. EETimes (July 2007),
  20. 20.
    Moy, M., Maraninchi, F., Maillet-Contoz, L.: LusSy: an open tool for the analysis of systems-on-a-chip at the transaction level. Design Automation for Embedded Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niemann, B., Haubelt, C.: Assertion-Based Verification of Transaction Level Models. In: Proc. ITG/GI/GMM Workshop (February 2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oddos, Y., Morin-Allory, K., Borrione, D.: Assertion-Based Design with Horus. In: Proc. MEMOCODE 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pierre, L., Ferro, L.: A Tractable and Fast Method for Monitoring SystemC TLM Specifications. IEEE Transactions on Computers 57(10) (October 2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pierre, L., Ferro, L.: Enhancing the Assertion-Based Verification of TLM Designs with Reentrancy. In: Proc. MEMOCODE 2010 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Ferro
    • 1
  • Laurence Pierre
    • 1
  • Zeineb Bel Hadj Amor
    • 1
  • Jérôme Lachaize
    • 2
  • Vincent Lefftz
    • 2
  1. 1.TIMA (CNRS-INPG-UJF)Grenoble cedexFrance
  2. 2.EADS Astrium Satellites, Central EngineeringToulouse cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations