Sequence item configuration

UVM
1

I’ve got the following set of classes. Would you agree or disagree that this is the most proper way to: configure and send a transaction?

Notes:

  1. transaction is configured by the parent
  2. No configuration database
  3. No p_sequencer
  4. Constraints live with the transaction definition (and any extensions), not using in-line constraints.

Agree? Thoughts to add?

  class txnA extends uvm_sequence_item;
    `uvm_object_utils(txnA )

    int Amax;
    rand int A;

    constraint c_A { A<Amax; }

    function new(string name="txnA");
      super.new(name);
    endfunction

  endclass

class seq_A extends uvm_sequence #(txnA);
  `uvm_object_utils(seq_A)

  int Amax;

  function new(string name="seq_A");
    super.new(name);
  endfunction
 
  virtual task body();
    txnA t;
    t = txnA::type_id::create("t")
    start_item(t);
    t.Amax=Amax;
    if(!t.randomize()) `uvm_error("RANDERR","Randomization error")
    finish_item(t);
    
  endtask

endclass

class test_A extends test_base ;
  `uvm_component_utils(test_A)

  function new(string name, uvm_component parent);
    super.new(name, parent);
  endfunction

  virtual task run_phase( uvm_phase phase );
    phase.raise_objection(this, "Objection raised");

      begin
        seq_A seq;
        seq = seq_A::type_id::create("seq");
        seq.Amax=cfg.subcfg.settings.calculated_max;
        seq.start(my_sqr);
      end
    end

    phase.drop_objection(this, "Objection dropped");
  endtask

endclass
2

In reply to bmorris:

Do you have a driver class???