Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add rapidwright.util.VivadoTools #684
Add rapidwright.util.VivadoTools #684
Changes from 7 commits
1b2fcac
a4c4fe6
97f9fb4
0a6cfbb
23c2bd5
df34421
c5e778d
baca3e7
bef6a85
de5a93a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the idea to have multiple classes going forward dedicated to each task? If so, I would suggest that we create a dedicated package for Vivado instead of putting them all into the same class. We have tried to avoid inner classes because they tend to complicate compilation and a few other areas.
Alternatively, the class could be converted into a static method and just return a
Map<String,Integer>
that contains the results. This would be simpler and would probably be the preferred method in my opinion.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eddieh-xlnx has been directing some of the architecture decisions here, but I think the idea is to add classes for future vivado tasks, so maybe a separate package is warranted.
Returning a
Map<String,Integer>
is perhaps little more awkward, since the user then needs to know exactly what vivado output log key phrase they want (i.e."# of unrouted nets"
). I was mostly following the proposed system from here: #684 (comment)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, sure. Let's keep it the way it is for now and we can revisit it in the future if the file seems becomes unwieldly.
Sure, I can see how that is a bit cumbersome and error prone. For simplicity, let's keep it as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've modelled this package under the "Tools" packages like
DesignTools
. It's also feels a little unweildy to doVivadoTools.<tool>.<method>()
. I do agree that the inner class should be moved outside (though I don't necessarily agree they are a bad thing entirely -- they can be used for class-level (as opposed to package-level) encapsulation and do appear in the standard Java library too.The problem with returning a
Map
is that I can't attach a method to it -- like aisFullyRouted()
query.