Use when you own AXI/ACE Contracts in a top-level integration review.
Open latest integration baseline and manifest.
Inspect failing metric by domain.
Trace first failing contract boundary.
Collect artifacts and assign single-thread owner.
Define minimal proof experiment.
Apply smallest reversible fix.
Run focused check then full regression.
Update dashboard and governance log.
Decide: close, waive with expiry, or escalate.
Publish final review memo.
protocol compliance trace, bridge attribute map, ordering scoreboard
baseline manifest
owner matrix
regression summary
risk memo
SOC DECISION MEMO — AXI/ACE Contracts
baseline:
metric:
root cause:
fix:
residual risk:
owners: fabric RTL owner, VIP owner, coherency architectAXI/ACE CONTRACT
AW/AR: address + ID + attributes
W/R: data ordering per ID
B/R: completion and error semantics
ACE: coherency sideband + snoop behaviorFabric correctness and contention behavior must be proven together.
FABRIC FLOW
masters -> routers/VCs -> slaves + memoryLATENCY TAIL
p50 ███
p95 ██████
p99 ██████████NoC contention heatmap
ordering violation report
QoS fairness summary
protocol trace
Bandwidth looked fine at average load, but p99 tail violated SLA due to arbitration starvation.
Isolate traffic class
Check ordering assumptions
Audit arbitration policy
Ask: what baseline, owner, and artifact prove this topic is truly closed?
State baseline manifest and owner with every closure metric.
Run cross-domain regression after every top-level fix.
Comparing results across different manifests.
Unowned issues slipping through review cycles.
Waiving risks without expiry and validation plan.
AXI/ACE integration depends on preserving ID, ordering, coherency attributes, and sideband semantics through bridges and fabric adapters.
Metric: ordering violations, protocol error rate, outstanding depth stability
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown