Inputs and outputs contract

Inputs & Outputs for Global Address Map Planning focuses on decode conflicts, remap churn, software breakage from map changes. The goal is to map symptoms to boundary contracts, owner actions, and regression-proof closure.

Treat these as a signed integration contract. Ambiguity here causes multi-team debug loops where everyone is right inside their own assumptions.

INPUTS
  - baseline manifest (versions + hashes)
  - interface/budget contract revision
  - mode assumptions (functional/test/low-power)
  - owner accountability map

OUTPUTS
  - measurable closure deltas
  - owner-approved fix proposal
  - regression evidence package
  - risk/waiver disposition

Integration sequence

SOC INTEGRATION FLOW — Global Address Map Planning

requirements + budgets
        |
        v
IP handoff + collateral check
        |
        v
integration build + bring-up smoke
        |
        v
cross-domain signoff evidence
        |
        v
tapeout readiness decision

Metric in focus: decode conflicts, remap churn, software breakage from map changes

Ownership map

OWNERSHIP MAP — Global Address Map Planning

artifact             owner
-----------------    -----------------
primary owner     SoC architect
co-owner          firmware architect
review owner      security owner

No top-level issue should remain ownerless beyond one review cycle.

SoC deep dive

Address, interrupt, and IO contracts are where hardware/software alignment is won or lost.

Concept diagram

HW/SW CONTRACT
address map + interrupt model + io defaults -> firmware behavior

Metric graph

BOOT REGRESSION SOURCES
map churn █████
reset defaults ████
driver mismatch ███

Reports and artifacts

• address decode audit

• interrupt latency report

• IO bring-up checklist

• boot contract review

Mini case study

A map alias issue caused sporadic peripheral misconfiguration despite clean block-level tests.

Debug branches

• Freeze address map baseline

• Audit reset defaults

• Validate firmware assumptions

Senior review question

Ask: what baseline, owner, and artifact prove this topic is truly closed?

Key takeaways

• State baseline manifest and owner with every closure metric.

• Run cross-domain regression after every top-level fix.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing results across different manifests.

• Unowned issues slipping through review cycles.

• Waiving risks without expiry and validation plan.

Principal SoC review addendum

A stable address map aligns hardware decode, virtualization windows, security regions, and firmware assumptions across the product lifecycle.

Metric: decode conflicts, remap churn, software breakage from map changes