• Title/Summary/Keyword: 엔진 케이스

Search Result 32, Processing Time 0.023 seconds

Design and Verification of PCI 2.2 Target Controller to support Prefetch Request (프리페치 요구를 지원하는 PCI 2.2 타겟 컨트롤러 설계 및 검증)

  • Hyun Eugin;Seong Kwang-Su
    • The KIPS Transactions:PartA
    • /
    • v.12A no.6 s.96
    • /
    • pp.523-530
    • /
    • 2005
  • When a PCI 2.2 bus master requests data using Memory Read command, a target device may hold PCI bus without data to be transferred for long time because a target device needs time to prepare data infernally. Because the usage efficiency of the PCI bus and the data transfer efficiency are decreased due to this situation, the PCI specification recommends to use the Delayed Transaction mechanism to improve the system performance. But the mechanism cann't fully improve performance because a target device doesn't know the exact size of prefetched data. In the previous work, we propose a new method called Prefetch Request when a bus master intends to read data from the target device. In this paper, we design PCI 2.2 controller and local device that support the proposed method. The designed PCI 2.2 controller has simple local interface and it is used to convert the PCI protocol into the local protocol. So the typical users, who don't know the PCI protocol, can easily design the PCI target device using the proposed PCI controller. We propose the basic behavioral verification, hardware design verification, and random test verification to verify the designed hardware. We also build the test bench and define assembler instructions. And we propose random testing environment, which consist of reference model, random generator ,and compare engine, to efficiently verify corner case. This verification environment is excellent to find error which is not detected by general test vector. Also, the simulation under the proposed test environment shows that the proposed method has the higher data transfer efficiency than the Delayed Transaction about $9\%$.

The Meaning of Extraordinary Circumstances under the Regulation No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC 항공여객보상규칙상 특별한 사정의 의미와 판단기준 - 2008년 EU 사법재판소 C-549/07 (Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia) 사건을 중심으로 -)

  • Kim, Young-Ju
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.29 no.2
    • /
    • pp.109-134
    • /
    • 2014
  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation of assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (Regulation No 261/2004) provides extra protection to air passengers in circumstances of denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay. The Regulation intends to provide a high level of protection to air passengers by imposing obligations on air carriers and, at the same time, offering extensive rights to air passengers. If denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay are caused by reasons other than extraordinary circumstances, passengers are entitled for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA(Case C-549/07, [2008] ECR I-11061), the Court did, however, emphasize that this does not mean that it is never possible for technical problems to constitute extraordinary circumstances. It cited specific examples of where: an aircraft manufacturer or competent authority revealed that there was a hidden manufacturing defect on an aircraft which impacts on safety; or damage was caused to an aircraft as a result of an act of sabotage or terrorism. Such events are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. One further point arising out of the court's decision is worth mentioning. It is not just necessary to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test for the airline to be excused from paying compensation. It must also show that the circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It is clear from the language of the Court's decision that this is a tough test to meet: the airline will have to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able - unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time - to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.