Passing parameters to Verilog modules

Question

I am in the process of writing some Verilog modules for an FPGA design. I looked around the internet to find out how I best parametrize my modules. I see two different methods occurring often. I included an example hereunder of the two different methodologies. Which of these methods is the best way to parametrize modules? What is the difference? Is it vendor-dependent (Altera vs Xilinx)?

The first method: Module definition:

module busSlave #(parameter DATA_WIDTH = 1) (
  input [DATA_WIDTH-1:0] bus_data,
  input                  bus_wr,
  ...
);
endmodule

Module instantiation:

module top;

  //DATA_WIDTH is 32 in this instance
  busSlave #(.DATA_WIDTH(32)) slave32(
    .bus_data(data_0),
    .bus_wr(wr_0),
    ...
    );

  //DATA_WIDTH is 64 in this instance
  busSlave #(.DATA_WIDTH(64)) slave64(
    .bus_data(data_1),
    .bus_wr(wr_1),
    ...
    );
endmodule

The second method: Module definition:

module busSlave(
  parameter DATA_WIDTH = 1;
  input [DATA_WIDTH-1:0] bus_data,
  input                  bus_wr,
  ...
);
endmodule

Module instantiation:

module top;

  //DATA_WIDTH is 32 in this instance
  busSlave slave32(
    .bus_data(data_0),
    .bus_wr(wr_0),
    ...
    );
  defparam slave32.DATA_WIDTH = 32;

  //DATA_WIDTH is 64 in this instance
  busSlave slave64(
    .bus_data(data_1),
    .bus_wr(wr_1),
    ...
    );
  defparam slave64.DATA_WIDTH = 64;
endmodule

Nimbostratus

Answer 1

The defparam statement is scheduled for deprecation. The IEEE Std 1800-2012, Annex C (Deprecation), section "C.4.1 Defparam statements" states:

users are strongly encouraged to migrate their code to use one of the alternate methods of parameter redefinition.

Many features of Verilog are vendor-dependent.

Ameeameer