Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMar2019

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 125650

Article: 125650
Subject: Weird behavior : Altera DE2, C++, For loops, SRAM
From: sendthis@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:25 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
So I've implemented a NIOS II board using the SOPC builder. I ran out
of on-chip memory so I went off-chip to the DE2's SRAM. Suddenly my
programs stopped working and the for loops has an unusual behavior.

It'll go outside of the for loop..

for instance:
-----------------
//assume variables defined

For (i = 0; i < 3999999; i++)
{
IOWR_8DIRECT(memory_base, i, 0xff); //Writes all 1's to SDRAM
}

printf("Finished...\n");

... more code...

------------------

What ends up happening is that the loop will run with the
printf("Finished...") statement and repeat for the duration of the
loop.

Output:
Finished...
Finished...
Finished...
.
.
You get the idea... I didn't let it loop 4 million times you see what
happened.


This ONLY happens when I use the SRAM. If I use the SDRAM or the on-
chip memory it works fine.

Any one run into this problem?

Thanks,
el


Article: 125651
Subject: Re: IDE to Flash memory
From: Antti <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:42:37 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 31 Okt., 07:57, Franck <franck.jull...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I have seen this product but this is not flexible enough for me. This
> king of chip is too specific, that why I wanted to do this with a
> fpga. I don't know exactly how flash memory works so I'm not able to
> know which throughput I could reach with an IDE interface and a flash
> memory controller in a fpga....
>
> I thought someone else could have done this before, then I would gain
> some time...
>
> Anyway, I'll have to shearch by myself :)

you are asking for "commercial grade" IP core.
I have done evalution/search for similar case, the closest you get
are partial IP solutions for around 20.000 USD or so for the ATAPI
device IP core.

I bet you will find it not free what you are looking for

Antti










Article: 125652
Subject: Is it possible to debug a vhdl design over jtag?
From: Pablo <pbantunez@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:19:49 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

  I would like to debug a vhdl design over Jtag. Is it possible?. As
XMD for EDK but for vhdl code.

My best regards
Pablo


Article: 125653
Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug a vhdl design over jtag?
From: Antti <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:23:03 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 31 Okt., 12:19, Pablo <pbantu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   I would like to debug a vhdl design over Jtag. Is it possible?. As
> XMD for EDK but for vhdl code.
>
> My best regards
> Pablo

yes


Article: 125654
Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug a vhdl design over jtag?
From: "comp.arch.fpga" <ksulimma@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:27:54 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 31 Okt., 12:19, Pablo <pbantu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   I would like to debug a vhdl design over Jtag. Is it possible?. As
> XMD for EDK but for vhdl code.
>
> My best regards
> Pablo

check out "ChipScope Pro"


Article: 125655
Subject: ERROR:Simulator:222 - Generated C++ compilation was unsuccessful
From: ogrenci <ogrencister@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:27:00 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,
I want to make a simulation. However, I get an
error like below. I dont know how to solve this
problem.

does anybody have an idea about this
problem?

THE ERROR:


Running Fuse ...
Compiling vhdl file "C:/work/prj/main.vhd" in Library work.
Entity <main> compiled.
Entity <main> (Architecture <behavioral>) compiled.
Compiling vhdl file "C:/work/prj/tb1.vhw" in Library work.
Entity <tb1> compiled.
Entity <tb1> (Architecture <testbench_arch>) compiled.
Parsing "tb1_beh.prj": 0.19
Codegen   work/main: 0.02
ERROR:Simulator:222 - Generated C++ compilation was unsuccessful
Codegen   work/main/Behavioral: 0.05
Codegen   work/tb1: 0.00
ERROR:Simulator:222 - Generated C++ compilation was unsuccessful
Codegen   work/tb1/testbench_arch: 0.05


Article: 125656
Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug a vhdl design over jtag?
From: morphiend <morphiend@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:29:13 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Oct 31, 7:27 am, "comp.arch.fpga" <ksuli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Okt., 12:19, Pablo <pbantu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> >   I would like to debug a vhdl design over Jtag. Is it possible?. As
> > XMD for EDK but for vhdl code.
>
> > My best regards
> > Pablo
>
> check out "ChipScope Pro"

ChipScope is an awesome way to get "eyes" into the operation of the
internals of your circuitry. It does not provide the capability to
"debug" like software where you can tweak registers, memory, PC, etc
on the fly. It has been a savior many times when trying to figure out
why something that should have happened, but didn't.

Tricks of the trade with using CS include:
1) Make sure you have MORE than what you want brought out in the
triggers. Rebuilding larger systems can take a long time.
2) Make sure you have MORE than what you initially think you need in
the data collection. Same reason as above.
3) Basic w/ Edges is a god-send and should be the default setting for
data.
4) There is a hard limit on the amount of data/trigger signal you can
have per ILA (256, maybe 512). If you need more, you can more ILA's,
but its best to try to limit the signals you need to fit into an ILA.
If what you need to see won't fit, then maybe you need to re-think
exactly what you need.
5) ChipScope can be used together w/ XMD. This can allow you the
ability to inject certain conditions without having to run large
software programs to probe hardware.


Article: 125657
Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug a vhdl design over jtag?
From: Andy <jonesandy@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:30:55 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Oct 31, 7:29 am, morphiend <morphi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 7:27 am, "comp.arch.fpga" <ksuli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 31 Okt., 12:19, Pablo <pbantu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > >   I would like to debug a vhdl design over Jtag. Is it possible?. As
> > > XMD for EDK but for vhdl code.
>
> > > My best regards
> > > Pablo
>
> > check out "ChipScope Pro"
>
> ChipScope is an awesome way to get "eyes" into the operation of the
> internals of your circuitry. It does not provide the capability to
> "debug" like software where you can tweak registers, memory, PC, etc
> on the fly. It has been a savior many times when trying to figure out
> why something that should have happened, but didn't.
>
> Tricks of the trade with using CS include:
> 1) Make sure you have MORE than what you want brought out in the
> triggers. Rebuilding larger systems can take a long time.
> 2) Make sure you have MORE than what you initially think you need in
> the data collection. Same reason as above.
> 3) Basic w/ Edges is a god-send and should be the default setting for
> data.
> 4) There is a hard limit on the amount of data/trigger signal you can
> have per ILA (256, maybe 512). If you need more, you can more ILA's,
> but its best to try to limit the signals you need to fit into an ILA.
> If what you need to see won't fit, then maybe you need to re-think
> exactly what you need.
> 5) ChipScope can be used together w/ XMD. This can allow you the
> ability to inject certain conditions without having to run large
> software programs to probe hardware.

Synplicty's Verify product merges the capabilities of Xilinx chipscope
with a "source level debugger" operating with your vhdl/verilog.
"source level debugger" is a generous title, but it is the closest to
the real thing available.

Andy


Article: 125658
Subject: Re: Is it possible to check how cache memories are mapped to FPGA block rams?
From: "Mike Lewis" <someone@micrsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:35:34 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Wei,

I have worked with an ARM926 soft core. This deliverable provided an 
implementation guide as well as a simulation environment to verify the RAM 
integration. I would have thought the ARM11 would have a similar thing.

Whether it is FPGA or ASIC the RAM integration follows the same process. The 
RTL simulation environment will ensure you have correctly connected the 
memories.

Mike 



Article: 125659
Subject: Re: HELP, how to time constraint part of a design?
From: llombard@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:24:38 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you Brian for your reply. Unfortunately, I'm far from being a
specialist and I'm not sure I quite understood everything

> If it's meeting timings (as you say it is) and there is no advantage to
> you in running it faster (say, 100MHz) you don't need to do anything.

Indeed, for now it's ok, but I had to cut the formula into pieces with
a counter to be able to meet timing requirement. The price to pay is
that the formula is no more computed into 1 clock cycle but into 2 or
more cycles with an added counter.

The reason why I forst wondered about this problem is because at first
the loop worked sometimes and would have weird behaviour when changing
almost insignificant parts of the code. For example, some integer
comparisions were wrong. I then realized that even if the ISE "place
and rout report" said that the 50MHz timing constraint "TS_clk =
PERIOD TIMEGRP "clk" 20 ns HIGH 50%" was always met, the ISE
"Synthesis report" would say "maximum frequecy: 20MHz" but without
issuing any error (do they check different things?). Then I cut the
formula into pieces until I had both report agreeing on the maximum
frequency and the problem was solved, with added complexity.

> If you want to run it faster, add more pipeline registers around the
> multiplier and re-simulate to verify that your control loop stability is
> satisfactory. (Adding delays around a feedback loop makes me nervous :-)

What does "add more pipeline registers" mean? does it mean cutting
even more into pieces? Then I still have the "number of cycles price"
to pay?

> The multipliers in newer technologies (V4 and V5) seem to have a huge
> appetite for pipeline registers, and there are sometimes large delays
> between these registers and the CLB fabric, so it is sometimes worth
> adding a pipe stage devoted to getting signals from CLB registers into
> multiplier registers (and back out) if you need higher performance.
>
> If you follow the HDL ADVISOR advice, 100MHz (10ns) should be relatively
> easy even in Spartan-3e; but if you don't need that speed, what you have
> done is fine.

I don't for now but might want it to run faster in another setup.

By the way, the limit with this setup is linked to the serial
interface of the ADC/DAC, preventing me from getting above frequecies
around 20kHz. Do you know another cheap kit with several ADC/DAC with
"parralel access" or do I have to take a standard dev. kit and add a
custom AD/DA daughter card

Thanks in advance for your reply!
laurent


Article: 125660
Subject: Re: FFT for an arbitrary number of points (not power of 2)
From: Patrick Dubois <prdubois@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:38:38 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you for the last three responses from John, Andrew and Ray (and
everyone else who responded). You pretty much convinced me of the need
to have different size kernels to be able to handle a larger range of
points possibility. Unfortunately that means that I won't be able to
use Xilinx Coregen FFT. I guess we'll stick with zero-padding for the
time being but at least now I know my options if I really wanna go
that route.

I'm still intriged by the chirp z-transform (Bluestein's FFT
algorithm) however, because it seems to use power of 2 FFTs (at least
the Matlab implementation of czt does). I don't quite yet grasp the
algorithm though. I see that it is discussed in chapter 9.5 of the
book Ray Andraka suggested. I'll try to get a copy.

Thanks,
Patrick



Article: 125661
Subject: Re: FPGA vs ASIC
From: mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:44:54 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:10:39 -0700, Thomas Stanka
<usenet_nospam_valid@stanka-web.de> wrote:

>On 31 Okt., 05:15, mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:50:44 -0700, Thomas Stanka
>>
>>
>>
>> <usenet_nospam_va...@stanka-web.de> wrote:
>> >On 27 Okt., 17:08, mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:39:05 -0700, Thomas Stanka
>>
>> >> <usenet_nospam_va...@stanka-web.de> wrote:
>> >> >when it comed to adders because nearly every actual fpga provides fast
>> >> >carry logic which I haven't seen in ASIC so far.
>>
>> >> Almost all ASIC libraires I've used has a full adder in it which is
>> >> basically what a fast carry logic is in an FPGA where they have
>> >> hardwired full adders which don't need to be made from luts and don't
>> >> need the programmable interconnect. I'ts very easy to accomplish the
>> >> same in an ASIC.
>>
>> >Is it only a fulladder gate, or a full adder (for given bitsize)?
>> >The adders I've seen in ASIC libs provide no fast carry compared to
>> >normal cell delay. But that has nothing to say, as I'm not that
>> >experienced in comparing ASIC technologies.
>>
>> Xilinx fast carry logic path for v5 is described in this documenthttp://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/userguides/ug190.pdfpage 193. As you
>> can see it is not a multi-bit carry lookahead or anything similarly
>> complicated. It's a hardwired implementation of a ripple carry logic
>> which can be duplicated using standard cell full adders relatively
>> easily.
>
>
>Thankyou, I have no need to learn the details of the virtex5 carry
>logic at the moment.
Then I'm not sure what we're discussing here but I'll try one more
time.

>The point I'm on is that in the fpga technologies I know the carry
>chain path has a much faster gate delay compared to the normal gate
>delay.

That's because "normal gate delay" is so slow because of the
programmable gates and routing. 
Normally when one is designing custom adders, a carry ripple adder is
the slowest and smallest adder against which other more sophisticated
carry select, carry skip, carry lookahead etc. are judged. One can buy
more speed by paying with area and/or power by using one of these
architectures.
The fact that in an FPGA a dedicated carry ripple adder is the fastest
just shows the inefficiency of the fabric. But one gets
programmability with that inefficiency so the compromise usually works
out.
Actually what the FPGAs has should be named "dedicated/hard-wired
carry ripple logic & routing" as there is not much "fast" about it.
What would've been fast is if they added some carry look ahead logic. 

Article: 125662
Subject: xilinx bmm file problem
From: taco <tralalal@joepie.nl>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:58:49 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hello,
Has anybody experience with xilinx bitfile merging using a bmm file?
I've a small processor core running in a spartan 3A using romcode which I
install into a generated vhdl file.
like
entity ROM is
        port(
                Clk : in std_logic;
                A : in std_logic_vector(12 downto 0);
                D : out std_logic_vector(7 downto 0)
        );
end ROM;

architecture rtl of ROM is
        signal A_r : std_logic_vector(12 downto 0);
        type rom_type is array(0 to  1951) of std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
        signal ROM:rom_type := (
X"02",
X"00",
X"08",
etc. 
This works fine (programming running), but I would like to replace this with
a generic rom file without any initialization or just zero's and merge the
romhexfile into the bitfile using a bmm. For the situation above the
following bmm file doesn't give any errors:
ADDRESS_MAP TV51MAP PPC405 0
ADDRESS_BLOCK CPU_INST_ROM RAMB16 [0X0000:0X7ff]
        BUS_BLOCK
        cpu_inst/rom/Mrom_D1 [15:0];
        END_BUS_BLOCK;
END_ADDRESS_BLOCK;
END_ADDRESS_MAP;
It's possible to force a location etc. and a _bd.bmm is generated like the
documentation describes. 
I call ngdbuild with:
if ngdbuild -bm cpu_rom.bmm -intstyle ise -dd _ngo -uc $(CONSTRAINTFILE) -p
$(DEVICE) $(DESIGN).ngc $(DESIGN).ngd
and bitgen with
bitgen -bd src/test.mem -w -g UnusedPin:PullNone $< $@ $(DESIGN).pcf
(so only the -bm and -bd arguments are added into the Makefile.)
The mem file looks like:
@00 02
@01 00
@02 08
@03 12
@04 00
@05 95
@06 80
The new bitfile is generated, but no luck. Program not running. 
Anybody an idea how to tackle this?
Taco walstra



Article: 125663
Subject: Capability of a FPGA device.
From: "MMJ" <Spam@aldrig.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:03:02 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

For a future project we are considering the use of FPGA technology and IP 
cores instead of using an ASSP solution.
As a software guy...only doing some initial invistigations I have absolutely 
no specific idea of how much functionality you can expect to implement into 
a FPGA device in the pricerange of maximum 100$.

Some of the basic functionality we need is:

- Control CPU (e.g. ARM9).
- Memory Interface for control CPU and video decoder.
- x number of I/O interfaces (High speed parrallel).
- n Video decoders (MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264)
- Interal switch matrix of some sort.

How much of this should we (hypothetical speaking) be able to implement in a 
single device in the mentioned pricerange? Offcourse I don't expect an exact 
answer to this question since everything depends on how each function is 
realized. But a "This might be possible" or "Not in this world" answer with 
some pointers would be very nice.  Hope this is not to stupid a question.

Best Regards

--
MMJ 



Article: 125664
Subject: Re: Updating my bookshelf
From: Gabor <gabor@alacron.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:21:06 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Oct 31, 12:52 am, Mike Treseler <mike_trese...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Nicolas Matringe wrote:
> > What are the books you wouldn't work without ?
>
> I could work without books,
> but not without a simulator.
>
>     -- Mike Treseler


Probably not without the Internet, either.  These days most
information that
has found its way to print is too old to use.  However it's still
handy to
have a few reference books around like the Doulos Golden reference
guide to
Verilog.  Really your bookshelf reflects the type of designs you're
most
likely to do.  My "wouldn't work without" books may be of no value to
someone else.


Article: 125665
Subject: Re: Capability of a FPGA device.
From: Antti <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:35 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 31 Okt., 16:03, "MMJ" <S...@aldrig.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a future project we are considering the use of FPGA technology and IP
> cores instead of using an ASSP solution.
> As a software guy...only doing some initial invistigations I have absolutely
> no specific idea of how much functionality you can expect to implement into
> a FPGA device in the pricerange of maximum 100$.
>
> Some of the basic functionality we need is:
>
> - Control CPU (e.g. ARM9).
> - Memory Interface for control CPU and video decoder.
> - x number of I/O interfaces (High speed parrallel).
> - n Video decoders (MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264)
> - Interal switch matrix of some sort.
>
> How much of this should we (hypothetical speaking) be able to implement in a
> single device in the mentioned pricerange? Offcourse I don't expect an exact
> answer to this question since everything depends on how each function is
> realized. But a "This might be possible" or "Not in this world" answer with
> some pointers would be very nice.  Hope this is not to stupid a question.
>
> Best Regards
>
> --
> MMJ

attempt to use ARM9 soft ip in FPGA below 100$ is bad idea, depending
on your yearly volume maybe it could be possible to fit the CPU itself
but not much more, and performance would be very bad anyway.

if you dream adding ARM9 + something else + n>0 video decoders into
sub 100$ FPGA hm you need wait a few years... or some more years for
35nm FPGA's

so you need really re-thing what parts of the system you want into the
FPGA and what not

Antti






Article: 125666
Subject: Re: Ping Jim: The PFD is dead!
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:33:40 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:05:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:12:11 -0700, "Mike" <mike@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Finally, proof positive! The PFD fails to detect phase! I'm sure you will be 
>>happy to know this important information.
>>
>>http://rfdesign.com/vlf_to_uhf/time_and_frequency/arrival-time-detection-pll-jitter-0207/index.html
>>
>>To begin, the author does acknowledge that the PFD detects frequency (at 
>>least you didn't get everything wrong):
>>
>>"When the frequency difference is small, one of the currrent sources will be 
>>turned on more often than the other. Therefore, the PFD does function as a 
>>frequency detector."
>>
>>So far, so good. At least you didn't mess everything up. But then, he 
>>delivers the shocker! The PFD does NOT actually detect phase! It's true!
>>
>>"To test whether the PFD is a true phase detector, a fixed-frequency signal 
>>can be supplied simultaneously to Fvco and to a variable-delay circuit whose 
>>output feeds Fref. This will produce a variable phase delay. With the output 
>>of the PFD connected to the LPF as before, the measured result shows that 
>>the PFD is not a true linear phase detector, because the output of the LPF 
>>can only stay at either the saturated high or low state, depending upon 
>>which signal has a phase lead over the other."
>>
>>As if that's not devastating enough, he delivers his final conclusion about 
>>the PFD:
>>
>>"The PFD is thus seen to be an arrival-time detector, instead of a 
>>phase-frequency detector, because it provides a steady-state output that 
>>provides both polarity and magnitude of the measured time difference."
>>
>>Wow! Can you believe it? I know I can.
>>
>>I've been using PFDs for many years, and thought I knew something about 
>>them, but the author of this article has far more experience than I do, and 
>>has even started a company to commercialize his discovery. He simply can't 
>>be argued with!
>>
>>I'm sorry Jim, but after umpteen years, the jig is up. Forget the design 
>>wins, and all the successful implementations. It didn't really work after 
>>all.
>>
>>Better luck next time.
>>
>>-- Mike --
>>
>Sno-o-o-ort!
>
>Just goes to show you to what crap the USPTO will award a patent.
>
>I'll read it carefully upon return from hospital.
>
>                                        ...Jim Thompson


I "invented" this last week. FPGAs aren't very good at implementing
the classic charge pump.

http://s2.supload.com/free/PFD.jpg/view/

The outputs here are just hard (not tri-state) logic outputs, driven
directly by the up/down flipflops in the pfd circuit. It's nicely
symmetric.

John





Article: 125667
Subject: Re: Updating my bookshelf
From: "RCIngham" <robert.ingham@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:42:58 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>Hello all
>I am looking for references of books about digital design (ASIC &
>FPGA, high speed, processor, signal processing ... )
>What are the books you wouldn't work without ?
>Thanks in advance
>Nicolas
>
>
If you are going to write RTL in VHDL, I recommend Peter Ashenden's "The
Designer's Guide to VHDL", 2nd editiion, ISBN 1-55860-674-2.



Article: 125668
Subject: Spartan-3E display developpement kit
From: "bhb" <bhb22l@yahoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:46:21 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello,

I 'm trying to use the Spartan-3E display developpement kit.

I can program the FPGA with JTAG ( file.bit in direct), and the PROM (XCF
08P) with JTAG (file.mcs).

But after an On/OFF, the FPGA is not programmed (no programmation between
PROM -> SPARTAN).

Could you help me to have the good config switch (M2,M1,M0 etc...) on the
board,
and the config of IMPACT software (master or slave, internal or external
clock, etc...).

I 'm using ISE 9.1.03i for IMPACT.

Thanks in advance.
Regards,

Bhb.



Article: 125669
Subject: Re: xilinx bmm file problem
From: Antti <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:56:27 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
eh the bmm approuch works.
after some months-years ;)

is your memory 8 or 16 bits?
if 8 then make the bram block 8 not 16 as in your bmm

connect chipscope to the ram add and data and let it run and look

Antti



On 31 Okt., 15:58, taco <trala...@joepie.nl> wrote:
> hello,
> Has anybody experience with xilinx bitfile merging using a bmm file?
> I've a small processor core running in a spartan 3A using romcode which I
> install into a generated vhdl file.
> like
> entity ROM is
>         port(
>                 Clk : in std_logic;
>                 A : in std_logic_vector(12 downto 0);
>                 D : out std_logic_vector(7 downto 0)
>         );
> end ROM;
>
> architecture rtl of ROM is
>         signal A_r : std_logic_vector(12 downto 0);
>         type rom_type is array(0 to  1951) of std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
>         signal ROM:rom_type := (
> X"02",
> X"00",
> X"08",
> etc.
> This works fine (programming running), but I would like to replace this with
> a generic rom file without any initialization or just zero's and merge the
> romhexfile into the bitfile using a bmm. For the situation above the
> following bmm file doesn't give any errors:
> ADDRESS_MAP TV51MAP PPC405 0
> ADDRESS_BLOCK CPU_INST_ROM RAMB16 [0X0000:0X7ff]
>         BUS_BLOCK
>         cpu_inst/rom/Mrom_D1 [15:0];
>         END_BUS_BLOCK;
> END_ADDRESS_BLOCK;
> END_ADDRESS_MAP;
> It's possible to force a location etc. and a _bd.bmm is generated like the
> documentation describes.
> I call ngdbuild with:
> if ngdbuild -bm cpu_rom.bmm -intstyle ise -dd _ngo -uc $(CONSTRAINTFILE) -p
> $(DEVICE) $(DESIGN).ngc $(DESIGN).ngd
> and bitgen with
> bitgen -bd src/test.mem -w -g UnusedPin:PullNone $< $@ $(DESIGN).pcf
> (so only the -bm and -bd arguments are added into the Makefile.)
> The mem file looks like:
> @00 02
> @01 00
> @02 08
> @03 12
> @04 00
> @05 95
> @06 80
> The new bitfile is generated, but no luck. Program not running.
> Anybody an idea how to tackle this?
> Taco walstra



Article: 125670
Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug a vhdl design over jtag?
From: "MM" <mbmsv@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:05:55 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Pablo" <pbantunez@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1193829589.942040.77610@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
>  I would like to debug a vhdl design over Jtag. Is it possible?. As
> XMD for EDK but for vhdl code.
>

For the purpose of this discussion VHDL is a language describing hardware. 
Every change in code requires new hardware to be synthesized. For this 
simple reason software style debugging is not really possible with real 
hardware. However, you can debug all you want (before going to hardware) 
with VHDL simulators such as, for example, Modelsim, or Active HDL.


/Mikhail 



Article: 125671
Subject: Re: Ping Jim: The PFD is dead!
From: ray@desinformation.de
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:38:41 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> I "invented" this last week. FPGAs aren't very good at implementing
> the classic charge pump.
>
> http://s2.supload.com/free/PFD.jpg/view/
>
> The outputs here are just hard (not tri-state) logic outputs, driven
> directly by the up/down flipflops in the pfd circuit. It's nicely
> symmetric.
>
> John- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

But the Inventor mentioned the additional jitter due to uncorrelated
noise of the 2 PFD outputs and their summation in your example, and
the evil glitches due to unmatched symmetry and parasitic coupling of
the digital to the analog !
This must be worth a patent.

Having read

http://www.keystonesemiconductor.com/press_releases.html

i now fear the evil glitch and deadtime jitter to corrupt my computer
before global warming blasts icebergs and blazes glaciers.


Article: 125672
Subject: Re: Capability of a FPGA device.
From: "John_H" <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:12:34 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"MMJ" <Spam@aldrig.com> wrote in message 
news:472899a3$0$2112$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Hi,
>
> For a future project we are considering the use of FPGA technology and IP 
> cores instead of using an ASSP solution.
> As a software guy...only doing some initial invistigations I have 
> absolutely no specific idea of how much functionality you can expect to 
> implement into a FPGA device in the pricerange of maximum 100$.
>
> Some of the basic functionality we need is:
>
> - Control CPU (e.g. ARM9).
> - Memory Interface for control CPU and video decoder.
> - x number of I/O interfaces (High speed parrallel).
> - n Video decoders (MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264)
> - Interal switch matrix of some sort.
>
> How much of this should we (hypothetical speaking) be able to implement in 
> a single device in the mentioned pricerange? Offcourse I don't expect an 
> exact answer to this question since everything depends on how each 
> function is realized. But a "This might be possible" or "Not in this 
> world" answer with some pointers would be very nice.  Hope this is not to 
> stupid a question.
>
> Best Regards
>
> --
> MMJ

You can go into the families that have the PPC 405 style core embedded as a 
hard core.  I typically work in the lower cost families that don't include 
the PPC core (designed for cost, not for sheer performance) and I've never 
dreamed of using something more than $40 in production.  Your cost will 
depend greatly on volume.  DDR2 memory interfaces are available and are 
implemented as separate logic, not built-in, but cores are available. 
Please check the FPGA vendor website for supported speed.  If you want to go 
the PPC hard core route, look at www.xilinx.com for the memory interfaces 
they have characterized.  If you just need general 32-bit soft cores with 
good tool support, the mico-32 at www.latticesemi.com can get you into the 
ECP2M parts with exceedingly good memory to logic ratios or the NIOS-2 from 
www.altera.com can provide a nice controller as well.  Xilinx has the 
MicroBlaze soft core if you want to stay in the lower-cost 
Spartan-3/3A/3E/3DSP series of parts.  The speeds are around 100 MHz in the 
soft cores (from what I understand, not from experience) for these lower 
cost devices.  You can get several hundered total I/O in some devices. 
Video coders are typically a mix of hardware and software depending on your 
performance needs.  If you have to have full-speed H.264 encoding, you'll 
have much more logic dedicated to acceleration.  Again, check the FPGA 
vendor sites for cores available from 3rd party IP developers that support 
video decoding for ideas on size and performance offerings already out 
there.  The logic and routing is almost infinitely variable from design to 
design.  If you want to dynamically swich signals, it's a simple matter of 
using multiplexers that you design in.

If you're looking instead for plug&play style designs, FPGAs might not be 
for you.  Check out the FPOA from www.mathstar.com (a device I haven't 
considered for my own uses) to understand what their ALU/MAC/RegisterFile 
arrays can do for applications that may be closer to your needs.  FPOAs are 
not necessarily good for general logic, but if your goal is to have 
massively parallel video decoders, this could far outstrip an FPGA.

Feel free to follow up with more specific questions after looking over the 
sites.

- John_H 



Article: 125673
Subject: Re: FPGA vs ASIC
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:26:20 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
mk wrote:

> Actually what the FPGAs has should be named "dedicated/hard-wired
> carry ripple logic & routing" as there is not much "fast" about it.
> What would've been fast is if they added some carry look ahead logic. 

Within a CLB, there certainly is carry look-ahead.  It is abstracted out 
in the user's guides as an implementation detail that is not visible to 
the user.  Be assured however, that there is a carry look-ahead going on 
  in the physical hardware.

Article: 125674
Subject: Re: Ping Jim: The PFD is dead!
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:32:11 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:38:41 -0700, ray@desinformation.de wrote:

>> I "invented" this last week. FPGAs aren't very good at implementing
>> the classic charge pump.
>>
>> http://s2.supload.com/free/PFD.jpg/view/
>>
>> The outputs here are just hard (not tri-state) logic outputs, driven
>> directly by the up/down flipflops in the pfd circuit. It's nicely
>> symmetric.
>>
>> John- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>>
>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>
>But the Inventor mentioned the additional jitter due to uncorrelated
>noise of the 2 PFD outputs and their summation in your example, and
>the evil glitches due to unmatched symmetry and parasitic coupling of
>the digital to the analog !
>This must be worth a patent.
>
>Having read
>
>http://www.keystonesemiconductor.com/press_releases.html
>
>i now fear the evil glitch and deadtime jitter to corrupt my computer
>before global warming blasts icebergs and blazes glaciers.

Oh, the guy is clearly a lunatic, and an amateur lunatic to boot. His
writing is hilarious.

But the dual-diode thing solves a couple of problems using an FPGA as
a phase-frequency detector.

John




Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMar2019

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search