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
2017JanFebMarApr2017

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 70225

Article: 70225
Subject: Re: Digital Clock Manager (DCM) Question
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:01:46 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
All,

The 1.5 is important, but so is the origianl input frequency.

There is a jitter calculator used to calculate the jitter for any M, D 
and input frequency.

For M=3, D=2, and F=100 MHz, the jitter (worst case noisy system)is 630 
ps peak to peak (9.5% of a UI) for V2 Pro DCM.

Thus your timing slack for this clock domain has to be comfortably 
better than 1/2 of 630 ps (to allow for the shortest possible period).

Austin

Symon wrote:
> I agree to 100ppm is irrelevant. But according to
> http://www.xilinx.com/applications/web_ds_v2/jitter_calc.htm the factor does
> matter.
> I think you have to use the CLKFX output to multiply by 1.5, and the factor
> is important. Or am I making a mistake, Peter?
> Cheers, Syms.
> "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> news:40C74FC4.1ECD01C4@xilinx.com...
> 
>>The 100 ppm is irrelevant, it describes a constant frequency error.
>>The factor 1.5 is also irrelevant.
>>The output jitter will equal the input jitter plus about 50 ps coming
>>from the trim-tap uncertainty of the DCM.
>>Peter Alfke
> 
> 
> 

Article: 70226
Subject: Re: Digital Clock Manager (DCM) Question
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:30:35 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Austin,
So, it's OK to assume the jitter is centred about the nominal ideal edge
position? I.e. Does the positive peak jitter equal the negative peak jitter?
Thanks, Syms.
"Austin Lesea" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:ca7mpr$mov1@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com...
> Thus your timing slack for this clock domain has to be comfortably
> better than 1/2 of 630 ps (to allow for the shortest possible period).



Article: 70227
Subject: Re: V4 teaser, correction
From: rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:34:40 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Steven K. Knapp" wrote:
> 
> Being an engineer myself, I've never much liked the difference between LUTs
> and logic cells.
> 
> However, the story goes beyond just MUXFs.  The Xilinx LUT delivers a few
> other unique capabilities ...
> 
> * 16x1 distributed RAM, either single-ported or with separate read/write and
> read-only ports
>    -  Roughly equivalent to 16 'D' flip-flops, two 16:1 output select MUXs,
> and 16 4-input decode gates
> 
> * 16-bit serial-in, serial-out shift register with tap select output
>    -  Roughly equivalent to 16 'D' flip-flops, and 16:1 output select MUX
> 
> Add that into the mix, I believe it comes out well ahead of the 12% fudge
> factor.  It is admittedly a fudge factor because not every design (okay,
> except for Ray Andraka ;) will use every LUT as distributed RAM or shift
> registers.

That may well be, but I think most engineers that are using your parts
understand the advantages of the Xilinx CLB design.  How about if you
limit the numbers in your data sheets to just the LUT count and drop
marketing terms like "Logic Cells" which have no meaning in a data sheet
since they are an *interpretation* and will vary according to the
design.  

-- 

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX

Article: 70228
Subject: Re: Digital Clock Manager (DCM) Question
From: Peter Alfke <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:23:04 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I stand corrected, very badly so. Sigh!  
Peter Alfke

Peter Alfke wrote:
> 
> The 100 ppm is irrelevant, it describes a constant frequency error.
> The factor 1.5 is also irrelevant.
> The output jitter will equal the input jitter plus about 50 ps coming
> from the trim-tap uncertainty of the DCM.
> Peter Alfke
> 
> David Joseph Bonnici wrote:
> >
> > Consider you have 100ppm crystal oscillator, 80ps jitter driving a DCM
> > that is configured to output x1.5 the input frequency. What will
> > happen to the jitter? Will it increase or decrease? And by what
> > factor?

Article: 70229
Subject: Re: IR_CAPTURE fail on Virtex2
From: "Clark Pope" <cepope@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:29:37 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Yes, the TDO has to be working as I am able to program and scan the other
devices on the chain.

"Neil Glenn Jacobson" <n.e.i.l.j.a.c.o.b.s.o.n@x.i.l.i.n.x.c.o.m.> wrote in
message news:ca7egf$mou1@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com...
> Do you have an external pull-up on TDO of the 2v2000? You need one.
>
>
> Clark Pope wrote:
> > I am able to program and scan Altera devices on my scan chain but when I
go
> > to load the Virtex2 I get an IR_Capture failure because the LSB on the
> > Virtex is not being set. I am using a serial prom on that chip so I'm
> > worried that it is trying to load at power up and messing up the JTAG in
the
> > chip. Anyone ever seen a problem like this?
> >
> >
> >>>INFO:iMPACT:1206 - Instruction Capture =
> >
> > '0101010101000000010101000101000101010101010000000110101101'
> >
> >>>INFO:iMPACT:1207 - Expected    Capture =
> >
> > '0101010101XXXX01XXXXXXXXXXXXXX010101010101XXXXXX01XXXXXX01'
> >
> > '0101010101XXXX01XXXXXXXXXXXXXX010101010101XXXXXX01XXXXXX01'
> >
> >>I generated the third line by reading the .bsdl
> >>files for what the INSTRUCTION_CAPTURE value should be. So everything
> >>matches except that the XC2V2000 is not setting the LSB to one. It must
be
> >>kept in reset or something...
> >>
> >>attribute INSTRUCTION_CAPTURE of XC2V2000_FG676 :
> >>entity is
> >>-- Bit 5 is 1 when DONE is released (part of startup
> >>sequence)
> >>-- Bit 4 is 1 if house-cleaning is complete
> >>-- Bit 3 is ISC_Enabled
> >>-- Bit 2 is ISC_Done
> >>        "XXXX01";
> >
> >
> >



Article: 70230
Subject: Re: Digital Clock Manager (DCM) Question
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:47:22 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Symon,

Yes, it is.

In addition, its histogram is gaussian in shape (from the CLKFX) output.

Some folks have been really suprised that the jitter histogram is 
gaussian in shape, but does not have the same RMS to peak to peak ratio 
that is commonly assumed from a PLL (14 to 1), and yet it is still 
random....(power spectral density has no peaks).

One can think of the output of the DCM as being multiple input clock 
jitter histograms (which are usually very gaussian from crystal 
oscillators), offset by a tap or two (at random + and -).  Thus the peak 
to peak vs RMS is closer to 4:1 or 6:1.

Austin

Symon wrote:
> Hi Austin,
> So, it's OK to assume the jitter is centred about the nominal ideal edge
> position? I.e. Does the positive peak jitter equal the negative peak jitter?
> Thanks, Syms.
> "Austin Lesea" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> news:ca7mpr$mov1@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com...
> 
>>Thus your timing slack for this clock domain has to be comfortably
>>better than 1/2 of 630 ps (to allow for the shortest possible period).
> 
> 
> 

Article: 70231
Subject: Re: Logiclock TCL flow -- near completion
From: sbrown@altera.com (Stephen Brown)
Date: 9 Jun 2004 14:49:05 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Altera engineering has been working with Spyros on this issue outside
of the news group, but wanted to share the results in case anyone else
is running into similar issues.
 
The main problem was that a module used a different global net in the
top-level then it did in the lower-level.  Spyros solved this problem
by locking down this pin in both the lower and higher level designs. 
Once that was done, the higher level project was forced to use the
same global as the low level, and the routing constraints could be
obeyed.
 
Other tidbits that may be useful: 
 
1. LogicLock regions automatically become floating when imported.  The
   regions can be restored to a locked state using the TCL command 
   "set_logiclock -region $region_name -floating false".
2. Virtual I/O's can be used when a lower-level IO is not meant to be
   an I/O at the top-level.  This can help ensure routing constraints
   are legal.
3. Logiclock_export -routing does nothing unless routing has already
   been back-annotated.  We will put a warning for this in future 
   versions of the Quartus II software. 
 
It was a pleasure to work with Spyros on this issue. 
 
Stephen Brown,
Altera Corp.

lyberis@isd.gr (Spyros Lyberis) wrote in message news:<ebe66d13.0405110647.c7a33a@posting.google.com>...
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm near the completion of the final TCL flow for a Quartus II
> hierarchical design (based on a previous comp.arch.fpga discussion
> with the same subject).
> 
> I ran into a problem while finalizing the TOP script, which is
> supposed to import the locked, back-annotated BOTTOM regions and
> simply connect them on a top level. 
> 
> The BOTTOM blocks, after they are fitted, are back-annotated and
> exported along with their routing information. This is desirable,
> because if the routing was not exported the final top-level 
> performance would not be guaranteed. However, there is a conflict
> with the global clock networks.
> 
> Specifically, when each BOTTOM block is compiled it automatically
> promotes its high fanout nets onto global clocks. This, again, is
> desirable. But if this process is done automatically by Quartus and
> independently for each BOTTOM entity, when the BOTTOM blocks are 
> assembled by the TOP script the routing on the global clock networks 
> makes the fit impossible: Quartus has used the same global 
> resources for different top-level nets.
> 
> Is there any way that I can assign a _specific_ global clock network
> to a design node? Note that while a BOTTOM entity is compiled, the
> source of this global clock is not yet known: in my case, this
> global clock network will be driven by a different BOTTOM entity 
> which is the reset controller (or a PLL with many output clocks). 
> 
> Does Quartus support this? The assignments "global signal" and 
> "auto global clock" simply declare that a signal will be promoted
> to a global clock network, but do not specify _which_ of the
> available global clock networks will be used. Does anybody know
> something on this?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Spyros

Article: 70232
Subject: Re: Digital Clock Manager (DCM) Question
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:54:20 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter,

Your answer is correct for the DLL outputs, CLK0, CLK90, CLK180, CLK270, 
CLK2X, CLK2X_b, and CLKDV.

For example, if they had said "divided by 1.5" you are correct.

But not for CLKFX, and CLKFX_b.

7 out of 9 is not all that bad......

Also the 100ppm doesn't have anything at all to do with it.

I also forgot to add the square root of the sum of the squares (sqr 
((630^2)+(80^2)) ~ 635 ps ) to get the total jitter out (clock + DCM).

Austin

Peter Alfke wrote:

> I stand corrected, very badly so. Sigh!  
> Peter Alfke
> 
> Peter Alfke wrote:
> 
>>The 100 ppm is irrelevant, it describes a constant frequency error.
>>The factor 1.5 is also irrelevant.
>>The output jitter will equal the input jitter plus about 50 ps coming
>>from the trim-tap uncertainty of the DCM.
>>Peter Alfke
>>
>>David Joseph Bonnici wrote:
>>
>>>Consider you have 100ppm crystal oscillator, 80ps jitter driving a DCM
>>>that is configured to output x1.5 the input frequency. What will
>>>happen to the jitter? Will it increase or decrease? And by what
>>>factor?

Article: 70233
Subject: Re: V4 teaser, correction
From: Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:58:50 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
How about a 32 macrocell....x I mean LUT device. With an on board flash 
memory you'd find a market. If Xilinx had it's own packaging house, like
Microchip, such a device might prove to be juicy, so to speak.

Hul

Steven K. Knapp <steve.knappNO#SPAM@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Being an engineer myself, I've never much liked the difference between LUTs
> and logic cells.
> 
> However, the story goes beyond just MUXFs.  The Xilinx LUT delivers a few
> other unique capabilities ...
> 
> * 16x1 distributed RAM, either single-ported or with separate read/write and
> read-only ports
>   -  Roughly equivalent to 16 'D' flip-flops, two 16:1 output select MUXs,
> and 16 4-input decode gates
> 
> * 16-bit serial-in, serial-out shift register with tap select output
>   -  Roughly equivalent to 16 'D' flip-flops, and 16:1 output select MUX
> 
> Add that into the mix, I believe it comes out well ahead of the 12% fudge
> factor.  It is admittedly a fudge factor because not every design (okay,
> except for Ray Andraka ;) will use every LUT as distributed RAM or shift
> registers.
> ---------------------------------
> Steven K. Knapp
> Applications Manager, Xilinx Inc.
> General Products Division
> Spartan-3/II/IIE FPGAs
> http://www.xilinx.com/spartan3
> ---------------------------------
> Spartan-3:  Make it Your ASIC
> 
> "Marc Randolph" <mrand@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:c9mdnbfiOc81YVvdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
>> rickman wrote:
>> > Jan Gray wrote:
>> >
>> >>I wrote "Up to 200 kLUTs", but to be precise, the Xilinx press release
>> >>states "With up to 200,000 logic cells...".
>> >>
>> >>Not the same thing, LUTs and logic cells.  Sorry about that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you talking about the 12% inflation factor, or are logic cells
>> > actually something different than a LUT plus a FF?  Anyone know what a
>> > logic cell is?
>>
>> Xilinx's definition is:
>>
>> "Logic cell = One 4-input Look Up Table (LUT) + Flip Flop + Carry Logic"
>>
>> If I recall, they are not including the MUXFx's that are after the LUTs.
>>   As you correctly surmised, Xilinx feels those are worth an additional
>> 12% (so there are ~12% more logic cells than there are LUTs).
>>
>> Are they right?  The high speed (311 MHz, therefore heavily pipelined)
>> design I'm working on right now uses
>>
>> 457  MUXF's plus
>> 6170 LUTs
>>
>> So they're only off by 50% or so.  A slower design that isn't nearly as
>> well pipelined uses:
>>
>> 2618  MUXF's plus
>> 22832 LUTs
>>
>> Which is noticeably less than 12%, but closer to their marketing number.
>>
>>     Marc
> 
> 

Article: 70234
Subject: LPM Megafunction : LPM_SHIFTREG timing
From: vbishtei@hotmail.com (vadim)
Date: 9 Jun 2004 16:42:09 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am implementing a SERDES transceiver using the 
LPM_SHIFTREG as serializer. In simulations, the 
register loads new parallel word only when
the load signal is active during the time
when clock is '0'. The help states that it should
be active on the +ve clock edge.

I can't find any reasonable documentation about this 
megafunction, so wonder if anyone know what might be the problem ?

(The target is Stratix device. The reason I am not using the Megafunction 
SERDES transceiver is because it can be used only above 300Mbps)

Vadim

Article: 70235
Subject: Re: Good SDRAM Controller
From: johnjakson@yahoo.com (john jakson)
Date: 9 Jun 2004 17:38:25 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
petersommerfeld@hotmail.com (Peter Sommerfeld) wrote in message news:<5c4d983.0406090721.24479ad@posting.google.com>...
> Hi Rick,
> 
> Yes I've taken the route of developing my own. The opencores one
> didn't cut it - 2000 LEs and 64 MHz fmax, which is much too big and
> slow for me (mind you, it lets you change SDRAM timing parameters on
> the fly via registers, but that's a feature I don't need).
> 
> Like you say, after poring over some Micron datasheets and drawing up
> a state machine it didn't seem too difficult. My first compile has
> fmax 135 Mhz without setting a target fmax in Quartus, and 780 LEs
> (could be less with register packing option turned on). I also added
> something I think might be useful, which is piling up refresh events
> so that they are done only at the end of a long bursts, instead of
> interrupting them. Hopefully this will help reach theoretical max
> bandwidth in the case of long bursts within open rows followed by a
> bit of idle time (exactly the model of my video app).
> 
> Now comes the task of testbenching and debugging. I was hoping I
> didn't have to reinvent the wheel, but I think I'll have exactly what
> I want when I'm done.
> 
> -- Pete
> 
> 


Both X & A have loads of appnotes on these controllers and esp they
get into board and signal, timing issue. By the time I read the Micron
and Xilinx and PLD notes, I felt the same way (reading the same thing
over & over), doing your own will get you a direct interface that will
maybe be smaller than the general designs.

regards

johnjakson_usa-com

Article: 70236
Subject: Re: Hardware implementation of the Xilinx configuration CRC generator
From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>
Date: 09 Jun 2004 17:43:36 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Philip Freidin wrote:
> Note that the parallel versions [of CRCs] can not
> be made to work with data streams that are not an integer multiple
> of bits of the width you choose for the parallel version.

Allan Herriman wrote:
> This is not true in general.  There's a number of ways of getting wide
> parallel CRC calculators to work with frames of any length.
> 
> I call these the "ragged start word" and "ragged end word" problems if
> the packet does not start or end on a word boundary.

I had to do this for USB CRC-5 on a processor with an instruction to do
an 8-bit-at-a-time CRC with a polynomial of up to 32 bits (Ubicom
IP3023).  Preloading the CRC register with a suitable value caused the
CRC to be the all-ones initialization value *after* the extra zero bits
at the high end of the data were computed into the CRC.  I wrote a
simple C program to do a brute-force search for the correct values, but
a more clever approach might be possible by running the CRC backward.

Article: 70237
Subject: Re: Quick question
From: "Jason Berringer" <look_at_bottom_of@email.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:56:59 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thanks for the tips, these are the little things you don't find in the
manuals.

Jason

"John_H" <johnhandwork@mail.com> wrote in message
news:HgGxc.3$eB5.231@news-west.eli.net...
> "Jason Berringer" <look_at_bottom_of@email.com> wrote in message
> news:n4txc.32812$sS2.988493@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > My recent task had me interacting with XST and altering the settings to
> > highest effort to achieve the timing constraint that I had. I eventually
> had
> > to use the reentrant route feature to finally make the constraint. I
would
> > imagine that using some floorplanning might have helped me out, but as I
> > have yet to get into the basics of floorplanning yet I felt to try and
> just
> > push the tools more. Since I brought it up, do you use floorplanning
when
> > doing a desing, and if so, where is the best place to start. Is the idea
> to
> > get things as close as possible keeping the routing as short as
possible,
> or
> > just to focus on specific areas that might use faster clocks, and
require
> > short delays?
>
> If you need to resort to placing your logic, I'd suggest you first
consider
> RPMs - relationally placed macros - to deal with critical paths.  If you
> have a 25MHz clock that has one flop that always goves you troubles, the
> paths that drive that flop may be more routing than logic.  A good rule of
> thumb for "decent" routing is 50% routing, 50% logic as reported by the
> timing analyzer.  If you're at 60% logic and you're still having troubles
> meeting timing, look seriously at ways to redo the logic.  If you're at
70%
> routing, RPMs can place critical components within that path closer
together
> without tying them down to an absolute slice.  I'll use explicit LOC
> location constraints on signals that interact with the I/O cells that have
> been LOC'ed for my PCB pinout but for logic-to-logic paths I typically use
> the RLOC relative placement constraints.
>
> As far as using the floorplanner tool, I haven't because of early bugs
when
> the tool was first coming out.  The user constraints file can include
> everything you need; you can often put the constraints in your source code
> if you find that a better place to document your placement constraints.
>
> In general, you will get better results if related logic is confined to a
> specific area of the chip using the AREA_GROUP constraint on a module;
> several wildcard-selected signals can also be kept in a small range to
help
> meet timing on particular paths without resorting to RLOCs.
>
> There are many ways to skin the cat.  Sometimes it's the place & route
> that's giving you troubles.  Sometimes it's the synthesizer that's
throwing
> in 7 levels of logic onto a critical signal that could have been included
in
> the last level of logic.  It's times like that that it's better to recode
to
> coax your synthesizer or seriously look at a new synthesizer that will
know
> better in the first place.
>
> Timing is often the most annoying part of high performance design but the
> results from attention to detail can get you into a lower speed grade
device
> or a higher margin design.
>
>



Article: 70238
Subject: design guidelines, was: comp.arch.fpga: reset strategy
From: "roller" <trash_nospam@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:25:48 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

<pop> escribió en el mensaje news:ee86f56.-1@webx.sUN8CHnE...
>Hi
>
>I have inherited a design containing both asyncrous and syncronous FF. I
started to rewrite the code but started to doubt the strategy. Does >anybody
know which is better. The FPGA is very large.


hi,

i'd also like to know if there are design guidelines about reset as there
are for clocks. Like i know that you shouldnt put any logic on the clocks as
it messes with the clock tree generation, but is there design rules about
reset for ASIC and FPGA?
is it good or bad practice to put something like

process(clk, reset, reset2)
begin
 if reset = '0' or reset2 = '1' then
   reset stuff;
 elsif clk'event and clk = '1' then
   sync stuff;
 end if;
end process;

instead of:

process(clk, reset)
begin
 if reset = '0' then
   reset stuff;
 elsif clk'event and clk = '1' then
    if reset2 = '1' then
       reset stuff;
    else
       sync stuff;
    end if;
 end if;
end process;

because the second approach will use muxes, while the first one will use
only gates in the reset path to the DFFs
i started reading about resets, but i think i still havent read anything
about not putting logic in the reset path



Article: 70239
Subject: Re: Nios II really available ?
From: bgarrett@altera.com (Bob Garrett)
Date: 9 Jun 2004 18:41:17 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
geoffrey brown <geoffrey.DeLeTebrown@acm.orgDeLeTe> wrote in message news:<jjixc.16271$4S5.13174@attbi_s52>...
> Has anybody actually received updates to their Quartus and Nios toolkits
> to support Nios II ?
> 
> Geoffrey

Hi Geoffrey,

The Nios II development kits for Cyclone and Stratix begin shipping
next week (week of June 14). Updates to Nios subscribers ship the
following week. If you have an urgent need to get the update sooner,
please email me.

Best Regards,

Bob

Bob Garrett
Altera 
Product Marketing Manager, Nios

Article: 70240
Subject: Xilinx Co-Founder Bernard 'Bernie' Vonderschmitt Passes Away
From: Phil Hays <Spampostmaster@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:57:10 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Wednesday June 9, 10:04 pm ET 

SAN JOSE, Calif., June 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Xilinx, Inc.
(Nasdaq: XLNX - News) today sadly announced the passing of Bernard
(Bernie) V. Vonderschmitt, Xilinx co-founder, Chairman Emeritus and
former Chairman of the Board. Vonderschmitt died earlier today in his
hometown of Jasper, Indiana.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040609/sfw097_1.html



--
Phil Hays
Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email

Article: 70241
Subject: Re: lancelot VGA daughter board for altera nios dev board
From: Tommy Thorn <TommyAtNumba-Tu.Com--not@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:04:07 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
San San wrote:
>     I wonder who is using lancelot daughter board for altera bios dev board?
> Can we exchange email for discussion?I  have many problem about this. I am
> green to FPGA system design.

Most certainly.  H. Peter Anvin started a mailing list for the Lancelot 
+ Altera Nios Dev boards (see below) that you should join.  Framebuffer 
graphics is pretty easy (mine is about a page).  Sounds is interesting, 
but HPAs Sigma-delta converter is on the Lancelot page.  PS/2 kbd and 
mouse is mostly a software issue, but HPAs ABC80 supports keyboard.

Tommy

Here the call from participation:

Hi all,

I have no idea how big this community is, but I've been trying to set
up a mailing list for people who hack the Altera NIOS kits
(APEX/Cyclone/Stratix) and especially using the Lancelot boards from
www.fpga.nl.

This may sound rather restrictive, but the hope is that there will be
enough of a group that we can trade designs around.

The subscription/archives page is at:

     http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/lancelot

I hope we can get some people together, at least.

	-hpa


Article: 70242
Subject: Re: Nios II really available ?
From: Tommy Thorn <TommyAtNumba-Tu.Com--not@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:05:49 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Bob Garrett wrote:
> The Nios II development kits for Cyclone and Stratix begin shipping
> next week (week of June 14). Updates to Nios subscribers ship the
> following week. If you have an urgent need to get the update sooner,
> please email me.
> 
> Bob Garrett
> Altera 
> Product Marketing Manager, Nios

Any news on when a Stratix-II Dev kit will be available?

Tommy


Article: 70243
Subject: Is Virtex-4 LX succesor for Spatan-3?
From: serebr@mailandnews.com (Valeri Serebrianski)
Date: 10 Jun 2004 01:34:27 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In other words, are there any chances to meet with Spartan-4 (or kind
of that) family in the future?
It looks like Virtex-4 SX is successor for Virtex-II and Virtex-4 FX -
for Virtex-II Pro.

Valeri

Article: 70244
Subject: Stupid Xilinx Rubbish
From: Andrew Greensted <ajg112@ohm.york.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:13:39 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
But seriously, has anyone had any experience (good or bad) programming 
xilinx devices over JTAG with third party devices in the chain.

I'm using impact under linux, from the command line. And impact is 
having real trouble with an Atmel BSDL file.

I've tried programming a chain with just xilinx devices and it works 
fine. As soon as impact has to read a third party BSDL it has a fit and 
stops working.

Here's the error

ERROR:iMPACT:1353 - ACD entry  PROGRAM_PROGRESS_COUNT not found for device
    family ATMEGA128.
EXCEPTION:iMPACT:ConstraintsManager.c:394:1.34.2.1 - Data not found.

I've tried using the Xilinx generic BSDL file and it gives the same error.

INFO:
ISE 6.2 (Services Pack 2)
JTAG chain:  Atmel AVR -> Xilinx Spartan IIE
Impact batch file:

setMode -bs
setCable -port lpt1
#assignFile -p 1 -file "atmega128.bsd"
addDevice -p 1 -part "atmega128.bsd"      # BSD file for AVR
addDevice -p 2 -file "xmemtest.bit"       # Bit File for Spartan
program -p 1
quit

If anyone can throw some light on this problem it would be a _REAL_ help.

Many thanks
Andy

-- 
Andrew Greensted            Department of Electronics
Bio-Inspired Engineering    University of York, UK

Tel: +44(0)1904 432379      Mailto: ajg112@ohm.york.ac.uk
Fax: +44(0)1904 433224      Web: www.bioinspired.com

Article: 70245
Subject: delayed clocks on timesim simulation?
From: malaka@email.it (sebastian)
Date: 10 Jun 2004 02:39:05 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hi,

i just noticed that the clock on the submodules of my top module is
delayed (about 1,3ns) with respect to the clock on the top module. im
new to xilinx FPGA's and ISE so i might be forgetting something??
maybe DCM??, i use only VHDL entry so i havent instantiated any,
should i?
im using xc2v4000 and ISE 5.2i i think
thanks

Article: 70246
Subject: Virtex-4 suggestion: TSMCCCS change
From: Allan Herriman <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:22:25 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

If anyone from Xilinx is listening, would they consider changing
TSMCCCS (hold time of CS_b from CCLK rising in SelectMAP mode) to
-0.5ns or so?  TSMCCCS is currently 0.0ns in V2P and +1.0ns in older
parts.

This change would enable CS_b and CCLK to be tied together on the
board, which simplifies certain applications which involve the FPGA
being configured from a CPU, with CS_b and CCLK both coming from the
same output of a chip select decoder.
CS_b and CCLK aren't close on the package, and 0.5ns would be
sufficient to allow for delays on the PCB between the two pins.
(Perhaps CS_b and CCLK could be moved closer together?  This would
also help signal integrity.)

I recently saw a design using a SpartanIIE (which requires +1.0ns of
hold time) that had an RC network on the board to provide the delay.

Thanks,
Allan.

Article: 70247
Subject: Help For Linux ISE users (DLC5, impact)
From: Andrew Greensted <ajg112@ohm.york.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:43:21 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hopefully this information might save someone else some time.

If you're using ISE6.2 under Linux, and want to use an old programming 
cable, such as the Parallel Cable III (DLC5). you need to compile your 
own Linux drivers.

This Answers Database record has the info:
http://support.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_ans_display.jsp?iLanguageID=1&iCountryID=1&getPagePath=18612

Here's a few pointers.

Make sure that the version of kernel you are running, matches the kernel 
source you have installed. The xilinx makefile uses uname -r to find 
this out.

So do uname -r at a command line, and check that the kernel files in 
/usr/src match this and the files in /lib/modules match too.

If they don't, try doing an update of your system, updating both kernel 
and kernel source (I'm a SuSE user, and in this case use the online 
update). Then REBOOT, this makes sure that the version uname returns 
matches that installed.

Hope this helps
Andy

-- 
Andrew Greensted            Department of Electronics
Bio-Inspired Engineering    University of York, UK

Tel: +44(0)1904 432379      Mailto: ajg112@ohm.york.ac.uk
Fax: +44(0)1904 433224      Web: www.bioinspired.com

Article: 70248
Subject: Re: Not so Stupid Xilinx Rubbish
From: Andrew Greensted <ajg112@ohm.york.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:02:14 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Think I jumped for the newsgroup too soon there. Spot the deliberate 
mistake in the batch file, was trying to program the wrong device.

Sorry

Andrew Greensted wrote:
> But seriously, has anyone had any experience (good or bad) programming 
> xilinx devices over JTAG with third party devices in the chain.
> 
> I'm using impact under linux, from the command line. And impact is 
> having real trouble with an Atmel BSDL file.
> 
> I've tried programming a chain with just xilinx devices and it works 
> fine. As soon as impact has to read a third party BSDL it has a fit and 
> stops working.
> 
> Here's the error
> 
> ERROR:iMPACT:1353 - ACD entry  PROGRAM_PROGRESS_COUNT not found for device
>    family ATMEGA128.
> EXCEPTION:iMPACT:ConstraintsManager.c:394:1.34.2.1 - Data not found.
> 
> I've tried using the Xilinx generic BSDL file and it gives the same error.
> 
> INFO:
> ISE 6.2 (Services Pack 2)
> JTAG chain:  Atmel AVR -> Xilinx Spartan IIE
> Impact batch file:
> 
> setMode -bs
> setCable -port lpt1
> #assignFile -p 1 -file "atmega128.bsd"
> addDevice -p 1 -part "atmega128.bsd"      # BSD file for AVR
> addDevice -p 2 -file "xmemtest.bit"       # Bit File for Spartan
> program -p 1
> quit
> 
> If anyone can throw some light on this problem it would be a _REAL_ help.
> 
> Many thanks
> Andy
> 


-- 
Andrew Greensted            Department of Electronics
Bio-Inspired Engineering    University of York, UK

Tel: +44(0)1904 432379      Mailto: ajg112@ohm.york.ac.uk
Fax: +44(0)1904 433224      Web: www.bioinspired.com

Article: 70249
Subject: can't trap custom ITon NIOS
From: Julien Chevalier <translate_to_french_the_word_knight_and_add_a_j@voila.fr>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:19:27 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello,

I use quartus II 4.00 and SOPC builder 4.00 to build a NIOS system on a 
Stratix II board.
I enabled the support for external interruptions, add a user defined IP 
connected via the provided avalon ahb bridge.
Everything is ok.
Then I try to use the interruption of the bridge, everything on the wire 
is ok until the data_master_irq gets high. The iq number is ok, NIOS 
makes a couple of instructions more and then stops on a strange adress 
(totallly out of the memory map). but it doesn't fetch the ISR code indeed.
The soft uses nr-installusr and is exactly the same as the examples 
provided.

I tried whithout any soft isr and initialisation to see if i get the 
famous message ... but nothing.

How can I be sure of what is done by the compiler, is there any 
restriction that I don't respect ? thanks for all your help and 
experience about those interrupts on NIOS systems.

Sincerely

Julien Chevalier



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
2017JanFebMarApr2017

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