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
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

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 96775

Article: 96775
Subject: Re: Async Processors
From: "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 05:06:44 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 15:58:10 -0800, "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You have ignored the real issue.  The issue is not whether the async
> >design can run faster under typical conditions; we all know it can.
> >The issue is how do you make use of that faster speed?  The system
> >design has to work in the worst case conditions, so you can only use
> >the available performance under worse case conditions.
>
> I think there's an issue here with the definition of "worst-case
> conditions". It's not just process/voltage/temperature corners, and
> tool would have to build in a safety margin even if it was. But, when
> you're designing a static timing analyser, you also have to take into
> account random localised on-die variations, and you have to build in
> more safety margin just in case. The end result is that when doing
> synchronous design your tool gives you a conservative estimate, and
> you're stuck with it. If you've got a bad process async design and a
> bad-process sync design sitting next to each other in a hot room with
> low voltages, then the async design should presumably run faster.

"Local" variations can also affect the async processor.  That is why
the delta between the data and control path delays must be larger than
zero.

In the end all these effects must be accounted for whether at the chip
level or at the system level.


> >You can do the same thing with a clocked design.  Measure the
> >temperature and run the clock faster when the temperature is cooler.
>
> You can't do that because, I think, you can't get the tools to give
> you a graph of max frequency vs. temperature for worst-case process
> and voltage. You just get the corner cases. With an async design it
> doesn't matter - it just runs as fast as it can. Brings to mind the
> gingerbread man.

I don't need tools, silicon speed vs. temp and voltage is a well known
quantity.  Besides, there are little or no tools commercially available
for doing async design.  I assumed we were not talking about the
practicality with today's tools, but were extrapolating to a "perfect"
world.

But the real issue is what do you do with the excess speed of the async
design at room temp, etc?  Your design has to meet specific goals over
all variables of temp, voltage and process.

Ok, FPGA identified one application where it might be acceptable to not
meet your timing goals as the box warms up.  Personally I don't believe
that, since even Cisco designs using requirements and I seriously doubt
there is room for uncontrolled variables limiting the performance of
their equipment.  "Yes, our product will operate at XXX packets per
second (as long as you keep it very cool and the voltage regulator is
at the high end of its spec and the chip is at the fast end of its
spec)."  Do they spec equipment that way?

Doesn't this make sense?  What do you do with the extra MIPs you get
*sometimes*.


Article: 96776
Subject: Re: EDK - PLB/OPB Bus questions.
From: me_2003@walla.co.il
Date: 10 Feb 2006 05:14:49 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Zara.
Thanks for the answers...

>4) What does a bus-split / decoupled address terms stand for ?

I don't know. Or at least, I don't recognize the concept under those
terms. But I am not native english speaver, it may just be a limited
knowledeg of the language.

thoses terms are used in the plb bus description regarding the ability
to read/write in the same cycle.
Regards, Mordehay.


Article: 96777
Subject: Altera EPLD
From: "Sky" <dev2-renato_noSpam@usa.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:23:39 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In a project I use the Altera EPM3256ATC144-10.
Now I have the necessity to make some changes to the project, but I don't 
have enough macrocells in the actual devices.
Alteras doesn't have a pin-to-pin compatible EPLD  with the EPM3256ATC144-10 
but with more macrocelles (about +40%).
What of you knows a devices that could resolve my problem?  Unfortunately I 
cannot modify the PCB, but I could replace the Altera EPLD with any other 
CPLD.
Thanks
 



Article: 96778
Subject: Re: Simulation of MicroBlaze embedded system
From: me_2003@walla.co.il
Date: 10 Feb 2006 05:27:17 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hy motty,
the way to know what exactly the processor does during the simulation
is to use the "mb-objdump" tool as Paul mentioned above. the PC
(program counter) register is located under the microblaze0 instance
and is called "PC_EXE[31:0]"  find it and put it to your sim waves.
use the mb-objdump tool to relate the PC values to the actual code (c +
assembler).
another tip is to compile using the -g option (debug) .
I hope it helps, Mordehay.


Article: 96779
Subject: Re: Altera EPLD
From: "Noway2" <no_spam_me2@hotmail.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 05:59:26 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Unfortunately, I can't think of many options for you, exccept to modify
the PCB.  The package you picked, 144pin flat pack suppoprts your
device and the smaller one.  There is one more larger device in the
Max3000 family, but it is also in a larger package.

If you try to switch to an alternate device, another brand, etc you
will also be in a position of having to rework the PCB, so if you are
going to have to do that you might as well stay with a device that you
know.

Your other options, may be optimizations or elimimating some of the
logic in the device and moving it into firmware, etc, but trying to
gain 40% on a fairly large device is not going to be an easy task.


Article: 96780
Subject: Re: ModelSim # Error loading design
From: "mBird" <no@email.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:59:45 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I downloaded the Xilinx ISE 8.1 and ModelSim XE III/Starter 6.0d from Xilinx 
site.  These are the free starter products. In the past I used ISE and 
ModelSim older versions and all worked. I am not sure what I should do to 
make these work.  I just want simple VHDL and to use Schematics. I dont see 
any way to tell ISE not to do dual language? Any advice appretiated!

"Hans" <hans64@ht-lab.com> wrote in message 
news:e6YGf.23547$Fy4.22367@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Looks like you are using both vlog (verilog) and vcom (vhdl) compiler, 
> check that you have a dual language license,
>
> Hans.
> www.ht-lab.com
>
> "mBird" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
> news:11uo5ck9o574tfa@corp.supernews.com...
>>I just downloaded Xilinx ISE 8.1 and ModelSim XE III/Starter 6.0d
>> I make a simple project, using schematic (one and gate) an dthen make a 
>> test bench waveform. I then do Simulate Behaviural Model but no matter 
>> what I do I always get # Error loading design with no other indication of 
>> erors. In the previous version of ISE and ModelSim it all worked so I am 
>> not sure what is error?
>> Any help greatly appretiared!
>>
>> The results of from ModelSim:
>> # Reading C:/Modeltech_xe_starter/tcl/vsim/pref.tcl
>> # do m.fdo
>> # ** Warning: (vlib-34) Library already exists at "work".
>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vlog 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 2005
>> # -- Compiling module FD_MXILINX_matt_sch
>> # -- Compiling module matt_sch
>> #
>> # Top level modules:
>> #  matt_sch
>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vcom 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 2005
>> # -- Loading package standard
>> # -- Loading package textio
>> # -- Loading package std_logic_1164
>> # -- Loading package std_logic_textio
>> # -- Loading package std_logic_arith
>> # -- Loading package std_logic_unsigned
>> # -- Compiling entity m
>> # -- Compiling architecture testbench_arch of m
>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vlog 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 2005
>> # -- Compiling module glbl
>> #
>> # Top level modules:
>> #  glbl
>> # vsim -L cpld_ver -L uni9000_ver -lib work -t 1ps m glbl
>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../std.standard
>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../std.textio(body)
>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_1164(body)
>> # Loading 
>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_textio(body)
>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_arith(body)
>> # Loading 
>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_unsigned(body)
>> # Loading work.m(testbench_arch)
>> # XE version supports only a single HDL
>> # Error loading design
>> # Error: Error loading design
>> #        Pausing macro execution
>> # MACRO ./m.fdo PAUSED at line 8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 



Article: 96781
Subject: Re: EDK - PLB/OPB Bus questions.
From: "John McCaskill" <junkmail@fastertechnology.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 06:13:45 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
me_2003@walla.co.il wrote:
> Hi Zara.
> Thanks for the answers...
>
> >4) What does a bus-split / decoupled address terms stand for ?
>
> I don't know. Or at least, I don't recognize the concept under those
> terms. But I am not native english speaver, it may just be a limited
> knowledeg of the language.
>
> thoses terms are used in the plb bus description regarding the ability
> to read/write in the same cycle.
> Regards, Mordehay.


The PLB bus is treated as three buses, the address bus, the read data
bus and the write data bus. The PLB spec allows all three buses to be
performing separate transactions at the same time. This is what is
meant by the term split-bus.

For example, starting from an idle state, a PLB master arbitrates for
the address bus. Once granted the address bus, it sets up a
transaction. Let us say it sets up a long burst write for this example.
 Once that transaction is acknowledged by a PLB slave, the PLB master
releases the address bus, and starts putting data on the PLB write data
bus.  This is what is meant by decoupled address.  The address bus is
released as soon as the transaction is acknowledged, and can be used to
set up more transactions.

A second PLB master can then request the address bus. Once granted, it
can set up another data transaction. Let us say it sets up a long burst
read.  Once a slave acknowledges the transaction, the PLB master
relinquishes the address bus, and the PLB slave starts putting data on
the read data bus.

At this point in the example, there are two different data phase
transactions going on at the same time, both a burst read, and a burst
write.

The address bus is free at this point to be used to set up the next
transactions.  For example, another read can be started which will
allow the targeted PLB slave to start fetching the data. As soon as the
first PLB slave that was performing a read finishes its transaction of
the data bus, the second one can start placing its data on the bus.
This is what is referred to as address pipelining in the PLB spec.

If you have not already done so, download the IBM CoreConnect toolkit.
It contains the specifications for the PLB, OPB, and DCR buses. It also
has a simulation test bench with bus functional models and bus
monitors.

There are a few differences between the IBM spec, and how Xilinx has
implemented the CoreConnect buses in EDK. Make sure to read the Xilinx
documentation carefully, and take note of the differences.  I got to
the IBM CoreConnect toolkit through the Xilinx web site, but it has
been long enough ago that I don't remember the link.

Regards,

John McCaskill


Article: 96782
Subject: Re: ModelSim # Error loading design
From: "Hans" <hans64@ht-lab.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:35:03 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
You are referencing Verilog primitive libraries on the vsim line:

vsim -L cpld_ver -L uni9000_ver -lib

There must be an option in ISE to select the VHDL or Verilog? Are your 
schematics translated to Verilog?

Hans
www.ht-lab.com


"mBird" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
news:11up72iddd8ao91@corp.supernews.com...
>I downloaded the Xilinx ISE 8.1 and ModelSim XE III/Starter 6.0d from 
>Xilinx site.  These are the free starter products. In the past I used ISE 
>and ModelSim older versions and all worked. I am not sure what I should do 
>to make these work.  I just want simple VHDL and to use Schematics. I dont 
>see any way to tell ISE not to do dual language? Any advice appretiated!
>
> "Hans" <hans64@ht-lab.com> wrote in message 
> news:e6YGf.23547$Fy4.22367@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>> Looks like you are using both vlog (verilog) and vcom (vhdl) compiler, 
>> check that you have a dual language license,
>>
>> Hans.
>> www.ht-lab.com
>>
>> "mBird" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
>> news:11uo5ck9o574tfa@corp.supernews.com...
>>>I just downloaded Xilinx ISE 8.1 and ModelSim XE III/Starter 6.0d
>>> I make a simple project, using schematic (one and gate) an dthen make a 
>>> test bench waveform. I then do Simulate Behaviural Model but no matter 
>>> what I do I always get # Error loading design with no other indication 
>>> of erors. In the previous version of ISE and ModelSim it all worked so I 
>>> am not sure what is error?
>>> Any help greatly appretiared!
>>>
>>> The results of from ModelSim:
>>> # Reading C:/Modeltech_xe_starter/tcl/vsim/pref.tcl
>>> # do m.fdo
>>> # ** Warning: (vlib-34) Library already exists at "work".
>>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vlog 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 
>>> 2005
>>> # -- Compiling module FD_MXILINX_matt_sch
>>> # -- Compiling module matt_sch
>>> #
>>> # Top level modules:
>>> #  matt_sch
>>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vcom 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 
>>> 2005
>>> # -- Loading package standard
>>> # -- Loading package textio
>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_1164
>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_textio
>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_arith
>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_unsigned
>>> # -- Compiling entity m
>>> # -- Compiling architecture testbench_arch of m
>>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vlog 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 
>>> 2005
>>> # -- Compiling module glbl
>>> #
>>> # Top level modules:
>>> #  glbl
>>> # vsim -L cpld_ver -L uni9000_ver -lib work -t 1ps m glbl
>>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../std.standard
>>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../std.textio(body)
>>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_1164(body)
>>> # Loading 
>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_textio(body)
>>> # Loading 
>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_arith(body)
>>> # Loading 
>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_unsigned(body)
>>> # Loading work.m(testbench_arch)
>>> # XE version supports only a single HDL
>>> # Error loading design
>>> # Error: Error loading design
>>> #        Pausing macro execution
>>> # MACRO ./m.fdo PAUSED at line 8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 



Article: 96783
Subject: Spartan-3 Serial LVDS max speed?
From: "Eric" <jonas@mwl.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 06:40:10 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The Xilinx App Note, xapp224, suggests that it's possible to do
non-source-synchronous data recovery in a spartan-3 at up to 320 Mbps
(320 MHz) -- has anyone ever managed to get this or higher serial
speeds working in a spartan-3 PQ208 package? I'm trying to make this
work with a 100-ohm differential LVDS link and I can't seem to get my
design up past 150 Mbps.  I'm totally willing to entertain the idea
that I've got signal integrity problems, controlled impedance problems,
etc. but I'm worried that the lead inductance on the PQ208 package
might make this sort of IO impossible. 

Thanks, 
   ...Eric


Article: 96784
Subject: Re: EDK - PLB/OPB Bus questions.
From: me_2003@walla.co.il
Date: 10 Feb 2006 06:44:07 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi John,
Many many thanks for you taking the time to explain this issue - It
realy helps me alot.
I read the PLB spec (from both xilinx/ibm) but couldnt find any good
decription of those terms.
So thanks again and have a nice weekend.


Article: 96785
Subject: Re: ANTTI*HAPPY: building MicroBlaze uClinux on WinXP full sucess
From: "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.gauch@ANTI-SPAMamontec.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:50:21 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti wrote:
> I am ! happy and smiling, I got finally fully working MicroBlaze
> uClinux image built fully from GPL sources on WinXP without the use of
> any linux machine or linux emulation.
> 
> here is short intro how todo this:
> 
> http://help.xilant.com/UClinux:MicroBlaze:Win32Build
> 
> I wish I could have time to add more detailed docu about the process
> but I need to prepare some demos for the Embedded in Nurnberg what
> starts next tuesday
> 
> Antti
> 
thanks Antti,

   Very nice and interesting job.
   Happy for you !

Laurent
   www.amontec.com

Article: 96786
Subject: Re: ModelSim # Error loading design
From: "VIPS" <thevipulsinha@gmail.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 06:51:42 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi
this problem arises when u r openning two instances of the model sim.
try this out and see did u open the two instances of the modelsim.
"XE version supports only a single HDL " this error is common when two
windows of modelsim wre open

Bye 

Vips


Article: 96787
Subject: Re: Simulation of MicroBlaze embedded system
From: "motty" <mottoblatto@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 07:44:46 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thanks all!  Is there a way to dump the output of the mb-objdump to a
file?  It lists in the command console and it would be nice to have a
hard-copy.


Article: 96788
Subject: Re: ANTTI*HAPPY: building MicroBlaze uClinux on WinXP full sucess !!
From: Paul Hartke <phartke@Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:04:16 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Do you know what caused the issues with compiling busybox and sh?  Is it
a build script issues, a cygwin issues, or a gcc issue?

"11.now you get core dump whild building busybox and sh, those need to
be pulled out and compiled out of tree and then injected back 
12.the busybox and sh need to be in place in the build tree and the
makefile adjusted to skip them durin main build"

Antti wrote:
> 
> I am ! happy and smiling, I got finally fully working MicroBlaze
> uClinux image built fully from GPL sources on WinXP without the use of
> any linux machine or linux emulation.
> 
> here is short intro how todo this:
> 
> http://help.xilant.com/UClinux:MicroBlaze:Win32Build
> 
> I wish I could have time to add more detailed docu about the process
> but I need to prepare some demos for the Embedded in Nurnberg what
> starts next tuesday
> 
> Antti

Article: 96789
Subject: Re: Simulation of MicroBlaze embedded system
From: Paul Hartke <phartke@Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:07:56 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Use console redirection:  mb-objdump -Sx executable.elf >
executable.objdump

motty wrote:
> 
> Thanks all!  Is there a way to dump the output of the mb-objdump to a
> file?  It lists in the command console and it would be nice to have a
> hard-copy.

Article: 96790
Subject: Re: ModelSim # Error loading design
From: "mBird" <no@email.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:21:55 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The project Synthesis Tool setting has only one setting: XST (VHDL/Verilog)
I did get it to work by selecting ModelSim (PS/SE) Mixed instead of ModelSim 
XE as the project's simulator but I am puzzled as to how that could even 
work since I have ModelSim XE installed only?
Thanks for your help and info!

"Hans" <hans64@ht-lab.com> wrote in message 
news:rw1Hf.24458$Fy4.9903@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> You are referencing Verilog primitive libraries on the vsim line:
>
> vsim -L cpld_ver -L uni9000_ver -lib
>
> There must be an option in ISE to select the VHDL or Verilog? Are your 
> schematics translated to Verilog?
>
> Hans
> www.ht-lab.com
>
>
> "mBird" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
> news:11up72iddd8ao91@corp.supernews.com...
>>I downloaded the Xilinx ISE 8.1 and ModelSim XE III/Starter 6.0d from 
>>Xilinx site.  These are the free starter products. In the past I used ISE 
>>and ModelSim older versions and all worked. I am not sure what I should do 
>>to make these work.  I just want simple VHDL and to use Schematics. I dont 
>>see any way to tell ISE not to do dual language? Any advice appretiated!
>>
>> "Hans" <hans64@ht-lab.com> wrote in message 
>> news:e6YGf.23547$Fy4.22367@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>> Looks like you are using both vlog (verilog) and vcom (vhdl) compiler, 
>>> check that you have a dual language license,
>>>
>>> Hans.
>>> www.ht-lab.com
>>>
>>> "mBird" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:11uo5ck9o574tfa@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>I just downloaded Xilinx ISE 8.1 and ModelSim XE III/Starter 6.0d
>>>> I make a simple project, using schematic (one and gate) an dthen make a 
>>>> test bench waveform. I then do Simulate Behaviural Model but no matter 
>>>> what I do I always get # Error loading design with no other indication 
>>>> of erors. In the previous version of ISE and ModelSim it all worked so 
>>>> I am not sure what is error?
>>>> Any help greatly appretiared!
>>>>
>>>> The results of from ModelSim:
>>>> # Reading C:/Modeltech_xe_starter/tcl/vsim/pref.tcl
>>>> # do m.fdo
>>>> # ** Warning: (vlib-34) Library already exists at "work".
>>>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vlog 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 
>>>> 2005
>>>> # -- Compiling module FD_MXILINX_matt_sch
>>>> # -- Compiling module matt_sch
>>>> #
>>>> # Top level modules:
>>>> #  matt_sch
>>>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vcom 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 
>>>> 2005
>>>> # -- Loading package standard
>>>> # -- Loading package textio
>>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_1164
>>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_textio
>>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_arith
>>>> # -- Loading package std_logic_unsigned
>>>> # -- Compiling entity m
>>>> # -- Compiling architecture testbench_arch of m
>>>> # Model Technology ModelSim XE III vlog 6.0d Compiler 2005.04 Apr 26 
>>>> 2005
>>>> # -- Compiling module glbl
>>>> #
>>>> # Top level modules:
>>>> #  glbl
>>>> # vsim -L cpld_ver -L uni9000_ver -lib work -t 1ps m glbl
>>>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../std.standard
>>>> # Loading C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../std.textio(body)
>>>> # Loading 
>>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_1164(body)
>>>> # Loading 
>>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_textio(body)
>>>> # Loading 
>>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_arith(body)
>>>> # Loading 
>>>> C:\Modeltech_xe_starter\win32xoem/../ieee.std_logic_unsigned(body)
>>>> # Loading work.m(testbench_arch)
>>>> # XE version supports only a single HDL
>>>> # Error loading design
>>>> # Error: Error loading design
>>>> #        Pausing macro execution
>>>> # MACRO ./m.fdo PAUSED at line 8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 



Article: 96791
Subject: Re: ANTTI*HAPPY: building MicroBlaze uClinux on WinXP full sucess !!
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 08:26:59 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Paul

I have found following issues

1)

/user/mount/mount.c C compiler parse error !?

2) /user/sh and user/busybox

both fail on final linking or elf2flt conversion when invoked from main
build tree, so as a workaround I let the busybox to be compiled into .a
and .o files inside the main build tree, then copy out the .a and .o
and run link elf2flt in out of tree setup, then copy the busybox
executable back into main tree

both cause 'core dump' when in main tree, but sh also cause core dump
in out of tree, during elf2flt so for sh I invoke the elf2flt again
after out of tree build

this is busybox when in main tree

Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=610D9100
eax=0022F12C ebx=00000000 ecx=6115D8BC edx=00000000 esi=00000007
edi=0000000A
ebp=0022E588 esp=0022E570
program=c:\mb_gnu_8_1\microblaze\bin\elf2flt.exe, pid 2884, thread main
cs=001B ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003B gs=0000 ss=0023
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
0022E588  610D9100  (0022F12C, 00000000, 00000000, 0000000A)
0022E5A8  610D9288  (00000000, 00000000, 0000000A, 00000000)
0022E5C8  610D5040  (00000000, 6115D8BC, 0042B533, 00401B9F)
0022EEC8  00402399  (00000007, 6115D8BC, 00490090, 77DADB0D)
0022EF78  61005BC8  (0022EFD0, 0022EFC0, 00000005, 00000000)
0022FF88  61005EB3  (00000000, 00000000, 00000000, 00000000)
End of stack trace


ok, let ma attach the makefiles that I use for busybox/sh out of tree

-----------------------------
ifndef ROOTDIR
ROOTDIR=../uClinux-dist
endif

UCLINUX_BUILD_USER = 1
include $(ROOTDIR)/.config
LIBCDIR = $(CONFIG_LIBCDIR)
include $(ROOTDIR)/config.arch

BB = busybox
BB_OBJS += ./init/init.o ./init/init_shared.o
BB_OBJS += ./networking/hostname.o
BB_OBJS += ./util-linux/mount.o
BB_OBJS += ./shell/hush.o
BB_OBJS += ./coreutils/ls.o ./coreutils/mkdir.o ./coreutils/true.o
./coreutils/false.o ./coreutils/echo.o ./coreutils/chmod.o
./coreutils/test.o

## BB_OBJS += ./applets/busybox.o ./applets/applets.o



LDLIBS += ./libbb/libbb.a
LDLIBS += ./applets/applets.a

## LDLIBS += ./coreutils/coreutils.a
##LDLIBS += ./shell/shell.a

all: $(BB)
 cp busybox.elf.bflt busybox


$(BB): $(BB_OBJS)
 $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(BB_OBJS) $(LDLIBS)

clean:
 -rm -f $(BB) *.elf *.gdb *.o

%.o: %.c
 $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<

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

ifndef ROOTDIR
ROOTDIR=../uClinux-dist
endif

UCLINUX_BUILD_USER = 1
include $(ROOTDIR)/.config
LIBCDIR = $(CONFIG_LIBCDIR)
include $(ROOTDIR)/config.arch


CFLAGS += -DHAVE_MALLOC
FLTFLAGS += -s 8192

SH = sh
SH_OBJS += sh1.o sh2.o sh3.o sh4.o sh5.o sh6.o

#LDLIBS += ./libbb/libbb.a

all: $(SH)
 cp sh.elf.bflt sh


$(SH): $(SH_OBJS)
 $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(SH_OBJS) $(LDLIBS$(LDLIBS_$@))

clean:
 -rm -f $(TFT) *.elf *.gdb *.o

%.o: %.c
 $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<


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

the busybox makefile does produce flat exe from makefile


the sh make file produces

Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=610D9100
eax=0022F12C ebx=00000000 ecx=6115DE74 edx=00000000 esi=00000007
edi=0000000A
ebp=0022E588 esp=0022E570
program=c:\mb_gnu_8_1\microblaze\bin\elf2flt.exe, pid 5172, thread main
cs=001B ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003B gs=0000 ss=0023
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
0022E588  610D9100  (0022F12C, 00000000, 00000000, 0000000A)
0022E5A8  610D9288  (00000000, 00000000, 0000000A, 00000000)
0022E5C8  610D5040  (00000000, 6115DE74, 0042B533, 00401B9F)
0022EEC8  00402399  (00000007, 6115DE74, 00490090, 77DADB0D)
0022EF78  61005BC8  (0022EFD0, 0022EFC0, 00000002, 00000000)
0022FF88  61005EB3  (00000000, 00000000, 00000000, 00000000)
End of stack trace


so I convert it after make manually with bat file

mb-elf2flt sh.elf
copy sh.elf.bflt sh

this sh is correct working exe !

I assume the issues are in the elf2flt mainly

3) all flat exes produced have .elf.bflt extension so I had to modify
the makefiles to get proper exe names, dont know what is causing this
or where would the proper fix to this issue belong too

Antti


Article: 96792
Subject: Re: ModelSim # Error loading design
From: "mBird" <no@email.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:32:39 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi --
Thanks for the idea. I am sure to have only one instance running.
I did get it to work by selecting ModelSim (PS/SE) Mixed instead of ModelSim
XE as the project's simulator but I am puzzled as to how that could even
work since I have ModelSim XE installed only?
Thanks for your help and info!

"VIPS" <thevipulsinha@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1139583102.164399.197010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> this problem arises when u r openning two instances of the model sim.
> try this out and see did u open the two instances of the modelsim.
> "XE version supports only a single HDL " this error is common when two
> windows of modelsim wre open
>
> Bye
>
> Vips
> 



Article: 96793
Subject: Re: why does speed grade effect VHDL program??
From: why_don't_you_listen? <test@test.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:27:50 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thomas gave the answer to the problem. David second it. Why not just adding two flops at sel and add? This will solve the problem.

Article: 96794
Subject: Re: Altera EPLD
From: Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:39:26 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Sky wrote:

> In a project I use the Altera EPM3256ATC144-10.
> Now I have the necessity to make some changes to the project, but I don't 
> have enough macrocells in the actual devices.
> Alteras doesn't have a pin-to-pin compatible EPLD  with the EPM3256ATC144-10 
> but with more macrocelles (about +40%).
> What of you knows a devices that could resolve my problem?  Unfortunately I 
> cannot modify the PCB, but I could replace the Altera EPLD with any other 
> CPLD.

Depending on the required speed you may connect wires to the 144 
pads... and connect then to an external box containing whatever.
Yes, I'm aware the wires are very fine. Thus, I'd rather
1) do a new pcb
2) squeeze a reduced functionality in the existing part.

Rene
-- 
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Article: 96795
Subject: Re: Async Processors
From: "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 09:52:08 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 15:58:10 -0800, "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You have ignored the real issue.  The issue is not whether the async
> >design can run faster under typical conditions; we all know it can.
> >The issue is how do you make use of that faster speed?  The system
> >design has to work in the worst case conditions, so you can only use
> >the available performance under worse case conditions.
>
> I think there's an issue here with the definition of "worst-case
> conditions". It's not just process/voltage/temperature corners, and
> tool would have to build in a safety margin even if it was. But, when
> you're designing a static timing analyser, you also have to take into
> account random localised on-die variations, and you have to build in
> more safety margin just in case. The end result is that when doing
> synchronous design your tool gives you a conservative estimate, and
> you're stuck with it. If you've got a bad process async design and a
> bad-process sync design sitting next to each other in a hot room with
> low voltages, then the async design should presumably run faster.

I had a chance to think about this further and I think the localized
variables in path delays actually hurt the async device more than it
does the sync device.

The idea behind the sync clocked design is to deal with all the issues
that make the logic delay time so variable.  Instead of trying to match
delays with the clocking, the entire issue is lumped into the clock
domain.  The clock period has to be larger than the worst case delay
through the logic plus an additional margin for the skewing of the
clock.  Minimizing clock skew is the purpose of the clock tree.  So
this is typically very small and only needs to be added to the logic
delay to get the minimum clock period.

The async processor must match the clock delay with the logic delay and
always keep the clock delay slightly larger.  There are always
variations in timing of similar components due to statistical factors.
Even if it is out at the 3 sigma point, by having a million transitors
on a die, you have to account for the few that are either fast or slow.
 The worst case would be a fast clock path and a slow logic path.  This
skewing must be considered at the logic and clock level.  In the end
you end up having to allow for the deviation in both directions which
means it is doubled.

So the async design likely must have larger margins added to the design
of the handshake path and the result is it will have a slower maximum
speed compared to a sync design.


Article: 96796
Subject: Re: Altera EPLD
From: "Noway2" <no_spam_me2@hotmail.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 09:57:46 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
That sounds like a wonderfull recipe for field failures if carried to
production.  I might say that it would be workable for a prototype, but
I wouldn't go much farther than that.

You indicated in your original post that you are not able to modify the
PCB.  Is there a real reason for this or is it just a case of where MGT
doesn't WANT to modify the PCB?  Quite frankly, often times I have
found that far more enegy is spent attempting to take a short cut
around something and failing than would have been spent to do it right
the first time.


Article: 96797
Subject: Re: Async Processors
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:26:26 +1300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:
> But the real issue is what do you do with the excess speed of the async
> design at room temp, etc?  Your design has to meet specific goals over
> all variables of temp, voltage and process.

You are too focused on the MHz - forget the MHz for a moment,
and look at the pJ and uV/m.
Many, many designers would be very happy to get those gains,
and still be in the same MHz ballpark.

The High end CPU you mentioned, quotes 15,000 gated clock elements.
At that count, it has to asympotpe to async performance anyway,
and it becomes a semantics exercise what you call a device
with that many gated/local/granular clocks...

-jg


Article: 96798
Subject: Re: Spartan3 embedded synchronous multipliers
From: "Marlboro" <ccon67@netscape.net>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 10:30:31 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Isaac Bosompem wrote:
> Hi guys, I've been reading through the Spartan3 architecture embedded
> multipliers app note and I can't seem to find out how long (in terms of
> clock cycles) the sync multipliers in the Spartan3 will take. Can I
> safely assume that after I have asserted the inputs to the module, I
> will get the output back in the following clock cycle?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Isaac

No asumption is safe, IHMO, run a simple simulation to verify it,
sometimes that's quicker than digging in the docs jungle.


Article: 96799
Subject: Re: Simulation of MicroBlaze embedded system
From: "motty" <mottoblatto@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2006 10:30:40 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Super!  Thanks alot!  Now I can make some good progress....




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
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

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