Custom Search
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
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
Dan,
Sounds like you might have run into this problem:
Answer Record # 16847 5.2isp1 Simulation - DCM outputs are 180 degrees
out of phase (UniSim and SimPrim VHDL models)
http://support.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_ans_display.jsp?iLanguageID=1&iCountryID=1&getPagePath=16847
Generally it is a good idea to search the Xilinx Support Site when you
encounter issues such as these as if it has been perviously identified,
it is generally documented there.
-- Brian
Dan Braunstein wrote:
> Has anyone experienced the clk0 being 180 deg out of phase with the
> DCM input clock during simulation (wave view) in ModelSim? I have clk0
> going to clkfb through a bufg, just like what is described in the V-II
> Platform Handbook (jellybean simple implementation), but after lock,
> clk0 is 180 out of phase, so I do not get the wave that is shown in
> the modelsim wave view in the Handbook.
>
> My fix is to run clk180 to clkfb. Then clk0 is in phase with clkin.
> But this makes no sense to me. I have not implemented on chip to see
> what really happens.
>
> As an aside, my input clock is 27MHz, but I need 13.5 MHz for my logic
> with various phase relationships. Any advice? What are the
> implications of running various phased 27MHz clocks into flops to get
> various phased 13.5 MHz clocks?
>
> Thanks. I am new to all this, but have to say the DCM/simulation bit
> has been infinitely frustrating.
>
> Danny
Article: 66726It is true that it is more difficult to write to FAT16. However, we can simplify it. Format the SM/MMC/SD with FAT16, and write an empty file to this card. Then, with the same FAT16 reader to get the addresses. Thirdly, write to this file...do I sound right? Best Regards, Kelvin Amontec Team, Laurent Gauch <laurent.gauch@amontecDELETEALLCAPS.com> wrote in message news:403c921a$1@news.vsnet.ch... > Antti Lukats wrote: > >>what I want to know is: > >>1. has someone done something similar before. If so, does what I'm about > > > > to do sound feasible? Am I overlooking any issue? > > > >>2. if you know a better way to transfer data from a PCB to computer using > > > > standard removable media(can be non-smartmedia), what is it? > > > >>3. tips? > > > > > > smartmedia has to many wires. > > reading FAT16 is real simple, connecting to MMC is real simple. > > you can get some old PC monetherboard for 1 $ and cut the ISA socket, or use > > the old floppy cable if you have one there you MMC socket. > > reading MMC required only 4 lines. > > > > xilinx.openchip.org > > > > there is source code in C for microblaze to read 1 file from FAT16 on > > compact flash card, it can be modified to read from MMC. there is also > > simple half made routine to talk to MMC card (connected to MicroBlaze GPIO > > pins). > > > > you can of course use smartmedia, but it way more wires! > > > > antti > > > > > Yes, FAT16 reader is very simple to implement. But the original message > is about writing in FAT16 format. FAT16 writer is much more complex. And > you need to have a processor to do the JOB, an FPGA will be to expensive > for this JOB, for this *sequential* JOB. > > Some month ago, we designed a datalogger with an FAT16 writer to a > compactFlash. We did the JOB with a PIC up for the FAT16 format, and a > small CPLD for the AD dialog and some pre-processing data JOB (some mA > for all the JOB ...) > > Laurent > www.amontec.com >Article: 66727
"valentin tihomirov" <valentin_NOSPAM_NOWORMS@abelectron.com> wrote in message news:c1iqrh$1jah9r$1@ID-212430.news.uni-berlin.de... > Design consists of two modules: VHDL top-module and EDIF-netlist instance. > In other words, the design is broken down into two files and I need to > assemble it. Usually, simulation tools allow for geterogeneous sources. > Simulators comile source files to extract design units and put them into > libraries. Do sinthesis tools favor this practice? > > EDIF-module's design is a cell named SCH1 located in SCH1_LIB library. It > has two inputs I1, I2 and output O. How should parent VHDL module look like? > > Development System Reference Guide at > http://toolbox.xilinx.com/docsan/xilinx4/data/docs/dev/devtoc.html states > that Modular Design is an option of Xilinx Development System. Does WebPack > support it? > > Is Modular Design the only solution? > What you are trying to do as far as I can tell is not a modular design in sense of Xilinx tools. You simply have mixed sources. There is more than one way to do this under ISE (I believe Webpack is the same). I can't remember the proper way off the top of my head, but one way is to create a normal VHDL-flow design and then set Macro Search path in Translate options to where you have your edif file.This assumes that the top level is VHDL. /Mikhail -- To reply directly: matusov at square peg ca (join the domain name in one word and add a dot before "ca")Article: 66728
Hi, How to time jobs of powerpc in the EDK? Do anyone have some examples? Thanks, TerrenceArticle: 66729
Austin, As a general rule, Altera likes to avoid using this site as a marketing tool. Instead, we choose to focus just on relevant technical questions. However, since you brought it up, the question at hand: is the innovation in Stratix II just a renaming of the f5/f6/f7/f8 muxes in Virtex products? On the contrary, the Stratix II architecture represents a complete redesign of a programmable logic fabric. Recognizing the need for a more powerful and efficient approach than the 4LUT + register fabric that all mainstream FPGAs have relied on for years, Altera increased the capability and flexibility of the Stratix II logic with a larger and truly adaptive logic module (ALM). An ALM can efficiently implement one to two 6LUTs, any 5LUT and 3LUT combination, two 5LUTs (for almost any 2 functions), any two 4LUTs etc...all in a single logic block. (For more complete listing, look here: http://www.altera.com/products/devices/stratix2/features/architecture/st2-lut.html) Previous FPGA architectures have only had 4LUT capabilities without routing between multiple logic blocks. Virtex devices are really a 4LUT architecture with some MUXes (note that "variable LUT terminology" was only recently mentioned in a white paper but is not found in the data sheet). The f5/fX muxes are one way to emulate larger LUT functions, but this approach comes at the cost of multiple LC resources, routing structures between those LC's, and requires that the synthesis tool (or the designer) intelligently map to those muxes. Analysis of synthesis and place and route results, suggests the f5/fX resources are commonly used in large distributed memory functions and wide muxes, but rarely benefit wide LUT functions. Comparing results of how real designs synthesize and map to Stratix II ALMs vs. Virtex-II Pro slices (the most direct comparison since each ALM/slice is capable of 2 4LUT functions) shows a 54% efficiency advantage for Stratix II. This increased logic efficiency also results in better performance and lower power, since with more logic density inside each logic block, less routing circuitry is used which tends to be slower and leakier by comparison. For those of you curious to find out more details on this, the following white paper and web seminar may interest you:. Logic Structure Comparison Between Stratix & Virtex-Based Architectures http://www.altera.com/literature/wp/wpstxiixlnx.pdf http://www.altera.com/education/net_seminars/current/stratix2/ns-stratix2.html?f=sx2hp&k=g2 Mike Rather Altera Corp. Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message news:<c1gfrh$l613@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>... > Lenz, > > I am sure that they have filed for their patents. Since it takes two or > more years, we will just have to wait and see what it is that gets patented. > > How this is any different than f5/f6/f7/f8 muxes is also at issue: have > they just "renamed" an already existing architecture? Do they now > achieve the same packing that is already enjoyed by others? > > AustinArticle: 66730
Michael, Since you popped your head over the parapet... :) What's the story on MAX II Devices ?. There was glossary, timing and lib files gradually appearing, and suddenly the Altera web is cleansed and it's like MAX II is now 'off the radar' ?. Would seem to indicate some problems..... -jgArticle: 66731
Which OS are you using? NT is no longer supported. Sumit Gupta wrote: > I upgraded to webpack 6.1i from 4.2 and when I compile my design I get the > following error. > > Loading device for application Xst from file 'v100.nph' in environment > C:/Xilinx. > FATAL_ERROR:DeviceResourceModel:basnpdevice.c:620:1.23 - bad nph file > Process will terminate. To resolve this error, please consult the Answers > Database and other online resources at http://support.xilinx.com. If you > need further assistance, please open a Webcase by clicking on the "WebCase" > link at http://support.xilinx.com > > I searched through answer database but did not find anything. Does anybody > has any ideas ? > > Sumit > -------------------- > http://www.c-nit.net > >Article: 66732
Michael, Thank you very much. I have read all of the publicly available materials, and am still puzzled by the claims. Any claims of remarkable efficiency, you may understand, I am quite leary of. For example, if the claim of a St2 50% speed improvement is really true, then our demonstrated 40% speed improvement on average in the i6.2 release makes St2 only 10% faster than our 2 year old V2 Pro.....lowest speed grade. So leaving marketing to those who enjoy it, I will forego any claims of performance, and just ask about architecture. I was unclear on just how a ALM is any different from drawing the box differently around the components. I am still puzzled, but the block diagrams appears to have 3, 4, 5 and 6 LUTS with muxes, and maybe if it was actually designed this way then that is simply what it is. A true 6 LUT has 64 memory cells and the associated logic, and two of these seems a bit excessive and would not require any other logic or muxes at all. Combining existing 4 LUTs to deliver some of the possible terms of a 6 LUT is a completely different matter. Regardless, it is enjoyable to hear about any radical or innovative new architecture, as there are so many that now dot the landscape as dead skeletons of past FPGAs. AustinArticle: 66733
Kelvin wrote: > It is true that it is more difficult to write to FAT16. However, we can > simplify it. > > Format the SM/MMC/SD with FAT16, and write an empty file to this card. Then, > with the same FAT16 reader to > get the addresses. Thirdly, write to this file...do I sound right? > > Best Regards, > Kelvin Yes, this sounds about right. A few things to be aware of: 1) a newly formatted SM/MMC/SD or CF for that matter will not have a fragmented FAT table. 2) a new file written to the media should have the FAT table in sequencal order. ( this is a good thing ) 3) Finding the start cluster and start sector will be different with different cluster sizes. ( I know you knew that ) So if the embedded code can find this information, over writting the clusters in order should take care of any problems. But, if your going to ASSUME that much, why not write a real FAT file handler and assume nothing. This trick is also useful to help preventing a corrupt FAT table. hamiltonArticle: 66734
"Martin Euredjian" <0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:KX7%b.2619$6k.0@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com... > Davka wrote: > > > I learned APL when I was a kid. I love it too. It taught me respect for > > languages that don't have an implicit order of operations. > > Small World, isn't it! > The other thing that's nice about APL is the ability to abstract away from > the mechanics of programming and live within the problem domain. You're not the first fellow nerd that I've met who likes both Forth and APL. :-) > > was prohibitive. Now, I have a real chance to build some music hardware. > > Have you consider just doing it the FPGA way? I haven't stopped to think > about what's required but you can certainly create building blocks in > hardware (say, filters). Also, with the Virtex 2 Pro family you have the > ability to use the PowerPC processor/s as, well, processors and the rest of > the FPGA is available for custom peripherals (if you want to think of it > that way). That's the plan. I've already put dozens of hours into learning the Altera tool and their chip families, so that's the way I will go initially. They have their own tiny RISC implementation (called NIOS), so if I don't do my own processor, I'll use that one. The idea for the system architecture is to have a bunch of DSP modules of various flavors in the hardware which can be dynamically allocated by the software system that manages them. > Of course, an optimized Forth machine would/could make it very interactive > and fun to play with. Is there an implementation of Forth for PowerPC? :-) I think it's called Open Firmware. -DavkaArticle: 66735
Davka wrote: > > "Martin Euredjian" <0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:KX7%b.2619$6k.0@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com... > > Davka wrote: > > > > > I learned APL when I was a kid. I love it too. It taught me respect > for > > > languages that don't have an implicit order of operations. > > > > Small World, isn't it! > > The other thing that's nice about APL is the ability to abstract away from > > the mechanics of programming and live within the problem domain. > > You're not the first fellow nerd that I've met who likes both Forth > and APL. :-) > > > > was prohibitive. Now, I have a real chance to build some music > hardware. > > > > Have you consider just doing it the FPGA way? I haven't stopped to think > > about what's required but you can certainly create building blocks in > > hardware (say, filters). Also, with the Virtex 2 Pro family you have the > > ability to use the PowerPC processor/s as, well, processors and the rest > of > > the FPGA is available for custom peripherals (if you want to think of it > > that way). > > That's the plan. I've already put dozens of hours into learning the Altera > tool > and their chip families, so that's the way I will go initially. They have > their > own tiny RISC implementation (called NIOS), so if I don't do my own > processor, > I'll use that one. > > The idea for the system architecture is to have a bunch of DSP modules of > various flavors > in the hardware which can be dynamically allocated by the software system > that manages them. I found a mention of a Forth for DSP called FROTH. I believe it is an open source project, but the page does not seem to have been updated in quite a while. Some of the other posters here may know more about it. -- 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 FAXArticle: 66736
> What is the difference between a hardware implementation of an > algorithm and a software one. Hardware implementation would be like floating point mathematics in DSP microcontroller, so DSP has instructions which dirrectly execute in processor in 1 cycle, and software implementation would take 50 or something like that instructions on processor that doesn't have floating point math hardware. > How do you say an algorithm is faster in one and slower in other.. if > it's based on timing how do you do that?? What makes it faster in one > and not in other?? It should be obvious from my answer to previous question. You can look on hardware solution as a washing machine, you can wash faster with it than by hands (software approach), to get the same quality. MickeyArticle: 66737
is it true that one-hot encoding for FSM's is used in FPGA's? If so, why? is it due to the large amount of registers available i.e: enough registers to store all states? what kind of encoding is using in ASIC's? thanks much -- aviArticle: 66738
Hello OP, hope you got an better name in your next life. omnipresent@hotmail.com (OP) wrote: > Feeling really intelligent today.. I would like to know some basic > stuff.. > > What is the difference between a hardware implementation of an > algorithm and a software one. HW & SW are uncomparable in general because SW w/o HW makes no sence. In some context you speak of HW or SW solution when you mean the decission to use either - a general purpose CPU (eg. micro controller) and write the appropriate SW for this CPU or - build an ASIC (application specific IC, could of course be a fpga too) that solves your problem. In general is an ASIC faster and fits better in your special needs for reliability, power consumption and size, but tends to be more expensive (unless huge quantities) and you have big trouble when you find a better algorithm for your problem. You would think twice before using an ASIC for data compression on the other hand it's impossible to do very high speed realtime data processing (eg. 10GB Switch) with a CPU. bye ThomasArticle: 66739
The $100 license's US residency requirement is there because if
a licensee violates the license agreement of personal use, and uses the
PCI IP core in a commercial project in a foreign country, it is probably
going to be much harder to stop that than if it happened in this
country.
The no-academic research restriction is there because I want to charge
more than $100 for research-related academic use.
If you don't like that, talk to Xilinx, because I heard that they
sometimes donate their PCI IP core to universities.
Regarding your "one-shot PCI cores" comment, no, mine will cost
$100 more than a free one, but as a product it will be identical to a
commercial version I am planning to charge much more than $100.
Plus, the licensee can receive technical support through a forum in
Yahoo! Groups I am planning to set up.
Kevin Brace
Sander Vesik wrote:
>
>
> Not the point. The heavy handed part is 'US only, no-research, pay
> money and return printed licence'.
>
> You know, your licenceing is way more restrictive for which I can
> download the Oracle database and most of their products, and same
> applies to IBM and similar. Not only are your terms unreasonable,
> you aren't even really all that price competitive as far as one-shot
> PCI cores go.
>
>
> --
> Sander
>
> +++ Out of cheese error +++
Article: 66740
I am trying to run a business (Sounds better than working at a
retailer.) licensing my PCI IP core to other firms or people, so the RTL
code will cost as much as a new car.
As far as I know, that's how much IP core firms charge for a PCI IP
core.
I probably shouldn't trash Opencores.org PCI IP core here, but I believe
my PCI IP core will be easier for beginners to use than Opencores.org
PCI IP core because it is structually simpler, will be supplied in
netlist format (As opposed to having to synthesize the PCI IP core.),
and comes with a constraint file to meet setup and hold time
requirements of PCI.
Kevin Brace
Roger Larsson wrote:
>
> Kevin Brace wrote:
>
>
> So, what is wrong with the OpenCores PCI?
>
> http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/pci/home
>
> Especially when you concider that you also get the
> generic source, you have not indicated any price
> for that...
>
> /RogerL
>
> --
> Roger Larsson
> Skellefteċ
> Sweden
Article: 66741
In article <c1kbg6$t67$3@newsreader.mailgate.org>,
Kevin Brace <k0evinbr1ace@m2ail.c3om> writes:
|> The no-academic research restriction is there because I want to charge
|> more than $100 for research-related academic use.
Let me get this straight. The use should be
- non-commercial
- non-profit
- non-academic research
- strictly personal purposes
So who the hell should license that core? I can understand that you rule out
commercial use, I *could* understand if you ruled out industrial research.
But ruling out academic research because you want to charge *more* from
universities is reducing the number of potential customers pretty much to
zero.
Rainer
Article: 66742Have a look at our current TechiTips http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/techitips.html . Method2 is relevant to want you want to do. Modular design is an add-on to ISE have a look here http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=modular_design . It is aimed mainly at team design and may not be what you want. John Adair Enterpoint Ltd. This message is the personal opinion of the sender and not that necessarily that of Enterpoint Ltd.. Readers should make their own evaluation of the facts. No responsibility for error or inaccuracy is accepted. "valentin tihomirov" <valentin_NOSPAM_NOWORMS@abelectron.com> wrote in message news:c1iqrh$1jah9r$1@ID-212430.news.uni-berlin.de... > Design consists of two modules: VHDL top-module and EDIF-netlist instance. > In other words, the design is broken down into two files and I need to > assemble it. Usually, simulation tools allow for geterogeneous sources. > Simulators comile source files to extract design units and put them into > libraries. Do sinthesis tools favor this practice? > > EDIF-module's design is a cell named SCH1 located in SCH1_LIB library. It > has two inputs I1, I2 and output O. How should parent VHDL module look like? > > Development System Reference Guide at > http://toolbox.xilinx.com/docsan/xilinx4/data/docs/dev/devtoc.html states > that Modular Design is an option of Xilinx Development System. Does WebPack > support it? > > Is Modular Design the only solution? > > How to allocate floorplan area automatically? > > How do you simulate modular designs? > > > Thanks. > >Article: 66743
Our conditions: Dear User, thank you for your interest in our free VHDL PCI core. The VHDL code is provided to you free of charge and we ask you not to pass it on to any third parties. The design has been tested and is expected to run smoothly. However, no support or design guidance is guaranteed. Its use is at your own risk and you take over full liability. We reserve the right to name you/your company as reference user. In turn, you ought to reference us as origin of the PCI core in the final product description (e.g. manual, flyer etc.). Code documentation is also at early stage, since the VHDL design is part of a bigger project. Once there is time left in the project schedule, we will round up the documentation. To sum up the conditions: - the code is provided free of charge - no guarantee is given what so ever - you agree to be named as reference user - you must not pass the code on to third parties - documentation is at early stage and support can not be guaranteed - a reference (acknowledgement notice) to us as origin of the PCI core must be included in the final product description Finally, we would appreciate your feedback about functionality, application scenarios, documentation and code add ons. We ask you to agree to the conditions given above by means of an appropriate email answer. The VHDL PCI core will be emailed to you as soon as your compliance email arrives. Regards, Torsten Lauter & Thomas Knoll http://www.infotech.tu-chemnitz.de/~knoll/vhdl_pci_bridge/ "Rainer Buchty" <buchty@atbode100.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c1kdrj$2h1f3$1@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de... > In article <c1kbg6$t67$3@newsreader.mailgate.org>, > Kevin Brace <k0evinbr1ace@m2ail.c3om> writes: > |> The no-academic research restriction is there because I want to charge > |> more than $100 for research-related academic use. > > Let me get this straight. The use should be > > - non-commercial > - non-profit > - non-academic research > - strictly personal purposes > > So who the hell should license that core? I can understand that you rule out > commercial use, I *could* understand if you ruled out industrial research. > > But ruling out academic research because you want to charge *more* from > universities is reducing the number of potential customers pretty much to > zero. > > RainerArticle: 66744
The $100 license for my PCI IP core is not intended for
prototyping of a commercial product.
Whoever wanting to use it in a commercial product should get a
commercial license which will cost several thousand dollars because
that's what other firms charge for a comparable PCI IP core, and that's
probably how much I need to get paid to run a business, and make a
living out of doing of it.
My intention for the $100 PCI IP core license is that hobbyists,
FPGA enthusiasts, and students simply cannot afford commercial PCI IP
cores which cost several thousand dollars, but they probably want a
commercial quality PCI IP core for something they can afford to pay.
Realistically speaking, I don't believe they are willing to pay anything
more than $100 for such a PCI IP core, so that's how much I can probably
charge.
From a business perspective, if I can get 100 users to pay $100, I will
earn $10,000, which is comparable to several commercial design wins.
The only problem is, as the number of licensees grow, the quality of
technical support will probably degrade because I will be have to deal
with more licensees.
Kevin Brace
Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> Taavi Hein <hein@bps.co.ee> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:25:02 -0600, Kevin Brace <kev0inb1rac2e@m3ail.c4om>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> * The licensee Will agree that the PCI IP core will be used only for
> > >> non-commercial, non-profit, non-academic research, and personal
> > >> purposes.
> >
> > I could live with that restriction.
>
> Really? You do realise that should you prototype something in the FPGA
> that works with that core (whetveer directly or now) you are effectively
> forced to *ALWAYS* start over from scratch if you want to use it in
> some other project? This is the sucky part about such a core - you can't
> get a replacement one and continue developing in that, be cause the moment
> you try you may be suddenly retroactively screwed from start (notice the
> word continue).
>
> --
> Sander
>
> +++ Out of cheese error +++
Article: 66745Hi, sorry, I'm going to stick to external removable media. serial port would make my life easier but it's too common. One of the goal of this project is to test my endurance. The other one is to make data transfering as painless as possible. Thanks! "Hal Murray" <hmurray@suespammers.org> wrote in message news:103olioln4u5cd0@corp.supernews.com... > >2. if you know a better way to transfer data from a PCB to computer > > using standard removable media(can be non-smartmedia), what is it? > > The usual way to get data from a random project to a PC is over > a serial port. (RS-232) > > I haven't worked with Smart Media. They are used in digital cameras. > The usual way to get pictures from a camera is via USB where the > storage device looks like a disk. That means you (probably) have > to write things in a file-system format. Is your software going > to support that? > > I don't know why you want to use Smart Media. I'll assume you want > to put it where a serial cable won't reach. > > If the file system software turns out to be too complicated, you might > be able to build a chunk of hardware that reads the SM card and sends the > bits out a serial port. Mostly the reverse of writing it. (Or you > could add a serial port to your existing board and load new firmware.) > > -- > The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my > other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited > commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses. > These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. >Article: 66746
Hi guys, thanks for your input I did spend a lot of time studying the SM FAT12 implmentation (<8 mb = FAT 12). Theoretically, the sequentially step would be 1. set address to the 1st sector, the FAT area 2. write the filename, attribute, extension, etc. to FAT 3. set address to the root directory sector 4. write the filepath to the root directory 5. set address to the 2nd sector, the data area 6. stream the data, compute the total number of bytes written 7. jump back to the FAT area and add the length value if a blank file is already created, then step1-5 can be skip, however, a new step is needed 1. search the entire FAT for the file entry. I heard that the file entry in FAT is random. 2. read the entry and set the pointer to that data area so no matter what the design becomes too complicated. In the end I designed it doesn't worth the trouble... Good to know that I'm right about this issue. So I guess I will stick with no file system, raw data, and use disk dump as the bridge between the two. I will ask around and see if unix/linux can read SM format (using those 9in1 card reader). Also, if the guy who ported dd to windows did a good job, then a batch file is probably all I need to read back the data. Regarding to the numerous lines on SM chip, I agree they are a pain. However, I have a bunch of SM specification (by Toshiba). There is a timing diagram that has all the programmable lines for Serial Data input(data streaming with auto address increment). So if I recreate that waveform in VHDL, something will get into the chip right? Anyways, MMC seems to be a pretty good alternative, I will probably dig into it a bit. But the SM wiring is already completed, so without any documententation on MMC programming, I can't justify the trouble of rewiring the chip and getting new components. By the way, if anyone wants the SM specifications, I can put them on my site for download Thanks guys! "hamilton" <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote in message news:403d82ad$1_4@omega.dimensional.com... > > > Kelvin wrote: > > It is true that it is more difficult to write to FAT16. However, we can > > simplify it. > > > > Format the SM/MMC/SD with FAT16, and write an empty file to this card. Then, > > with the same FAT16 reader to > > get the addresses. Thirdly, write to this file...do I sound right? > > > > Best Regards, > > Kelvin > > Yes, this sounds about right. > > A few things to be aware of: > > 1) a newly formatted SM/MMC/SD or CF for that matter will not have a > fragmented FAT table. > > 2) a new file written to the media should have the FAT table in > sequencal order. ( this is a good thing ) > > 3) Finding the start cluster and start sector will be different with > different cluster sizes. ( I know you knew that ) > > So if the embedded code can find this information, over writting the > clusters in order should take care of any problems. > > But, if your going to ASSUME that much, why not write a real FAT file > handler and assume nothing. > > This trick is also useful to help preventing a corrupt FAT table. > > hamilton >Article: 66747
"is it true that one-hot encoding for FSM's is used in FPGA's? If so, why? is it due to the large amount of registers available i.e: enough registers to store all states? " Yep! "Avinash Sharma" <asharma3@REMOVETHIS.uiuc.edu.NOSPAM> wrote in message news:c1k4qp$sq7$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > is it true that one-hot encoding for FSM's is used in FPGA's? If so, > why? is it due to the large amount of registers available i.e: enough > registers to store all states? what kind of encoding is using in ASIC's? > > thanks much > -- > avi > >Article: 66748
gregs@altera.com (Greg Steinke) writes: > Martin Thompson <martin.j.thompson@trw.com> wrote in message news:<uishvxwee.fsf@trw.com>... > > gregs@altera.com (Greg Steinke) writes: > > <snip> > > > Rick, > > > > > > When the ACEX device is initialized after configuration, or when you > > > assert the Chip Wide Reset, the FFs are all set to 0. There are two > > > ways of achieving your goal of having an FF power up to 1. > > > > > > 1. You can code the VHDL so that you end up with a NOT gate before the > > > D of the FF, and another NOT gate after the Q of the FF. Any logic > > > that the FF drives would actually be driven by the NOT gate in the > > > HDL. When the FF powers up at 0, it will appear as 1 by the rest of > > > the logic. But in normal operation, the double-negation will have no > > > effect. You'll have to be careful with simulation however, since the > > > FF's value will be the opposite of what you expect. This works in > > > MAX+PLUS II or Quartus II as it's simply an HDL code. > > > > > > > IIRC the 10K, on which the 1K is based, cannot do a preset without NOT > > gates anyway, irrespective of whether it's a chip-side reset, or not. > > If you write an aync reset clause that initialises something to a '1', > > Synplify (at least) will put the appropriate NOT gates in for you. > > Which will then hammer your tco for any pins you want to default to a > > '1' - like ooh, maybe a chip-select.... Not that I bear the scars or > > anything :-) > <snip> > Martin, > The ACEX 1K (and FLEX 10K) LE has an async clear and an async load. An > async preset could be implemented by the NOT technique or by using the > async load. A design that uses just the preset will generally end up > using the NOT technique, whereas a design that uses a preset and a > clear will use the async load technique. > True - my memory was only of the IOEs. However, if you want a preset, you have to sacrifice DATA3 in the LUT according to my datasheet (as implicated by the use of the term "load" rather than "preset"). I knew I'd recalled something about presets not being quite as "free" as resets :-) > The IO Element has a programmable inversion in it to accomodate the > NOT technique. So for example if an LE register drives a pin, and the > design calls for the register to be async preset, the compiler will > use the NOT technique and implement the after-register NOT in the IOE. > However, the best tCO is obtained by using the IOE register, and the > programmable inversion is before the D of the IOE register. So there > is no way to implement an async preset in the IOE, which is probably > the reason for the tCO pushout that you saw - the register was moved > into an LE which increases tCO. > > If you see a design where an async-preset LE drives a pin, and there's > an extra LE put into the path to implement the NOT gate, this is a bug > and should be reported to Altera and/or Synplicity. But I'll bet that > the tCO pushout is due to the register moving from the IOE to the LE. > Yes, that is what was happening - it was a while ago, I remember now! What happens to the power-up (not reset) behaviour? Does it still power up low until the reset occurs? > You will be happy to know that we have enhanced the IOE registers of > the Stratix and Cyclone FPGAs. In these devices, you can choose to > have an async clear or async preset on an IOE. This is selectable per > IOE. Furthermore, an IOE register that uses the async preset will > power up high. Perfect for your active-low chip select. > Good stuff! > > > > > 2. Quartus II has an ACF setting called "POWER_UP_LEVEL". You can set > > > this to HIGH or LOW for an individual register. You can apply this > > > setting using the Assignment Editor or in the HDL using the > > > "altera_attribute" syntax. Here's an example: > > > > > > signal my_reg : std_logic > > > attribute altera_attribute : string; > > > attribute altera_attribute of my_reg : signal is > > > "POWER_UP_LEVEL=HIGH"; > > > > > > Either approach works - just depends on whether you would rather > > > modify the HDL or change assignments. > > > > > > > > > I assume this only affects the configuration bitstream, not how the > > chip-wide reset behaves? Or have I misunderstood the chip-wide reset? > > > > Cheers, > > Martin > For the second question - > In ACEX 1K FPGAs, on the silicon level, the chip-wide reset sets all > the registers to zero. The NOT technique that I proposed simply > modifies the LUT that feeds the register, and the LUTs that the > register feeds, to add the NOT gates. (Through the configuration > bitstream as you suggest.) If you were to microprobe the register, you > would see it go low when chip-wide reset is asserted. But every case > where that register is used now would have a NOT gate, so it would > seem to go high. > OK, that's clear enough (although Figure 12 of the datasheet implies that chip-wide reset *can* do a preset of the FF) But does the POWER_UP_LEVEL technique infer NOT gates as in solution 1), or do you get a '1' on power up and then a '0' on chip-wide reset? Cheers, Martin -- martin.j.thompson@trw.com TRW Conekt, Solihull, UK http://www.trw.com/conektArticle: 66749
The $100 PCI IP core license is intended for hobbyists, FPGA
enthusiasts, Verilog learners, and students who want to make their own
PCI device for personal use.
I believe there are potentially several hundred people in the US who are
willing to pay $100 for the license.
It is my perception that people who do research can probably pay more
than a personal user, so I feel like I should charge more for a license
than a personal user.
If cost is that much of an issue, ask Xilinx because I read in this
newsgroup while back that they do sometimes donate their PCI IP core to
educational institutions.
I just don't intend to compete with a free one.
Kevin Brace
Rainer Buchty wrote:
>
> In article <c1kbg6$t67$3@newsreader.mailgate.org>,
>
> Let me get this straight. The use should be
>
> - non-commercial
> - non-profit
> - non-academic research
> - strictly personal purposes
>
> So who the hell should license that core? I can understand that you rule out
> commercial use, I *could* understand if you ruled out industrial research.
>
> But ruling out academic research because you want to charge *more* from
> universities is reducing the number of potential customers pretty much to
> zero.
>
> Rainer
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
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