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
Sudhir.Singh@email.com wrote: > Hi folks, > are there any DSP soft processor cores for fpgas available. I have done > a search and only found 32 bit RISCs but no DSP processor cores. > Thanks in advance > Sudhir I thought the tool flows supported this now, but via the DSP blocks ? -ie rather than a separate 'core', you compile what you want, into as many DSP Cells as you need ? A Soft-DSP will never be as fast as a dedicated device, the key in FPGA is to spawn DSP in parallel and in HW. Check with Altera, Lattice, Xilinx... -jgArticle: 94501
Newman napisał(a): > Jerzy, > You may wish to check out Xilinx answer record 18277 if HSWAP_EN = > '1'. > The title of the Answer Record is : > Virtex/Spartan I/O - IO outputs might transition during > configuration. > > Hope this helps, it was news to me when I heard it. It's new light on my project. Mhm... I look at it closer on next design. Thank you very much.. Jerzy GburArticle: 94502
Thomas Reinemann <Thomas.Reinemann@masch-bau.uni-magdeburg.de> writes: > AFAIK, the Win32 version of the Webpack contains Modelsim. No, it's a separate download. > Does the Linux version contain it too? The Xilinx edition is only available for Windows. AFAIK Webpack includes ISE Simulator on both Windows and Linux.Article: 94503
Ray, the channel bandwidth is also fairly large, 22MHz, so while there are only 24 channels, I potentially would need more than 110 FFT bins. It would not have to be as big as I put above though, since I could decimate the above by 3 or 5 or 9 as part of the complex downconvert.Article: 94504
Don't have the time for an interview but I think you need to revise your time line. I was etching my own PC boards, hand assembling boards, and burning my own proms up to the early 90s. The "dark age" was probably in the 90s when everything switched over to surface mount. I think the renaissance now is hacking WITHOUT a soldering iron, e.g. hacking tivo or ipod software, building custom mame video machines, re-flashing boxes like linksys routers, etc. "Kevin Morris" <kevin@techfocusmedia.com> wrote in message news:1137096913.255199.239090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > I'm writing a feature article for FPGA Journal (www.fpgajournal.com) > about FPGAs and the re-birth of the electronics hobbyist. My theory is > that electronics as a hobby went through a "dark age" period, maybe > from the early/mid 1970s until recently becuase of the inaccessibility > and cost of designing with state-of-the-art technology. Radio Shack > shifted their focus from 50-in-1 project kits and hobbyist parts to > selling toys, cell-phones, and stereo equipment. > > Now, with the emergence of low-cost, high-capability FPGAs, development > boards, and design software, I see a new age of hobbyist activity > beginning (as often evidenced in this group). > > I'm looking for a few people that would be willing to express views on > this topic for the article. > > I know, Austin will probably post a strong technical argument that > Xilinx FPGAs are uniquely attractive to the hobbyist, somebody from > Altera will send me a Cubic Cyclonium prototyping paperweight (they're > very cool), and Actel and Lattice people will post just to remind us > that they have low-cost kits too, but I'm primarily interested in some > info from real, live, "working" hobbyists. > > Any takers? >Article: 94505
Excuse the OT post, but I figured people in this group may have an answer for this odd question: In transitioning to RoHS, can you mix Lead-free parts into a standard PbSn process? The idea is to start buying RoHS parts while depleting the existing stock of PbSn components. Good? Bad? Ugly? Thanks, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin Euredjian eCinema Systems, Inc. To send private email: x@y where x = "martineu" y = "pacbell.net"Article: 94506
Kevin, Actually, I do have some possible places for you to go look: University robotics competitions The DARPA intelligent vehicle crowd (Berkeley's motorcycle used V2 Pro for vision, just too bad they used a two wheel vehicle, and it fell over and were disqualified!). The Mars rovers used Virtex' for control, but they have six wheels! Amateur radio software defined radio: ARRL Magazine has their technical rag, http://www.arrl.org/qex/ which has had articles of SDR using both Xilinx and Altera FPGAs. There is even a hobby project SDR that comes with a FPGA. Good luck, AustinArticle: 94507
Hi Ludwig, Have you considered using two XUPV2Ps each with its own VDEC1 board? The VDEC data from one board could be sent to the other over a SATA cable connected between the boards. The "Using High Speed Serial MGTs with the Aurora IP" Quickstart at http://www.xilinx.com/univ/xupv2p.html is a good example to start with. Paul Ludwig Lenz wrote: > > Hello, > > I want to use a second Digilent VDEC videodevice at one time with another on > the Vertex II Pro Developmentsystem board. Because this board has only one > highspeed Digilent Connector (J37), I need to construct an adapter for the > lowspeed Connector (J5 - J6). > > Does someone know, where I can get an Hirose FX2 connector (in > germany/europe)? Can I use J5 - J6 with the signal-clock, which is > necessary for a Digilent VDEC videodevice (54MHz)? > > Thanks, > LudwigArticle: 94508
Martin, Ugly, I am told. Because of the temperature differences, there can be some real reliability problems (cold joints, or no joints). My best bet is to tell you to contact the RoHS solder suppliers. Those guys are the ones that have to make a living doing it, and their presentations (in my experience) are absolutely the best ones. For example: http://www.efdsolder.com/PDF/EFD_-_Lead_Free_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf Austin Martin wrote: > Excuse the OT post, but I figured people in this group may have an answer > for this odd question: > > In transitioning to RoHS, can you mix Lead-free parts into a standard PbSn > process? The idea is to start buying RoHS parts while depleting the > existing stock of PbSn components. > > Good? Bad? Ugly? > > Thanks, > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Martin Euredjian > eCinema Systems, Inc. > > To send private email: > x@y > where > x = "martineu" > y = "pacbell.net" > > >Article: 94509
Anonymous wrote: > Thanks. But that brings up another question: Is it better to go with ucLinux > or use the PPC version of linux? I suspect the latter if I have the FX part, > right? Being the maintainer of the MicroBlaze uClinux port, and offering commercial services for the platform, I'm obviously biased :), however I think the decision is not as automatic as you suggest. Unless you are prepared to shell out a reasonable number of dollars to MontaVista, developing for uClinux with the free tools is a lot easier than PPC. There are some guides out there on DIY Linux for Xilinx PPC, but they aren't for the faint-hearted. The board port/bringup procedure for uClinux on MicroBlaze is also a lot faster than PPC Linux, with the free auto-config tools. It depends on what you are trying to do, and how much you value your time. Is this a hobbyist, study or commercial project? Regards, John > > "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message > news:dq3cvk$o1n$00$1@news.t-online.com... > >>"Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >>news:MM9xf.5246$Kp.178@southeast.rr.com... >> >>>Can anyone suggest the best evm board for virtex-4 and linux? How has >>>people's experience been with it? Are USB drivers included in the linux > > os > >>>builds they provide? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Clark >>> >> >>I may be mistaken but I think there are no Virtex4 linux ready currently >>shipping with both device and host support drivers for USB >> >>Virtex-4 based modules from >>http://www.hydraxc.com/ >> >>eg LX15, LX25 and FX12 based units are currently all shipping, but the >>included ucLinux reference design does not include USB drivers, this will > > be > >>supplied later on, currently only some standalone USB firmware samples are >>included. >> >>There are possible other boards or modules with partial USB support, but >>with device and host (OTG) support already included I doubt that you find >>anything at the moment, you can possible find something with host support >>only >> >>Antti >> >> > > >Article: 94510
On 12 Jan 2006 12:15:13 -0800, "Kevin Morris" <kevin@techfocusmedia.com> wrote: >I'm writing a feature article for FPGA Journal (www.fpgajournal.com) >about FPGAs and the re-birth of the electronics hobbyist. My theory is >that electronics as a hobby went through a "dark age" period, maybe >from the early/mid 1970s until recently becuase of the inaccessibility >and cost of designing with state-of-the-art technology. Radio Shack >shifted their focus from 50-in-1 project kits and hobbyist parts to >selling toys, cell-phones, and stereo equipment. I think it was more about the fact that it became less possible to build things for less money than you could buy them for... > >Now, with the emergence of low-cost, high-capability FPGAs, development >boards, and design software, I see a new age of hobbyist activity >beginning (as often evidenced in this group). > >I'm looking for a few people that would be willing to express views on >this topic for the article. > >I know, Austin will probably post a strong technical argument that >Xilinx FPGAs are uniquely attractive to the hobbyist, somebody from >Altera will send me a Cubic Cyclonium prototyping paperweight (they're >very cool), and Actel and Lattice people will post just to remind us >that they have low-cost kits too, but I'm primarily interested in some >info from real, live, "working" hobbyists. > >Any takers? I assume you are aware of www.fpga4fun.com - you should certainly ask for input there. A few assorted ramblings, in no particular order.... I think a major development has been the availability of free devtools - for a long, long time PLDs and later FPGAs were the exclusive territory of the professionals due to the high entry cost of the software, not to mention the steep learning curve and cost of the computing power needed at the time. Few hobbyists would have the patience to wait through multi-hour compile times. I think the FPGA hobbyist thing has happened more by accident than anything else due to the availability of cheap devboards and free software, rather than any conscious effort by FPGA suppliers. I don't think the FPGA companies have yet really woken up to the needs of the low-volume user market. Contrast this with companies like Microchip in the MCU arena, who have always had a policy of supporting the lower volume users, not necessarily hobbyists in particular, but by catering for low-volumes this happens anyway - easy availability of chips in sensible packages at low volumes makes a big difference, and many hobbyist/student users go on to be professional users, which in the long term has to be good for the business of the companies whose products they first started playing with . I'm a little surprised that we haven't yet seen (well not that I've noticed - apologies if I've missed you...) any of the many hobbyist oriented suppliers that have appeared in the MCU area in recent years start looking at making very low cost FPGA boards - for example a PCB with a 40 pin DIL footprint containing a small FPGA, config device and JTAG connector maybe be quite popular. As long as FPGAs are the preserve of distributors like Avnet, low-volume/hobbyist takeup is going to be limited. Packaging is an obvoius barrier, and I doubt that many FPGA hobbyists venture further than using ready-made demo boards. On the other hand I also wonder how many hobbyists actually have a need for the speed and power that an FPGA provides - there are so many fun thnigs that can be done with microcontrollers, how many hobbyists have the time and inclination to venture into the sort of speeds and complexities that need FPGAS (and have the test gear to support it). I would be somewhat skeptical about FPGAs being anything to do with a 'rebirth of the electronics hobbyist', if such a rebirth is indeed occurring. Unless maybe you consider a move by some of the people that were messing with MCUs into FPGAs a shift from a software to a hardware activity, which is tenuous at best..! OK, a few hobbyists are moving into work that is of much greater complexity than was possible without FPGAs but I doubt that there are many who have seen FPGAs as a way into electronics in general. From a personal point of view, although an electronics professional, I also manage to do the occasional hobby project, and recently ventured into the world FPGAs for a project that would simply not have been worth the effort doing without the availability of a cheap FPGA devboard and software to base it on : www.electricstuff.co.uk/ektapro.html (lower half of page), and I already have plans for another couple of 'fun' FPGA projects.Article: 94511
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:29:24 +1300, Jeremy Stringer <jeremy@_NO_MORE_SPAM_endace.com> wrote: >backhus wrote: >> wuyi316904@gmail.com schrieb: >>> Hi,in my project,i need some bufs to delay some signals,but after >>> synthesising,the code:#20 does't have any affects.Is there some way to >>> keep the delay?For example,some constraint for synthesis or other. >>> >> Hi, >> The verilog # operater and the vhdl after statement are not >> synthesizable and (as you already observed) therefore ignored during >> synthesis. >> >> As mentioned before by cationebox, Flipflops/registres are a proper way >> to delay signals by n clock periods (n = number of serialized ffs ). > >Probably worth mentioning DCMs/PLLs as well here - these allow you to do >fine phase shifting on a clock, which can then be used (assuming clock >domain boundaries are crossed correctly) to clock flip-flops with >different timings than your original clock. > >Jeremy SRL16s are also good for adding easily selectable delays to signals.Article: 94512
In article <1137096913.255199.239090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Kevin Morris <kevin@techfocusmedia.com> wrote: >I'm writing a feature article for FPGA Journal (www.fpgajournal.com) >about FPGAs and the re-birth of the electronics hobbyist. My theory is >that electronics as a hobby went through a "dark age" period, maybe >from the early/mid 1970s until recently becuase of the inaccessibility >and cost of designing with state-of-the-art technology. Radio Shack >shifted their focus from 50-in-1 project kits and hobbyist parts to >selling toys, cell-phones, and stereo equipment. Well, I would say that the 'dark age' began more in the early to mid 80's when everything started going surface mount. Lots of people experimented with 74XX parts back when they were in DIP packages. > >Now, with the emergence of low-cost, high-capability FPGAs, development >boards, and design software, I see a new age of hobbyist activity >beginning (as often evidenced in this group). > >I'm looking for a few people that would be willing to express views on >this topic for the article. > >I know, Austin will probably post a strong technical argument that >Xilinx FPGAs are uniquely attractive to the hobbyist, somebody from >Altera will send me a Cubic Cyclonium prototyping paperweight (they're >very cool), and Actel and Lattice people will post just to remind us >that they have low-cost kits too, but I'm primarily interested in some >info from real, live, "working" hobbyists. it doesn't matter who makes the kits, per se, it's the fact that for $100 now you can buy an FPGA starter kit with 300,000 to 400,000 gates or so (and a good amount of memory). I really think the Xilinxs, Alteras, Lattices, etc. don't know what they've got. Perhaps they don't want to be bothered with a consumer/hobbyist market, however, I think that a company like Radio Shack could really capitalize on this: kind of like a return to the 50-in-1 project kits we had as kids, only now it could be 50,000 in one with an FPGA board, memory, USB interface, etc. They could setup a website where people could download & share code. They could sell addons: sensor boards, etc. Given the success of Lego Mindstorms (and there's the new Lego NXT robotics kits coming out this summer) it seems to me that there is an opportunity for consumer level FPGA kit priced under $200. Software engineers could be a good market for an FPGA kit aimed at helping them to create hardware accelerators for software - maybe a relatively small market right now, but it could really grow if hardware acceleration became 'easy' (or at least 'easier'). Also, look at the success of Make magazine: it seems to indicate that there's potentially a big market of makers, tinkerers, hardware hackers, etc. > >Any takers? > I think the advent of open source FPGA related design software will also help bring in more hobbyists. PhilArticle: 94513
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 08:51:49 -0800, "Mike Treseler" <mike_treseler@comcast.net> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> I don't have time to learn an HDL. I read the Xilinx book, draw >> schematics (on paper!), and hand them to a minion to enter and >> compile. > >Ah! The academic solution. >Where have all the minions gone? >Long time passing ... > When will they ever learn, When will they ever learn? JohnArticle: 94514
I have struggled for decades to come up with enticing demo projects for digital circuits, and I have made my rules: It must be something that cannot be done with just a microprocessor. That means it must be something fast. Audio, video, radio, robotics come to mind. Or, for FPGAs, it must be a platform that allows all sorts of variations. Like the Swis Army knife of electronics. Most likely it must be something that appeals to a limited number of people. That way the toy industry has not yet made it available for $ 9.99. (That was the death of some of my keyboard synthesizer projects in the 'seventies.) I think a secondary light-triggered (slave) flash unit would be very useful for all those small digital cameras, but that does not need an FPGA... :-( Peter AlfkeArticle: 94515
Thanks for all of you,the device what i programme is SPARTAN 2,and i can't use more clock for delay flip_flop,is there other way for this problem?Article: 94516
Thank for ur suggests,Is there independent Impact for download and what the Impact version u used?Article: 94517
"Martin" <0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net> wrote in news:XiBxf.287$or4.4@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com: > Excuse the OT post, but I figured people in this group may have an > answer for this odd question: > > In transitioning to RoHS, can you mix Lead-free parts into a standard > PbSn process? The idea is to start buying RoHS parts while depleting > the existing stock of PbSn components. > > Good? Bad? Ugly? > > Thanks, > You are going to have no real problems soldering leadfree parts with tin- lead solder. The big exception to this are BGAs. The ball of a BGA is solder. If it is leadfree, it will need to be soldered at a higher temperature. You CM will need to know this. Many parts have been supplied leadfree for several years. This includes many of the passives that you probably are already using. They might not have been labeled as such. We have started using lead free pcbs as well. In our case we have opted for ENIG (electroless nickel/immersion gold). They are easy to solder with PbSn No one really knows the long term effects of moving to RoHS. I am hoping that the EU decides that July is too soon since industry is not really ready. Nevertheless, I think it is prudent to plan for it to happen. For example, try buying Altera PLDs. They seem to be readily available in lead but not available in the lead free versions (of course, Altera claims they have both). Part of this situation is caused because everyone (distributors, manufacturers, etc) wants to get rid of their non RoHs inventory. It's hardest on those of us on the end of the chain, since we have the least amount of time to transition. I think one of the biggest problems will be for products that have relatively long lives and small volume. I have already seen parts that were discontinued just because the mfr didn't want to change to a lead free process. How many designs will have to be completely redone, just to deal with a part that has been obsoleted prematurely. Even if you could buy enough existing material, you still couldn't ship the existing design because there it will never be a RoHS compliant part. I would bet that this whole RoHS (just the lead part) is going to cost many billions of dollars, with very little improvement overall in the environment. The amount of lead in a typical pcb is very small compared to car batteries, old CRTs, etc. Sorry for the rant, I'm sure most of you have heard it before (probably coming out of your own mouth). -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.comArticle: 94518
wuyi316904@gmail.com wrote: > Hi,I have a problem that i can't use ISE4.2 download design in CPLD or > FPGA with win2000 SP4 system.The iMPACT of ISE4.2 accessories can't > find the download cable.I think this is the software problem,because > with ISE6.2 all is OK.What is the solution of confict between ISE4.2 > and win2000 SP4. If ISE6.2 works, why do you need to use 4.2? I can understand the need to compile with an earlier version, but why do you need to download with an earlier version? Alan NishiokaArticle: 94519
wuyi316904@gmail.com wrote: > Thanks for all of you,the device what i programme is SPARTAN 2,and i > can't use more clock for delay flip_flop,is there other way for this > problem? > There are other ways - some nasty, some not too bad. What are you trying to do? JeremyArticle: 94520
This is a commercial project. I was under the impression Xilinx provides a working Linux build for the V4? I don't expect to be doing much Linux hacking per se, maybe just a custom device driver to interface to my DSP circuit/code. "John Williams" <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:newscache$6670ti$oeg$1@lbox.itee.uq.edu.au... > Anonymous wrote: > > Thanks. But that brings up another question: Is it better to go with ucLinux > > or use the PPC version of linux? I suspect the latter if I have the FX part, > > right? > > Being the maintainer of the MicroBlaze uClinux port, and offering > commercial services for the platform, I'm obviously biased :), however I > think the decision is not as automatic as you suggest. > > Unless you are prepared to shell out a reasonable number of dollars to > MontaVista, developing for uClinux with the free tools is a lot easier > than PPC. There are some guides out there on DIY Linux for Xilinx PPC, > but they aren't for the faint-hearted. > > The board port/bringup procedure for uClinux on MicroBlaze is also a lot > faster than PPC Linux, with the free auto-config tools. > > It depends on what you are trying to do, and how much you value your time. > > Is this a hobbyist, study or commercial project? > > Regards, > > John > > > > > > > "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message > > news:dq3cvk$o1n$00$1@news.t-online.com... > > > >>"Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > >>news:MM9xf.5246$Kp.178@southeast.rr.com... > >> > >>>Can anyone suggest the best evm board for virtex-4 and linux? How has > >>>people's experience been with it? Are USB drivers included in the linux > > > > os > > > >>>builds they provide? > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Clark > >>> > >> > >>I may be mistaken but I think there are no Virtex4 linux ready currently > >>shipping with both device and host support drivers for USB > >> > >>Virtex-4 based modules from > >>http://www.hydraxc.com/ > >> > >>eg LX15, LX25 and FX12 based units are currently all shipping, but the > >>included ucLinux reference design does not include USB drivers, this will > > > > be > > > >>supplied later on, currently only some standalone USB firmware samples are > >>included. > >> > >>There are possible other boards or modules with partial USB support, but > >>with device and host (OTG) support already included I doubt that you find > >>anything at the moment, you can possible find something with host support > >>only > >> > >>Antti > >> > >> > > > > > >Article: 94521
Hi - If the system you're designing is a one-off, there's no harm in trying various things to see what works. But if you plan to make multiple copies of this design, there's no substitute for timing analysis. And you don't need fancy tools: use Excel if you have it, paper and pencil if you don't. Without the timing analysis, it's just guessing. Bob Perlman Cambrian Design Works On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:42:47 -0600, "Pouria" <pouria@hotmail.com> wrote: >HI Everybody! > >I'm having a timing problem interfacing with my SDRAM bank. I'm using >256Mb MT48LC16M16 SDRAM from Micron, and want to operate them at 100 Mhz. >So far I have only been working at 40 Mhz. > >I'm using two DLLs (inside my VirtexII) one for clocking the FPGA and one >for clocking the SDRAM. The design works if I DON'T use the external >feedback from SDRAM_Clk to one of the DLL, but it fails as soon as I use >the feedback (Which according to Xilinx should be the correct way to >terminate clock Skew). > >The feedback to the other DLL is taken from clock output of it self, and I >have used IBUG/OBUF/BUFG so that is not the problem. > >Hope some one can help me . >Best regards, >/P > > > >Article: 94522
I just downloaded the 8.i Webpack and it won't program the ML402 SX35 :(Article: 94523
"Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:rRFxf.9618$Kp.656@southeast.rr.com... > This is a commercial project. I was under the impression Xilinx provides a > working Linux build for the V4? I don't expect to be doing much Linux > hacking per se, maybe just a custom device driver to interface to my DSP > circuit/code. > > "John Williams" <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au> wrote in message > news:newscache$6670ti$oeg$1@lbox.itee.uq.edu.au... >> Anonymous wrote: >> > Thanks. But that brings up another question: Is it better to go with > ucLinux >> > or use the PPC version of linux? I suspect the latter if I have the FX > part, >> > right? >> >> Being the maintainer of the MicroBlaze uClinux port, and offering >> commercial services for the platform, I'm obviously biased :), however I >> think the decision is not as automatic as you suggest. >> >> Unless you are prepared to shell out a reasonable number of dollars to >> MontaVista, developing for uClinux with the free tools is a lot easier >> than PPC. There are some guides out there on DIY Linux for Xilinx PPC, >> but they aren't for the faint-hearted. >> >> The board port/bringup procedure for uClinux on MicroBlaze is also a lot >> faster than PPC Linux, with the free auto-config tools. >> >> It depends on what you are trying to do, and how much you value your >> time. >> >> Is this a hobbyist, study or commercial project? >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> I stand here with John - the Xilinx PPC linux setup is not for faint-hearted. That is because of Xilinx politics - everybody who is not MontaVista gets just ignored - DENX was doing lots of work towards PPC linux support but as Xilinx did not talk to them so Denx dropped any further work on Xilinx support for PPC linux. Thats too bad. Setting up a new MicroBlaze uCLinux systems is just a piece of cake So if you need some DSP code setup uClinux/Microblaze, connect your DSP functions to FSL links and you are all set -- Antti Lukats http://www.xilant.comArticle: 94524
"Brad Smallridge" <bradsmallridge@dslextreme.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:11seconiduekg2d@corp.supernews.com... >I just downloaded the 8.i Webpack and it won't > program the ML402 SX35 :( what you mean 'wont program' - Impact doesnt recognize the device? programming == configuration download or do you mean that SX35 is not supported device by WebPack? WebPack is free so you cant complain about the number of devices that are supported. Antti
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