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 147275

Article: 147275
Subject: Tutorial for C based bit-accurate hardware modeling ?
From: "onkars" <onkars@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.winlab.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:03:42 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am a student who is trying to model a parallel hardware architecture for
FFT using a C. My aim is to verify the correctness of my architecture and
also estimate the noise introduced when fixed point is used.

Is there any tutorial/book or any help that can guide me in this process of
C modelling --- and especially for fixed point models?

 

Thank you. 	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com

Article: 147276
Subject: Quartus II under Windows7?
From: Wastrel <stephensdigital@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
My XP box died the other day and was replaced by a 64 bit Windows7
machine. Now my $%^&Quartus II software won't run, and Altera says
Win7 ain't supported. Anybody know of a workaround? I'm developing on
the Altera Cyclone III FPGA on the Altium Designer NanoBoard 3000.

Thx,

Bob

Article: 147277
Subject: Re: Quartus II under Windows7?
From: Jon Beniston <jon@beniston.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
It's running ok for me on Windows 7 64-bit.

What particular part of the software are you having problems with?

Jon

Article: 147278
Subject: Re: Tutorial for C based bit-accurate hardware modeling ?
From: pbljung <ljung@codetronix.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> I am a student who is trying to model a parallel hardware architecture for
> FFT using a C. My aim is to verify the correctness of my architecture and
> also estimate the noise introduced when fixed point is used.
>
> Is there any tutorial/book or any help that can guide me in this process of
> C modelling --- and especially for fixed point models?

One alternative is to code your FFT in the high-level concurrent
language Mobius which supports parameterized integers, fixed point and
floating point. The Mobius compiler generates synthesizeable Verilog
or VHDL with excellent QoR. On www.codetronix.com there are several
FFT demos including Cooley, combinatorial and r2^2sdf architectures
demonstrating bit-accurate TLM simulations and synthesis. You could
use these as a basis and vary the bitsizes to experimentally observe
quantization noise.

/Per

Article: 147279
Subject: Re: Tutorial for C based bit-accurate hardware modeling ?
From: Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:38:58 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/21/2010 1:03 PM, onkars wrote:
> I am a student who is trying to model a parallel hardware architecture for
> FFT using a C. My aim is to verify the correctness of my architecture and
> also estimate the noise introduced when fixed point is used.
>
> Is there any tutorial/book or any help that can guide me in this process of
> C modelling --- and especially for fixed point models?
>
>
>
> Thank you. 	
> 					
> ---------------------------------------		
> Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com

You're going to have to write it in VHDL or Verilog eventually anyway. 
Might as well do the modeling there too.  You could start by writing 
purely behavioral code for it, and then have a pretty straightforward 
path to making something synthesizable out of it.

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
Email address is currently out of order

Article: 147280
Subject: Re: Tutorial for C based bit-accurate hardware modeling ?
From: Jonathan Bromley <spam@oxfordbromley.plus.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:44:14 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:03:42 -0500, "onkars" wrote:

>I am a student who is trying to model a parallel hardware architecture for
>FFT using a C. My aim is to verify the correctness of my architecture and
>also estimate the noise introduced when fixed point is used.
>
>Is there any tutorial/book or any help that can guide me in this process of
>C modelling --- and especially for fixed point models?

If you download the SystemC-2.0.1 class library from
www.systemc.org you will find a comprehensive 
package of template classes for modelling
fixed-point values in C++.  You don't have to
do the full SystemC thing to use it, and in 
any case the code should give you some
useful ideas.

However, folk who do this kind of stuff all the
time tend to use Matlab, don't they?
-- 
Jonathan Bromley

Article: 147281
Subject: Re: Tutorial for C based bit-accurate hardware modeling ?
From: Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:55:37 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 4/21/2010 2:38 PM, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> On 4/21/2010 1:03 PM, onkars wrote:
>> I am a student who is trying to model a parallel hardware architecture
>> for
>> FFT using a C. My aim is to verify the correctness of my architecture and
>> also estimate the noise introduced when fixed point is used.
>>
>> Is there any tutorial/book or any help that can guide me in this
>> process of
>> C modelling --- and especially for fixed point models?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com
>
> You're going to have to write it in VHDL or Verilog eventually anyway.
> Might as well do the modeling there too. You could start by writing
> purely behavioral code for it, and then have a pretty straightforward
> path to making something synthesizable out of it.
>

And goddammit, I just got to reading comp.dsp.

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

Go learn that before you use the Internet for anything again.  Ever.

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
Email address is currently out of order

Article: 147282
Subject: Re: Quartus II under Windows7?
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:42:38 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Wastrel <stephensdigital@gmail.com> wrote:

> My XP box died the other day and was replaced by a 64 bit Windows7
> machine. Now my $%^&Quartus II software won't run, and Altera says
> Win7 ain't supported. Anybody know of a workaround? I'm developing on
> the Altera Cyclone III FPGA on the Altium Designer NanoBoard 3000.

Win7 has an option to tell the program that it is running on
a previous version of windows, as far as such checks are concerned.

As far as the design software, that is likely to work.

As you might need a device driver to talk to USB to download
the bitstream, that might be system dependent, such that it
won't work.

-- glen

Article: 147283
Subject: Absolute value of a two's complement number
From: "dlopez" <d@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.designgame.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:26:16 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,
I'm trying to calculate the absolute value of a signed number (two's
complement).

Right now, I sign extend the input, and when msb=1, inverse all bits and
add 1. The sign extend is to take care of the most negative number.

Is there a better way in terms of hardware utilization?


Here is my verilog code:

wire signed [w-1:0] a;
wire signed [w:0]   b, c;

assign b = $signed(a);            //sign exted input
assign c = b[w] ? (~b+1'b1) : b;  //inverse all bits and add 1 if msb=1

Thanks,
Diego	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com

Article: 147284
Subject: Re: Quartus II under Windows7?
From: Derek Simmons <dereks314@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Apr 21, 4:08=A0pm, Jon Beniston <j...@beniston.com> wrote:
> It's running ok for me on Windows 7 64-bit.
>
> What particular part of the software are you having problems with?
>
> Jon

Have you found any advantages to running Quartus II on WIndows 7 or a
64 bit OS?

Thanks,
Derek

Article: 147285
Subject: Re: Absolute value of a two's complement number
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:28:46 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
dlopez <d@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.designgame.ca> wrote:

> I'm trying to calculate the absolute value of a signed 
> number (two's complement).
 
> Right now, I sign extend the input, and when msb=1, inverse all bits and
> add 1. The sign extend is to take care of the most negative number.

I suppose you can do that.  I have never known anyone else
to do that, but then on an N bit processor with N bit registers,
it doesn't make much sense to try to store an N+1 bit value.
 
> Is there a better way in terms of hardware utilization?
 
> Here is my verilog code:
 
> wire signed [w-1:0] a;
> wire signed [w:0]   b, c;
 
> assign b = $signed(a);            //sign exted input
> assign c = b[w] ? (~b+1'b1) : b;  //inverse all bits and add 1 if msb=1

-- glen

Article: 147286
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight!
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 7:17?pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>  (snip on test benches)
>
> >> Yes, I was describing real world (hardware) test benches.
>
> >> Depending on how close you are to a setup/hold violation,
> >> it may take a long time for a failure to actually occur.
>
> > That is the point.  Finding timing violations in a simulation is hard,
> > finding them in physical hardware is not possible to do with any
> > certainty.  A timing violation depends on the actual delays on a chip
> > and that will vary with temperature, power supply voltage and process
> > variations between chips.
>
> But they have to be done for ASICs, and all other chips as
> part of the fabrication process.  For FPGAs you mostly don't
> have to do such, relying on the specifications and that the chips
> were tested appropriately in the factory.

I don't follow your reasoning.  Why is finding timing violations in
ASICs any different from FPGA?  If the makers of ASICs can't
characterize their devices well enough for static timing analysis to
find the timing problems then ASIC designers are screwed.


> > I had to work on a problem design once
> > because the timing analyzer did not work or the constraints did not
> > cover (I firmly believe it was the tools, not the constraints since it
> > failed on a number of different designs).  We tried finding the chip
> > that failed at the lowest temperature and then used that at an
> > elevated temperature for our "final" timing verification.  Even with
> > that, I had little confidence that the design would never have a
> > problem from timing.  Of course on top of that the chip was being used
> > at 90% capacity.  This design is the reason I don't work for that
> > company anymore.  The section head knew about all of these problems
> > before he assigned the task and then expected us to work 70 hour work
> > weeks.  At least we got them to buy us $100 worth of dinner each
> > evening!
>
> One that I worked with, though not at all at that level, was
> a programmable ASIC (for a systolic array processor).  For some
> reason that I never knew the timing was just a little bit off
> regarding to writes to the internal RAM.  The solution was to use
> two successive writes, which seemed to work.  In the usual operation
> mode, the RAM was initialized once, so the extra cycle wasn't much
> of a problem.  There were also some modes where the RAM had to
> be written while processing data, such that the extra cycle meant
> that the processor ran that much slower.
>
> > The point is that if you don't do static timing analysis (or have an
> > analyzer that is broken) timing verification is nearly impossible.
>
> And even if you do, the device might still have timing problems.

You keep saying that, but you don't explain.

> >> Yes, I was trying to cover the case of not using static timing
> >> analysis but only testing actual hardware. ?For ASICs, it is
> >> usually necessary to test the actual chips, though they should
> >> have already passed static timing. ?
>
> > If you find a timing bug in the ASIC chip, isn't that a little too
> > late?  Do you test at elevated temperature?  Do you generate special
> > test vectors?  How is this different from just testing the logic?
>
> It might be that it works at a lower clock rate, or other workarounds
> can be used.  Yes, it is part of testing the logic.
>
> (snip)
>
> >> If you only have one clock, it isn't so hard. ?As you add more,
> >> with different frequencies and/or phases, it gets much harder,
> >> I agree. ?It would be nice to get as much help as possible
> >> from the tools.
>
> > The number of clocks is irrelevant.  I don't consider timing issues of
> > crossing clock domains to be "timing" problems.  There you can only
> > solve the problem with proper logic design, so it is a logic
> > problem.
>
> Yes, there is nothing to do about asynchronous clocks.  It just has
> to work in all cases.  But in the case of supposedly related
> clocks, you have to verify it.  There are designs that have one
> clock a multiple of the other clock frequency, or multiple phases
> with specified timing relationship.   Or even single clocks with
> specified duty cycle.  (I still remember the 8086 with its 33% duty
> cycle clock.)
>
> With one clock you can run combinations of voltage, temperature,
> and clock rate, not so hard but still a lot of combinations.
> With related clocks, you have to verify that the timing between
> the clocks works.

But you can't verify timing by testing.  You can never have any level
of certainty that you have tested all the ways the timing can fail.
If the clocks are related, what exactly are you testing, that they
*are* related?  Timing is something that has to be correct by
design.

Rick

Article: 147287
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight!
From: "mike v." <mike.vacanti@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I also use seperate sequential and combinatorial always blocks. At
first I felt that I should be able to have just a single sequential
block but quickly became accustomed to 2 blocks and it now feels
natural and I don't think it limits my ability to express my intent at
all. Most of the experienced designers I work with use this style but
not all of them.

Article: 147288
Subject: Re: Absolute value of a two's complement number
From: "dlopez" <d@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.designgame.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:35:30 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>I suppose you can do that.  I have never known anyone else
>to do that, but then on an N bit processor with N bit registers,
>it doesn't make much sense to try to store an N+1 bit value.

So on a N bit processor with N bit registers, would you round that most
negative value that doesn't fit to the max possible positive value?

For example, say 4 bit data, -8 becomes 7?

Diego	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com

Article: 147289
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight!
From: Kim Enkovaara <kim.enkovaara@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:09:40 +0300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> combinations.   One that I have heard of, though haven't actually
> tried, is having a logic block where the delay is greater than
> one clock cycle, but less than two.  Maybe some tools can do that,
> but I don't believe that all can.

Just normal multicycle path, has been normal thing in tools for
a long time. At least Altera, Xilinx, Synplify, Primetime and
Precision support it.

--Kim

Article: 147290
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight!
From: Kim Enkovaara <kim.enkovaara@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:15:24 +0300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:
> But you can't verify timing by testing.  You can never have any level
> of certainty that you have tested all the ways the timing can fail.

Especially with ASIC you can't verify the design by testing. There are
so many signoff corners and modes in the timing analysis. The old
worst/best case in normal and testmode are long gone. Even 6 corner
analysis in 2+ modes is for low end processes with big extra margins.
With multiple adjustable internal voltage areas, powerdown areas etc.
the analysis is hard even with STA.

--Kim

Article: 147291
Subject: Re: Virtex 7?
From: backhus <goouse99@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 21 Apr., 18:15, Ed McGettigan <ed.mcgetti...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:20=A0pm, "stephen.cra...@gmail.com"
>
> <stephen.cra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The CTO of Xilinx, during his keynote this morning at the
> > Reconfigurable Architectures Workshop in Atlanta, made mention of the
> > recent announcement of the Virtex 7 architecture. =A0My colleagues and =
I
> > assumed that either the announcement was very recent or not very well
> > publicized as none of us had heard anything official regarding Virtex
> > 7. A subsequent web search returned little except for a white paper on
> > 28nm technology.
>
> > Does anyone know what announcement the CTO was referring to?
>
> Either your colleagues misheard what was said our our CTO, Ivo Bolson,
> mispoke. =A0There has been no announcement of a Virtex-7 FPGA family.
>
> Xilinx did recently announce aspects of future families that will be
> developed on the 28nm process node.http://www.xilinx.com/technology/roadm=
ap/index.htm
>
> Ed McGettigan
> --
> Xilinx Inc.

Hi,
in Elektronik issue 8/2010 (bimonthly leading German electronics
magazine) there's a featured article about "The FPGA of the Future".
There is a statement that says :" The fabrication of [Xilinx's] 28nm
devices will take place at Samsung and TSMC.
The Spartan and Virtex product lines will be joined into a single
product family for the 28 nm devices by Xilinx - PROBABLY named
Virtex-7"

So, the name is in print already. It's NOT mentioned who came up with
it, but unless Xilinx doesn't plan to name this new line totally
different it's an obvious guess.
Rumors travel fast. :-)

Regards
  Eilert

Article: 147292
Subject: Re: Absolute value of a two's complement number
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:30:54 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
dlopez <d@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.designgame.ca> wrote:

>>I suppose you can do that.  I have never known anyone else
>>to do that, but then on an N bit processor with N bit registers,
>>it doesn't make much sense to try to store an N+1 bit value.
 
> So on a N bit processor with N bit registers, would you round that most
> negative value that doesn't fit to the max possible positive value?
 
> For example, say 4 bit data, -8 becomes 7?

On most processors, twos complement arithmetic wraps on overflow.
In that case, absolute value of the most negative value gives
the same, most negative, value.

There are some with saturating arithmetic, such that give the 
largest value on overflow and smallest on underflow.  In that
case, I would expect the most positive value.

Try it on your favorite processor and see what it does.

-- glen

Article: 147293
Subject: Re: Polmaddie Family CPLD and FPGA Teaching Boards
From: -jg <jim.granville@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Apr 22, 3:59=A0am, John Adair <g...@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
> We finally made an assembly slot and built the 4 remaining Polmaddie
> CPLD and FPGA boards. These very low cost CPLD and FPGA boards will
> sell to universities and colleges in prices as low as $30-40. One off
> pricing starts at $60-70.
>
> The concept is a bit different to that offered by most development
> board vendors and we have 5 solutions, from 4 different CPLD/FPGA
> vendors, allowing you to evaluate differnt tool flows or even
> different technologies with a common feature set.
>
> More detailshttp://www.enterpoint.co.uk/polmaddie/polmaddie_family.html.
>

"ActelTM ProASIC3TM (Polmaddie5)."

and the link says
Polmaddie5 :
" Software
ISETM WebpackTM software is a free development tool suite from
XilinxTM  for CPLD + FPGA design development. More details
http://www.xilinx.com/products/design_resources/design_tool/index.htm."

oops... ;)


and missing is any mention of which ProASIC3 is fitted - rather an
important detail ?

-jg


Article: 147294
Subject: Re: Polmaddie Family CPLD and FPGA Teaching Boards
From: -jg <jim.granville@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Apr 22, 3:59=A0am, John Adair <g...@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
> We finally made an assembly slot and built the 4 remaining Polmaddie
> CPLD and FPGA boards. These very low cost CPLD and FPGA boards will
> sell to universities and colleges in prices as low as $30-40. One off
> pricing starts at $60-70.
>
> The concept is a bit different to that offered by most development
> board vendors and we have 5 solutions, from 4 different CPLD/FPGA
> vendors, allowing you to evaluate differnt tool flows or even
> different technologies with a common feature set.

A very good idea.

 Since you do an EPM3128A and XC2C128, it's surprising to not see the
Atmel ATF1508RE ?
 ATF1508RE has more logic than a XC2C128, and lower power than a
EPM3128A.

-jg



Article: 147295
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight!
From: Jan Decaluwe <jan@jandecaluwe.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Apr 21, 4:34=A0pm, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:19=A0am, Jan Decaluwe <j...@jandecaluwe.com> wrote:

> > Your coding style provides a very verbose workaround for temporary
> > variables. I just can't imagine this is how you do test benches, that
> > are presumably much more complex than your RTL code. Presumably
> > there you use temporary variables directly where you need them without
> > great difficulty. Why would it have to be so different for
> > synthesizable
> > RTL?
>
> You're right. =A0Testbenches do not suffer from this limitation. =A0But,
> in point of fact, I can use any sort of logic in my testbench. =A0I use
> constructs all the time that aren't realistically synthesizable, so
> comparing how I code synthesizable RTL vs how I code testbenches would
> turn up a lot more differences than just this.

As you say, synthesizable RTL has a lot of inherent restrictions.
I just don't see the logic in adding artificial restricions on top of
those.

> > Most importantly: your coding style doesn't support non-temporary
> > variables. In other words, register inferencing from variables is not
> > supported and therefore ignored as technique. In this sense, this is
> > actually a good illustration of the point I'm trying to make.
>
> Well, it may be a good illustration to you, but now you're waxing
> philosophical again. =A0Care to show an example (preferably in verilog)
> of how not using this coding style supports your preferred technique?

In my experience, we are talking about a paradigm shift here.
Easy once you "get it", but apparently confusing to many
engineers in the mean time.

Therefore, I now think that a meaningful discussion must be
more elaborate than a typical newsgroup post can bear :-)
What I can offer you is a rather lengthy discussion of two
design variants that highlight the issues through their (subtle)
differences. The case is based on a real ambiguity that I once
detected in the Xilinx ISE examples.

Unfortunately, the source code is in Python :-) (MyHDL).
However, there is equivalent converted Verilog available
in the article.

    http://www.myhdl.org/doku.php/cookbook:jc2

Jan

Article: 147296
Subject: Custom IP with external ports
From: "lakshmi3489" <lakshmi.doravari@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:09:36 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi

 I have a simple multiplier custom ip(the tutorial is easily found online).
The tutorial created 3(internal) signals a,b and p. It multiplies a(16 bit)
and b(16 bit) and sends the product to p(32 bit). It makes use of
fifos(read fifo and write fifo). 

  This works fine. But I am trying make p external. I changed the necessary
vhdl
files by adding port p where it says 
 --USER ports added here and 

 --USER ports mapped here

  The thing is when i try simulating it port p which is now external
remains in am unknown state.

   I dont understand what is going wrong here??? could someone please
help??	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com

Article: 147297
Subject: Re: Polmaddie Family CPLD and FPGA Teaching Boards
From: John Adair <g1@enterpoint.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The Polmaddie4/5 webpages will be improved. Obviously the software
aspect will be different.

We didn't do an Atmel part because mainly because they are almost non-
existant in the educational marketplace. There are a number of other
vendors as well that we didn't do on that basis. Ultimately the first
5 boards are a market test and if there are other things that prove
popular requests then maybe we might do them.

There were also other design critera that knocked many parts out
including (1) TQ144 package to reuse tooling we did for Polmaddie1
(2)  A free software tools critera. I do  know the Actel Igloo and
SiliconBlue parts got thrown out on the basis of (1) much as they
would be nice parts to try. .

All of these factors were important in delivering what is a very low
cost set of boards.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

On 22 Apr, 09:33, -jg <jim.granvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 3:59=A0am, John Adair <g...@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > We finally made an assembly slot and built the 4 remaining Polmaddie
> > CPLD and FPGA boards. These very low cost CPLD and FPGA boards will
> > sell to universities and colleges in prices as low as $30-40. One off
> > pricing starts at $60-70.
>
> > The concept is a bit different to that offered by most development
> > board vendors and we have 5 solutions, from 4 different CPLD/FPGA
> > vendors, allowing you to evaluate differnt tool flows or even
> > different technologies with a common feature set.
>
> A very good idea.
>
> =A0Since you do an EPM3128A and XC2C128, it's surprising to not see the
> Atmel ATF1508RE ?
> =A0ATF1508RE has more logic than a XC2C128, and lower power than a
> EPM3128A.
>
> -jg


Article: 147298
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight!
From: "Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_THIS*@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:26:50 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> Well, some of the comments were regarding ASIC design, where
> things aren't so sure.  For FPGA designs, there is, as you say,
> "properly constrained" which isn't true for all design and tool
> combinations.   One that I have heard of, though haven't actually
> tried, is having a logic block where the delay is greater than
> one clock cycle, but less than two.  Maybe some tools can do that,
> but I don't believe that all can.


As Kim says multi-cycle paths have been 'constrainable' in any FPGA
took I have used for as long as I can remember.


Nial. 



Article: 147299
Subject: Re: Absolute value of a two's complement number
From: John_H <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Apr 21, 10:26=A0pm, "dlopez"
<d@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.designgame.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to calculate the absolute value of a signed number (two's
> complement).
>
> Right now, I sign extend the input, and when msb=3D1, inverse all bits an=
d
> add 1. The sign extend is to take care of the most negative number.
>
> Is there a better way in terms of hardware utilization?
>
> Here is my verilog code:
>
> wire signed [w-1:0] a;
> wire signed [w:0] =A0 b, c;
>
> assign b =3D $signed(a); =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0//sign exted input
> assign c =3D b[w] ? (~b+1'b1) : b; =A0//inverse all bits and add 1 if msb=
=3D1
>
> Thanks,
> Diego =A0 =A0 =A0
>
> --------------------------------------- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> Posted throughhttp://www.FPGARelated.com

The absolute value of an n-bit signed value is at most an n-bit
unsigned value.  (An n-bit unsigned value is an n+1 bit signed
value.)  Does your absolute value need to be signed?

The ~b+1 seems like the best approach from a hardware standpoint.
Looking at your technology view for whatever family you're using, you
might see that you're better off doing the addition outside the
conditional:

assign c =3D (b[w] ? ~b : b) + {0,b[w]};

Given that signed math is one of the nastiest things in Verilog, I'm
pretty certain the operations would be unsigned because the constant
is unsigned but that shouldn't matter for absolute value.



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