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 120400

Article: 120400
Subject: Re: Quartus Advisors
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:47:23 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
jjlindula@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hello, I use Altera's Quartus II software for my FPGA development and
> in the software package they have the following Advisors: Timing,
> Power, Resource Optimization, Increment Compilation. I usually open
> the Timing Advisor and make the suggested changes that are easy to
> make. Usually these are the configuration settings and are easy to
> change. The other suggestions in the Timing Advisor are a little more
> involved and I don't do. 


Yes, the timing adviser is a good double check.
If I have a top level synchronization plan
I should be able to sort out the expected
warnings about synchronizers from design
rule violations.

         -- Mike Treseler

Article: 120401
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter, comments on DAC
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:58:02 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Symon,

Gaslamp?  Nope, although right around the block, on Front Street is our 
vacation residence.  Right now I am at the Hyatt, on the bay, up the 
street from the convention center.

Great show, all those booths with Xilinx products.  Wow.  Seems like any 
booth I go to, they are selling, supporting, using, or in some other 
way, merchandising Xilinx.

A little disappointed at how there is so little competition.  How are we 
going to keep our edge?

John Daane this AM announced that they will have a 45 nm product in 
2008...  Perhaps they will skip 65nm altogether?  "Fast follower"?  I am 
shocked.  Their 65nm S3 is announced to be released in August, 2007.

Perhaps everyone should wait until 2008, and get their 45nm?

Of course, TSMC is making a huge splash at DAC with their 65/45nm tools, 
process, and IP.  Too bad it is the "cell phone low power" processes 
they are pushing.  In talking to ASIC designers (lots of those at this 
little show), they are frantic about the poor models, lack of process 
control, huge variations, and inability to design for low power.  With 
the "low power process."  Too bad if you want a high performance process 
at 65 (or 45nm).  At $2M a mask set, "guess and check" gets pretty 
expensive!

I also learned the ASIC emulation business is estimated to be $30M to 
$40M a year (FPGA Journal story today), so compare that with last year's 
sales for Xilinx (1.8 billion $), and you see just how IMPORTANT those 
ASIC simulation sockets are.

Don't get me wrong, we love that business, because it is the largest 
parts (xc5vlx330), and we have no competition for more than one year now 
... so we "own" the entire market (no competition).  But owning the 
"high ground" is not much money when you look at it compared to the 
overall sales numbers.



But, I digress.

We have seen where the various parasitic inductances, and the 
capacitance combine to create spots where there is no effective 
bypassing at all.  Hence the need for more than one value to "break it up."

More later, I have asked one of my SI gurus to put something together to 
illustrate the (potential) problem.

Austin

Article: 120402
Subject: Re: asynchronous circuit design
From: Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:27:14 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:07:41 -0700, 
sanju <sanju4buddy@gmail.com> wrote:

>is anybody here who can guide me about asynchronous CAD tools. is any
>such CAD tool available. which asynchronous design methodology is used
>nowadays.plz help me.

Have you looked at Handshake Solutions? www.handshakesolutions.com
I'm sure there are other such tools around too.  However, I'm
not aware of *any* asynchronous design tools that are truly
mainstream.

For FPGAs, the structure of the devices and the
behaviour of their place-and-route tools effectively makes
asynchronous design intractable for ordinary mortals.
-- 
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services

Doulos Ltd., 22 Market Place, Ringwood, BH24 1AW, UK
jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com
http://www.MYCOMPANY.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

Article: 120403
Subject: Re: asynchronous circuit design
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:42:14 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
sanju,

Somebody is using asynchronous design?

Wow.  I thought it died (yet again) awhile ago now.

I think when the famous asynchronous ARM chip was built synchronously 
and was better in every possible way (size: smaller, power: less, etc.), 
that it effectively killed asynchronous design (again).

I have yet to see a single case where asynchronous design has any 
advantages.

In the small (phase detectors, D flip flop, clock switches, FIFO, and so 
on), asynchronous design must be used (somewhere).  But it is usually 
done by one expert (and only that one expert is allowed to do any 
asynchronous design).

Much more popular is "Globally asynchronous, locally synchronous" or 
GALS approach to design, where groups of synchronous logics communicate 
with others using asynchronous handshake protocols.

No need for any new tools.

Austin

Article: 120404
Subject: Re: Topics and Ideas for BS Project
From: Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:01:46 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> I have been told that another reason is that it is too hard for
> engineers to learn and understand both C and verilog.  This I also
> don't believe, but maybe that is just me.

Huh?

It is a pretty bad engineer who can only think in one language.

Always try to use the right tool for the job!

Terje
-- 
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Article: 120405
Subject: Re: asynchronous circuit design
From: Newman <newman5382@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:18:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 6, 6:07 am, sanju <sanju4bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is anybody here who can guide me about asynchronous CAD tools. is any
> such CAD tool available. which asynchronous design methodology is used
> nowadays.plz help me.

There is a chapter called Level-Mode Sequential Circuits in
Introduction to Switching Theory & Logical Design
Frederick J. Hill
Gerald R. Peterson
Third Edition
Copyright 1968, 1974, 1981 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Perhaps a Google Search will pick up related, newer references.

-Newman, a synchronous guy  ... not asynchronous


Article: 120406
Subject: What should be taken care of when two FPGA broad connected together?
From: jasonL <junsong.liao@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:09:12 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I have two FPGA development boards, using different power source. when
I  connected their IO pins, should I connect the GND of board too?

I hesitate to do that because I am not sure if these two GNDs are
sharing a common GND. If they do not have a common GND, will it
generate a current between GNDs when I connect them and damage the
boards?

Any other things I should take care of  when I connect two FPGA board
together?

Thanks


Article: 120407
Subject: Re: What should be taken care of when two FPGA broad connected together?
From: Andy <jonesandy@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:40:40 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 6, 3:09 pm, jasonL <junsong.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two FPGA development boards, using different power source. when
> I  connected their IO pins, should I connect the GND of board too?
>
> I hesitate to do that because I am not sure if these two GNDs are
> sharing a common GND. If they do not have a common GND, will it
> generate a current between GNDs when I connect them and damage the
> boards?
>
> Any other things I should take care of  when I connect two FPGA board
> together?
>
> Thanks

If the two grounds are different, and you don't connect the grounds
together, you'll damage the FPGAs.

Even if they are at the same potential, and you don't connect the
grounds together, interface signals between them will likely not work.

Connect the grounds.

Andy


Article: 120408
Subject: Re: What should be taken care of when two FPGA broad connected together?
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:46:28 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
jasonL,

if you do not connect the two grounds, then you will almost certqainly 
damage the two devices, or, nothing will happen (as they have no common 
reference).

If the two grounds can not be connected without causing a current to 
flow, there is something seriously wrong with you building wiring!

It could kill you, in fact.

Connect the two grounds together with a DVM in between, or current 
scale.  There should be 0 AC current,and 0 DC current flowing between 
the boards (before any signals are switching).

If this is not the case, consult an electrician (as electronics engineer 
is not needed, but someone who understands how wall sockets are wired, 
is required).

Austin

Article: 120409
Subject: Re: EDK9.1: XTemac + LwIP + Xilkernel + unistd.h = possible?
From: Patrick Dubois <prdubois@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:57:55 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 28 mai, 00:35, Ken Ryan <newsr...@leesburg-geeks.org> wrote:
> Thanks, you encouraged me to try that tack again. :-)
>
> I commented out the bogus sleep() definition, and I had to drop
> a "#define LWIP_TIMEVAL_PRIVATE 0" to keep lwip away from struct
> timeval.
>
> Next, to figure out why the Xilinx gdb quit giving me symbols...
> (yes I have -g -O0 in both the app and libraries...)
>
>                 ken

Thank you guys for sharing your experiences. I had the same problem
and commented out this line in sleep.h.
//void sleep(unsigned int seconds);
Is it the line you were talking about?

I'm not sure where to do the fix however... Doing any modification to
the EDK source tree is not portable accross computers. Doing the
modification in the ppc405_0 folder will be lost during the next
library rebuild. Is there a better way?

Another question while I'm at it, did you fix the problem about debug
symbols? It indeed seems broken in EDK v9.1, even after 2 service
packs.

Thanks.

Patrick


Article: 120410
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter
From: Andy Peters <google@latke.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:01:36 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 6, 7:35 am, austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:

> "Chopped liver?" I wonder where that came from?

This is proof that East Coast Jewish facetiousness just doesn't come
across correctly on Usenet.  Proper pronunciation: Borscht belt
comedian.

"What am I, chopped liver?" is a gentle nudge meaning, "please don't
ignore me!" (or less gently, depending on tone-of-voice, "Thanks for
ignoring me ...")

In this context, an issue was raised in public but answered off-line.
Hence, the nudge.

-a



Article: 120411
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:29:29 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Andy Peters" <google@latke.net> wrote in message 
news:1181163696.659767.295660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 6, 7:35 am, austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>
>> "Chopped liver?" I wonder where that came from?
>
> This is proof that East Coast Jewish facetiousness just doesn't come
> across correctly on Usenet.  Proper pronunciation: Borscht belt
> comedian.
>
>
I was as confused as Austin for a while, but it turns out Jewish folk help 
us gentiles by posting on Wikipedia! :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopped_liver
Cheers, Syms. 



Article: 120412
Subject: Re: What should be taken care of when two FPGA broad connected together?
From: "John_H" <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:44:46 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"jasonL" <junsong.liao@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1181160552.039333.85840@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>I have two FPGA development boards, using different power source. when
> I  connected their IO pins, should I connect the GND of board too?
>
> I hesitate to do that because I am not sure if these two GNDs are
> sharing a common GND. If they do not have a common GND, will it
> generate a current between GNDs when I connect them and damage the
> boards?
>
> Any other things I should take care of  when I connect two FPGA board
> together?
>
> Thanks

Your two boards are powered by power supplies.  Those supplies should be 
isolated.  If the two grounds were connected together, the only imperfection 
in the ground should be due to imperfections in the isolation creating very 
little (if any) current flow.  If they're isolated, the voltage between the 
two might be measered by a DVM to be a very bad number!  But if you attached 
a 10k resistor between the two grounds, you would find the voltage 
difference to be negligible.

For single ended electrical signals there must be a common ground reference 
for the transmitter and receiver.  When a signal transitions, current flows 
in both the wire that's transitioning and the ground that provides the 
current return path.  If the loop for the signal current and return current 
is large, ugly things will happen (crosstalk, electromagnetic interference, 
general signal integrity issues).

For differential signals, the signal current has no (intended) return 
current through the ground plane.  The differential signal should balance 
the currents so the switching point isn't affected by grounding issues.  The 
differential receiver *does* still need to have the signal in its acceptable 
common mode range.  To this end, it's better to have the common ground 
between the two boards powered by isolated power supplies.

There are cases when the grounds cannot be the same.  For these 
circumstances, simple electrical connections won't do.  Isolation through 
transformers or opto-isolators are required to get the communication going.

If you're working with development boards, the supplies should be isolated. 
Check the voltage with a 10k resistor between them if you're worried.  If 
you see a little AC voltage, consider what the current flow is and whether 
you're comfortable with those (sub)milliamps running between boards.

It's not rocket science, but there's nothing more unnerving than seeing 
sparks fly and losing a $1k investment.  You're good to be cautious but the 
situation is probably fine.

- John_H 



Article: 120413
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:45:17 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Symon wrote:
> "austin" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message 
> news:f46gmp$ra02@cnn.xilinx.com...
> 
>> He used all one value for Vcco bypass, 0402 1.0uF, and I am working on 
>>showing him that there can be anti-resonant peaks (right around 200 MHz), 
>>where the use of all one value is a bad choice.
>>
> 
> Hi Austin,
> Anti-resonant peaks? Right around 200MHz? With a 1uF cap? Wow, I'm sure 
> looking forward to you posting what your advice is. You sure you've not been 
> spending too much time in the Gaslamp Quarter? ;-)
> Cheers, Syms. 

This is an older document, but has some very good Graphs of Decoupling 
networks :

Atmel's "EMC Improvement Guidelines" :
http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc4279.pdf

I've also seen more recent papers, pushing the "wider aspect ratio"
caps, and the pass-thru decouplers, that give T networks, and
some of those include PCB Plane impedance plots.

Q: what is the package capacitance / impedance of the present FPGA
packages alone (no decoupling), and of the FPGA mounted on a typical
planed PCB (no caps) ?

-jg


Article: 120414
Subject: Re: XILINX IPCore
From: ghelbig@lycos.com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:48:55 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 5, 9:47 pm, Ace <yasi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I recently bought a board that has a firewire port that uses PCI32 as
> a communication to the TI Link layer chip. I was told that I could
> easily communicate with the board by FPGA using Xilinx IPcore. I
> followed the steps on "Getting Started User Guide" i.e. inserting the
> device id, vendor id values and etc, getting the .ngc file and then
> get the .bit file and used iMPACT. However, after several attempts, my
> linux machine still could not detect the board.
>
> Does anyone has any suggestion on this?
>
> Cheers!

It has been many years since I used the Xilinx PCI core, but...

There was a short errata sheet that required VERY careful reading to
make the core work.

Two of the things I remember were the reset pin being in the wrong
place and one clock being run through a BUF rather than a BUFG.

And you do know that the FPGA -must- be initialized before the ROM
BIOS does the power-on bus scan, right?

HTH


Article: 120415
Subject: Re: Portable TCP/IP socket library
From: cs_posting@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:59:12 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 6, 7:24 am, EdA <ed.art...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Try this link:http://www.sutherland-hdl.com/pli_book_examples.html
>
> "David Roberts, of Cadence Design Systems, has provided a great
> example using sockets to communicate between a PLI application and an
> independently running C program.  David has provided this example with
> no restrictions on usage, under the GNU freeware license agreement."
>
> Allegedly it works on Linux and Windows.

Yeah, and it's pretty simple.  I did something like that a few years
back - I'd built a soft-core processor (at that point only in verilog
simulation), and wanted to write a debug monitor that could run on
it.  So I grafted in some registers to make a little "dummy uart"
device that some pli code would monitor, and proxy the data to/from a
local tcp socket.  Then I connected to that socket with hyperterminal
and "used" my simulated computer.


Article: 120416
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:54 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:46672a96$1@clear.net.nz...
> Symon wrote:
>> "austin" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message 
>> news:f46gmp$ra02@cnn.xilinx.com...
>>
>>> He used all one value for Vcco bypass, 0402 1.0uF, and I am working on 
>>> showing him that there can be anti-resonant peaks (right around 200 
>>> MHz), where the use of all one value is a bad choice.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Austin,
>> Anti-resonant peaks? Right around 200MHz? With a 1uF cap? Wow, I'm sure 
>> looking forward to you posting what your advice is. You sure you've not 
>> been spending too much time in the Gaslamp Quarter? ;-)
>> Cheers, Syms.
>
> This is an older document, but has some very good Graphs of Decoupling 
> networks :
>
> Atmel's "EMC Improvement Guidelines" :
> http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc4279.pdf
>
> I've also seen more recent papers, pushing the "wider aspect ratio"
> caps, and the pass-thru decouplers, that give T networks, and
> some of those include PCB Plane impedance plots.
>
> Q: what is the package capacitance / impedance of the present FPGA
> packages alone (no decoupling), and of the FPGA mounted on a typical
> planed PCB (no caps) ?
>
> -jg
>
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the link, you're dead right. Also, on Murata's website, they give 
away some cool tools for their bypass caps which show their impedances. I'm 
interested how to get a resonance at 200MHz with a 1uF cap. Just to check, 
200Mhz = 2*10E8, right? W=1/sqrt(1/LC) Hmmmm.

As for your question, dunno, but I'm pretty sure, Xilinx have put ceramic 
bypass caps inside the package. It won't work otherwise.

Cheers, Syms.
p.s. http://www.murata.com/designlib/mcsil/index.html




Article: 120417
Subject: Re: asynchronous circuit design
From: Frank Buss <fb@frank-buss.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:36:03 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
austin wrote:

> Somebody is using asynchronous design?
> 
> Wow.  I thought it died (yet again) awhile ago now.

I've read an article about it in 1999 [1] and it sounds interesting, but I
don't know, if it is still used. If you use well known technics, like
dual-rail signalling [2,3] or the Muller C gate [3], looks like you don't
need to be an "expert".

One advantage which isn't obvious and I remember from article [1] was, that
the power consumption is lower, because you don't have to distribute a
global clock signal all over the chip, but you need only locally coupled
components.

[1] http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/1999/17/176
[2] http://brej.org/papers/s2a.pdf
[3] http://www.eetimes.com/editorial/2000/coverstory0005.html

-- 
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

Article: 120418
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:38:17 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Whoops, W=sqrt(1/LC) 



Article: 120419
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter, comments on DAC
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:41:32 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"austin" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message 
news:f46shv$ra22@cnn.xilinx.com...
>
>
> But, I digress.
>
> We have seen where the various parasitic inductances, and the capacitance 
> combine to create spots where there is no effective bypassing at all. 
> Hence the need for more than one value to "break it up."
>
> More later, I have asked one of my SI gurus to put something together to 
> illustrate the (potential) problem.
>
OK, that'll be very interesting. I look forward to your guru's post.
Many thanks, Symon. 



Article: 120420
Subject: How many OSERDES per bufio
From: Test01 <cpandya@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:43:41 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
It seems that bufio has the lowest clock skew in order to clock the oserdes. OSERDES in my configuration requires two clocks 1x clk and 2x clock. I would like to know how many OSERDES can I drive using one BUFIO. I would like to bring in limited number of clocks inside the part and avoid using bufg has it has 270 ps of clock skew as opposed to 50 ps of clock skew for bufio.

Thanks.

Article: 120421
Subject: FPGA / Virtex II Pro / LWIP
From: antoine.vernay@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:00:55 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I'd like to get some help from experienced people because I'm really
running low on ideas here.. I'm a beginner in FPGA/LwIP and I can't
seem to make it work using Xilinx EDK 8.2i.

I've been creating a project using BSB including onewire, uart, emac
and the external memory and using PPC.
Once I am in the project manager, I did all of the required
modifications to boot up on the bram and execute the code from the
external memory, set up the -llwip4, checked the lwip 2.00a and set up
the MAC address.
Once i compile, it works fine, initializing a server code I took as an
example and printfs display everything is fine but it is impossible to
connect to the card or even ping it.

Could someone give me a hint about what I m doing wrong?

Thank you,

Antoine.


Article: 120422
Subject: No output while booting ML403 board
From: gseegmiller@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:13:18 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Anyone,

When I try to boot linux on a Xlinx ML403 board I get the following
out put:

loaded at:       00400000 004FA1A0
board data at:   00000000 0000007C
relocated to:    0040405C 004040D8
zimage at:       00404FE5 004F7A9B
avail ram:       004FB000 7C9E2378

Linux/PPC load: console=ttyS0,9600 ip=on  root=/dev/xsysace2 rw
Uncompressing Linux...done.
Now booting the kernel

Does the 'board data at' arguments look ok.  Any help would be
appriated!!!


Article: 120423
Subject: Re: What should be taken care of when two FPGA broad connected together?
From: jasonL <junsong.liao@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:21:15 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thanks to all of you. Your reply help me a lot. I am sure what to do
now.


Article: 120424
Subject: Re: Virtex4 CLKX2 DCM Jitter
From: Gerhard Hoffmann <spamtrap@dk4xp.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:34:11 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:35:13 -0700, austin <austin@xilinx.com> wrote:

>The extra pins to ground isn't go to do anything for him (use of IOs as 
>ground), as he is already in an excellent package in V4, and we are 
>looking at his bypassing solution.  He used all one value for Vcco 
>bypass, 0402 1.0uF, and I am working on showing him that there can be 
>anti-resonant peaks (right around 200 MHz), where the use of all one 
>value is a bad choice.

Using a different mix of caps will only produce different resonances.

I recently had some time to wait for     while (1) { XST; translate; map; place & route }
and used it to play with capacitors.

6.8 Mb pdf   of capacitors on a stripline:  pictures and impedance plots, still bound to grow.


<http://www.hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de/downloads/experiments_with_decoupling_capacitors.pdf>


(hi, Peter, see you at the Berlin XFest!)

regards, Gerhard



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