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 83950

Article: 83950
Subject: Re: dividing the clcok by 2.5
From: Philip Freidin <philip@fliptronics.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:40:23 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 10 May 2005 03:48:12 -0700, stud_lang_jap@yahoo.com wrote:
>Hello Guys,
>I have to divide an clock by 2.5. I cannot use the DCM of virtex 2 pro
>has my clock is 10 MHZ which is too less for the DCM to handle.
>I think this division can be done using state machine (posedge and
>negedge).....but i cannot figure out on what state should i derive the
>clock and how many state are required??
>
>Can any one please provide suggestions
>
>thanks and regards
>williams


   http://www.fpga-faq.org/FAQ_Pages/0019_Divide_Clock_By_N_point_5.htm


Philip Freidin
Fliptronics

Article: 83951
Subject: Re: Parallel Cable IV opened in "Compatibility Mode"
From: Sean Durkin <smd@despammed.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:02:54 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Did some more research on this...

Obviously the ECP port test fails when iMPACT or ChipScope try to open
the cable. ChipScope 7.1 is more verbose "Expected 00 but read 20",
hence it suspects ECP is not working and uses compatibility mode.

It obviously does not matter what BIOS-Settings or driver settings in
Windows you use...

Xilinx uses Windriver from Jungo to talk to the cable, and this is what
I found on their website:

http://www.jungo.com/support/faq.html#lfc11

"Parallel / Serial Port Issues

I am using WinDriver for communicating peripherals with the parallel
port. In case of ECP mode, some computers work well, but on one computer
this does not work.
This might be a hardware problem, due to BIOS-specific implementations
of parallel port modes on various computers. WinDriver cannot control
this behavior, since it is programmed into the BIOS. We advise you to
follow the brand of computer or BIOS that you have observed works
correctly."

OK, so it's all the BIOS' fault and I'm supposed to only use computer
with compatible ones. That is one hell of an elegant solution.

cu,
Sean

Article: 83952
Subject: Re: dividing the clcok by 2.5
From: news@rtrussell.co.uk
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:09:16 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Philip Freidin <philip@fliptronics.com> wrote:
: http://www.fpga-faq.org/FAQ_Pages/0019_Divide_Clock_By_N_point_5.htm

From which the following reference is particularly relevant,
as it includes a divide-by-2.5 circuit:

http://www.xilinx.com/xcell/xl33/xl33_30.pdf

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

Article: 83953
Subject: Re: Which chip should I use?
From: "Piotr Wyderski" <wyderskiREMOVE@ii.uni.wroc.pl>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:44:50 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Rudolf Usselmann wrote:

> I guess it all depends on your needs. If the 245 will do the
> trick than great ! If you need bidirectional signaling, than
> the 3010 might be a better option.

Yes, in this case 245 cannot be applied, thay are
pseudobidirectional and coarse-grained (i.e. the 
direction of all 8 signals must be identical). But 
in my project it's not the problem. BTW, my local
distributor sells much more powerful 1C3 speed
grade 8 Cyclones considerably cheaper than 1K30
ACEXes; even with 8xLVC245 the price is still lower.
Strange, but Cyclone is the winner, so I'll use it in my
cost-sensitive project. :-)

    Best regards
    Piotr Wyderski



Article: 83954
Subject: Re: Which chip should I use?
From: "Piotr Wyderski" <wyderskiREMOVE@ii.uni.wroc.pl>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:49:39 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Piotr Wyderski wrote:

> BTW, my local distributor sells much more powerful
> 1C3 speed grade 8 Cyclones considerably cheaper
> than 1K30 ACEXes; even with 8xLVC245 the price
> is still lower. Strange, but Cyclone is the winner, so
> I'll use it in my cost-sensitive project. :-)

And another thing I forgot to mention: an Atmel
2313 + AT45DB011B-SI 1MBit serial DataFlash
is over 2 times cheaper than the EPC1
configuration memory -- why are Altera's
config devices so expensive?

     Best regards
     Piotr Wyderski
  


Article: 83955
Subject: Re: true dual port memory v/s simple dual port memory
From: David <david.nospam@westcontrol.removethis.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:11:26 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 09 May 2005 21:00:04 -0700, praveen.kantharajapura wrote:

> Hi peter,
> 
> So what you mean to say is in simple dual port memories one port is
> restricted  only for write, and the other one only for read.
> 
> I read in ALTERA cyclone FPGA's that there memory blocks can be used as
> 
> 1)Simple dual port memory.
> 2)True dual port memory.
> 3)FIFO buffers.
> Is it the same in XILINX.
> 
> But according to your explanation Simple dual port memory is nothing
> but a FIFO, so why have they explicitly mentioned as FIFO buffers.
> 

You can use the memories in a variety of ways, but they are all based on
either single-port, simple dual-port (independant read and write ports) or
true dual-port (independant bidirectional ports) arrangements.  The idea
of a simple dual port memory is that often it is all you need - for
example, it forms the basis of a FIFO - and can be (on Altera devices - I
don't know about Xilinx) twice as wide as true dual-port arrangements.  So
you use simple dual-port where it is sufficient, and true dual-port where
it is necessary.

Xilinx devices also have some hardware specifically for making fast FIFOs
(along with a simple dual-port ram block).  I've no idea whether this is
faster than corresponding soft logic on Altera devices, but Xilinx
certainly considers it a marketing point so there is presumably some
advantage.

> Please clarify on the 3 types of memory usages.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Praveen


Article: 83956
Subject: Re: Clock delay vs. clock skew
From: "Janes" <jshen@signalogic.com>
Date: 10 May 2005 08:19:38 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Peter Alfke wrote:
>
> Just remember: delay is from source to destination, skew is between
> destinations.

I believe what you explained above is correct.

I have one confusion on the Xilinx "place and route" timing report. I
got a timing result (a skewtest module using Xilinx spartan III -
XC3S1000FG320) like this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slack:    -0.659ns CLKEXT
Error:     0.759ns skew exceeds   0.100ns timing constraint by 0.659ns
>From                         To                           Delay(ns)
Skew(ns)
DCM_X0Y1.CLK0                V2.O1                            3.608
0.745
DCM_X0Y1.CLK0                T5.O1                            3.587
0.724
DCM_X0Y1.CLK0                V3.O1                            3.579
0.716
DCM_X0Y1.CLK0                T4.O1                            3.622
0.759
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can understand that the 3.608ns is the delay from DCM_X0Y1.CLK0 to
V2.01. I don't know what 0.745ns skew stands for, since there is only
ONE destination (V2.01). Can you shed some light on?

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Jane
DSP System Engineer


Article: 83957
Subject: Re: true dual port memory v/s simple dual port memory
From: "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: 10 May 2005 08:57:11 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Here are some tricks:
If you have a true dual-port RAM, but need only a single port, you can
1.
divide the RAM in two (evenly or non-evenly divided) pieces, and
address each from its own port. Now these two RAMs are completely
independent, but are each single-port.
2.
You can make the RAM wider (but also shallower).
In Virtex, the widest dual-port BlockRAM is 512 x 36,
but you can make it into a single-port 256 x 76 memory.
Just remember, you cannot increase the size of the starage array...
Peter Alfke, (with a name like this I can never hide), Xilinx
Applications


Article: 83958
Subject: re:Lattice's XP (flash + sram) fpga
From: mmj@c88-dot-dk.no-spam.invalid (milter)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:16:28 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I know of several FPGA project currently running, and using the XP10,
and it looks promissing! You mention all the great benefits og the
XP, and they work as Lattice prommise. Althoug the Xp are very new,
its predecessors (EC, ECP) works perfectly, and since Fujitsu
produces the chip using 130nm tecknology, the chip is built on well
testet producion methods.

Unfortunetly I have not had time to get my hands dirty with it yet;)


Article: 83959
Subject: Re: dividing the clcok by 2.5
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:23:42 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<stud_lang_jap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115722092.337801.26280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello Guys,
> I have to divide an clock by 2.5. I cannot use the DCM of virtex 2 pro
> has my clock is 10 MHZ which is too less for the DCM to handle.
>
Untrue. Use the DCM to multiply by 4 using the CLKFX mode. The minimum CLKIN
is 1MHz in this case, CLKFX output still has a minimum of 24MHz but that's
OK as you've now got 40MHz. Divide that by 10.
Cheers, Syms.



Article: 83960
Subject: Re: Multiple Virtex 2 Pro's, DCM and CLKIN_DIVIDE_BY_2
From: "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: 10 May 2005 09:24:07 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I hate to say this, but you are trying to do the impossible.
If you feed a common reference frequency to several chips, and locally
divide or multiply the frequency by the same number in each chip, there
is NO WAY to automatically assure synchronism between the chips. Your
only solution is a separate communication link between the chips that
enforces synchronism. (Once successful, the link becomes redundant, but
it will be difficult to take advantage of that.)
Far-out scheme: You could skip one period of the common clock, and
locally detect that missing pulse as a synchronizing mark. But don't
try that with DCMs...
Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications


Article: 83961
Subject: Re: Configuring an XC3S400 Spartan 3 with JTAG
From: "jeycrisis" <jerome.maye@epfl.ch>
Date: 10 May 2005 09:25:07 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you for your advice.
In fact, I just have to program the FPGA. I have no SPI to do it, just
GPIO pins.
On the FPGA board, I have access to PROG_B, DIN, CCLK, DONE, INIT_B and
the JTAG pins.
How would you program it using the slave serial configuration mode?
What file you send on the FPGA, the .bit file or another? Which bit you
send first?
Are there any potential problems due to the 3,3V voltage I have on the
GPIO pins or is it fine? (Spartan-3)
Thank you for your help


Article: 83962
Subject: Re: DDR speed of the XUPV2P Board from Digilent
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Benjamin_Menk=FCc?= <benjamin@menkuec.de>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:25:47 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

a reload usually fixes this problem for me.

PS: I will ask Digilent about the DDR speed, once I get a response to my 
first email question :)

regards,
Benjamin

Article: 83963
Subject: Re: DVI implementation
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benjamin_Menk=FCc?= <benjamin@menkuec.de>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:29:35 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Martin,

do You store an entire frame in the fpga ram, or just one line and keep 
the DVI and Display LVDS synchronized using the variable hsync period of 
  the LCD?

Do You do any image processing in the fpga, overshooting or scaling?

regards,
Benjamin

Article: 83964
Subject: Re: Multiple Virtex 2 Pro's, DCM and CLKIN_DIVIDE_BY_2
From: "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: 10 May 2005 10:09:34 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Sorry, I got carried away:
When you multiply the frequency locally, the chips are of course in
step, and if you need to refer to the lower frequency, you have it at
the input. No problem.

The unsolvable problem occurs only when you do a local divide. Then the
result is ambiguous between the chips, and there is no way to resolve
that..
I hope I caught this mistake in time
Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications


Article: 83965
Subject: Re: Configuring an XC3S400 Spartan 3 with JTAG
From: Aurelian Lazarut <aurash@xilinx.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:15:40 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
See below,
jeycrisis wrote:

>Thank you for your advice.
>In fact, I just have to program the FPGA. I have no SPI to do it, just
>GPIO pins.
>
GPIO will do as well, use a bit for generating the CCLK and one bit to 
shift out the data, one byte at a time, msb first.
before you start you toggle PROG_B to erase the configuration. (toggle 
low then high)

>On the FPGA board, I have access to PROG_B, DIN, CCLK, DONE, INIT_B and
>the JTAG pins.
>How would you program it using the slave serial configuration mode?
>What file you send on the FPGA, the .bit file or another?
>
*.bit

> Which bit you
>send first?
>
msb

>Are there any potential problems due to the 3,3V voltage I have on the
>
>GPIO pins or is it fine? (Spartan-3)
>
Add a 100 ohm in series with CCLK and D0  assuming 3.3V on your gpio pins.

>Thank you for your help
>
>  
>
After you shift out all the *.bit content issue some extra CCLK periods 
( ~20 )  to make sure  that the part is starting.
and  be careful to generate  the  bitstream  with cclk as a startup 
clock (not jtag) from ISE bitgen options

Have fun,
Aurash

-- 
 __
/ /\/\ Aurelian Lazarut
\ \  / System Verification Engineer
/ /  \ Xilinx Ireland
\_\/\/
 
phone:	353 01 4032639
fax:	353 01 4640324
    
     


Article: 83966
Subject: Re: DDR speed of the XUPV2P Board from Digilent
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Benjamin_Menk=FCc?= <benjamin@menkuec.de>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 19:47:33 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I talked to Digilent on the phone. They didn't know exactly how fast the 
  ram can go.

Here is what I find in the users guide of the board:

These memory modules are designed for a maximum clock frequency of at 
least 133 MHz
and have a CAS latency of 2.5 (18.8 ns). The PLB Double Data Rate 
Synchronous DRAM
Controller supports CAS latencies of two or three clock cycles.
If the memory system is to operate at 100 MHz, then set the CAS latency 
parameter in the
controller design to 2 (20 ns). If full speed (133MHz) memory operation 
is required, then
set the CAS latency parameter in the controller design to 3 (22.6 ns).

What I don't understand is, whether the 133 MHz is the maximum clock or 
not. Can it run 200 MHz as well?

regards,
Benjamin

Article: 83967
Subject: Re: Looking for Xilinx Power-PC consultant
From: "looking for Xilinx ppc consultant" <ppc_consultant@walla.com>
Date: 10 May 2005 11:15:25 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you


Article: 83968
Subject: Re: Multiple Virtex 2 Pro's, DCM and CLKIN_DIVIDE_BY_2
From: "johnp" <johnp3+nospam@probo.com>
Date: 10 May 2005 11:31:51 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter -

Thanks for the feedback.  As I noted in my original posting, I can
cleanly stop the input clock to the DCM, assert the DCM reset,
then cleanly re-enable the clock.  Since I am using the
CLKIN_DIVIDE_BY_2 mode, my question is if that "input"
divider on the DCM gets reset by the DCM RST pin or not.  If
it is reset by the RST pin, then all the DCMs in my system should
be able to be "in-sync".

Thanks for being a great resource in this forum!

John Providenza


Article: 83969
Subject: Virtex4 running at 360Mhz DDR
From: fastgreen2000@yahoo.com
Date: 10 May 2005 11:48:57 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I'm about to use Virtex 4, and wonder if this is achievable.  All
literature seems to indicate that it is, but I'd like hear what others
think and perhaps point out where I need to be careful in the design.

I'd be receiving an LVDS clock pair @ 360Mhz, running part of the
internal logic at 360.  This internal logic includes DSP48 slices (but
need to be pipelined in the fabric since I need more than 48-bit 'C'
input for adder).  Preliminary testing indicates that it can go above
360 with light user intervention.  One thing I'm cautious about is, the
rest of logic runs much slower, at 90Mhz.  Initially was thinking of
using /4 version, but Peter Alfke's post regarding added skews due to
loading differences in DCM outputs is making me think about it
carefully.

For otuput, I'd be using ODDR to multiplex 360 Mhz logic, to send the
data out at 360Mhz DDR (so the data can look like 360Mhz 'clock').
Data is LVDS, so is the forwarded LVDS clock pair @ 360Mhz.  The
receiving device will use both edges of the forwarded 360 Mhz clock to
sample the data.  Clock to output delay is not good, 3+ ns, but since
the clock will be forwarded and will incur effectively the same delay
as data (other than IOB-IOB clk skew), as long as I send out 180 deg
version of internal 360 clock using ODDR, it should be ok.  Not sure
what kind of SI issue there will be, however.

I have an option of running it at 180Mhz if 360 is risky.  External
device will be different.  Am I playing too safe by going to 180?  Will
360 be a challenge?

I'd appreciate feedback.


Article: 83970
Subject: Re: Virtex4 running at 360Mhz DDR
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:02:31 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<fastgreen2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115750937.589232.47940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm about to use Virtex 4, and wonder if this is achievable.  All
> literature seems to indicate that it is, but I'd like hear what others
> think and perhaps point out where I need to be careful in the design.
>
> I'd be receiving an LVDS clock pair @ 360Mhz, running part of the
> internal logic at 360.  This internal logic includes DSP48 slices (but
> need to be pipelined in the fabric since I need more than 48-bit 'C'
> input for adder).  Preliminary testing indicates that it can go above
> 360 with light user intervention.  One thing I'm cautious about is, the
> rest of logic runs much slower, at 90Mhz.  Initially was thinking of
> using /4 version, but Peter Alfke's post regarding added skews due to
> loading differences in DCM outputs is making me think about it
> carefully.
>
Clock everything at the higher rate, use a clock enable for the /4. IIRC V4
can use a global clock net as an enable net. Well done Xilinx!
>
> For otuput, I'd be using ODDR to multiplex 360 Mhz logic, to send the
> data out at 360Mhz DDR (so the data can look like 360Mhz 'clock').
> Data is LVDS, so is the forwarded LVDS clock pair @ 360Mhz.  The
> receiving device will use both edges of the forwarded 360 Mhz clock to
> sample the data.  Clock to output delay is not good, 3+ ns, but since
> the clock will be forwarded and will incur effectively the same delay
> as data (other than IOB-IOB clk skew), as long as I send out 180 deg
> version of internal 360 clock using ODDR, it should be ok.  Not sure
> what kind of SI issue there will be, however.
>
> I have an option of running it at 180Mhz if 360 is risky.  External
> device will be different.  Am I playing too safe by going to 180?  Will
> 360 be a challenge?
>
It's certainly within the realms of possibility. I do stuff like this at
clocks >300MHz in V2PRO, with >600 Mbit outputs. So, gamble! You'll learn
enough to get another job if it goes bad! ;-)
Cheers, Syms.



Article: 83971
Subject: Re: Virtex4 running at 360Mhz DDR
From: fastgreen2000@yahoo.com
Date: 10 May 2005 12:30:54 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thanks for the reply.

Questions about the clock enable :

- Is there an easy way to specify it as clock enable, so the tool knows
about it for timing analysis, and so you don't have to specify
multi-cycle constraints for gobs of FFs?

- And how do you make the enable signal go on the global clock net?


Article: 83972
Subject: Re: Virtex4 running at 360Mhz DDR
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:26:43 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<fastgreen2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115753454.386148.6960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Questions about the clock enable :
>
> - Is there an easy way to specify it as clock enable, so the tool knows
> about it for timing analysis, and so you don't have to specify
> multi-cycle constraints for gobs of FFs?
>
In Synplify there's an attribute, syn_direct_enable . Check out the
reference manual. I imagine other synthesis tools provide something similar.
In the UCF you then do something like:-

NET "ENABLE_NET_NAME"    TNM=FFS "ENABLED_FFS";
TIMESPEC TS1000 = FROM : ENABLED_FFS : TO : ENABLED_FFS : 11.1ns;

>
> - And how do you make the enable signal go on the global clock net?
>
You ask someone from Xilinx! I've not yet started my V4 design. I just
remembered that from the marketing spiel we had.
Cheers, Syms.



Article: 83973
Subject: Add on bus
From: "Teo" <themarenas@comcast.net>
Date: 10 May 2005 13:40:47 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Looking to see if anyone out there has verilog or vhdl code that
implements the "add on bus."  Couldn't find any on opencores.


Article: 83974
Subject: Re: Configuring an XC3S400 Spartan 3 with JTAG
From: "jeycrisis" <jerome.maye@epfl.ch>
Date: 10 May 2005 13:55:57 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you again, I thing I will try this option...
Do I have to change something on MO, M1, M2, because on the board I am
using there is no way to access these pins.




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