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 93875

Article: 93875
Subject: Re: Why 'a plurality of N' must be used for 'N' in patent claims
From: Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com>
Date: 02 Jan 2006 22:19:33 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
wtxwtx@gmail.com writes:
> Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
> patent claims?

Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
documents.  Legal documents are written using traditions that have
evolved over hundreds of years.  Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
money.

Article: 93876
Subject: Re: CPU86 (Intel 8086) VHDL now available (thanks to HT-LAB !)
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:28:50 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<wtxwtx@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1136243041.134288.208780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Antti,
> There is popular saying in China that if you visited the U.S., but have
> never been in Las Vegas, you would be counted as one who has not
> visited the U.S. Because Las Vegas is its crown. I have never been in
> Las Vegas, but no sorry for it.
>
> I would like to say if you want to be a real ASIC/FPGA engineer, you
> must read CPU86. Because it is the Bible in ASIC. It is the birth place
> of full CPU industry.
>
> Thank you, Antti, for the excellent gift for new 2006.
>
> Weng
>

Hi Weng,

thanks for the nice words - well those should be addressed to www.ht-lab.com 
!

I only wrote some review about the CPU86 anad am hosting some files for 
download.

Antti
PS I have been to Las Vegas. 



Article: 93877
Subject: Re: Why 'a plurality of N' must be used for 'N' in patent claims
From: Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:54:45 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Eric Smith wrote:
> wtxwtx@gmail.com writes:
> 
>>Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
>>patent claims?
> 
> 
> Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
> documents.  Legal documents are written using traditions that have
> evolved over hundreds of years.  Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
> judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
> submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
> money.
   Again, that is what i call "patent-ese".
   Instead of "many" or "multiple" one sees "a plurality of".
   Like i said, follow the terminology and useage that you find in other 
patents that are closely related to your particular idea.

Article: 93878
Subject: What is the best solution vor PCIe today ?
From: "sjulhes" <t@aol.fr>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 08:55:12 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello,

We'll have to design a new board which will have a PCIe interface.
There will be a xilinx FPGA V2P or V4 because of PPC use, MGT needs and DDR
interface.

I read that FPGA SERDES were not fully compliant with PCIe.
Can someone tell me on which points ?

So if the solution is to have an external PHY, what would be the part that
would be not too expensive and easily available ??

Thanks for your advises.

Stéphane.





Article: 93879
Subject: Re: optimization tips (badly) needed
From: "Karl" <karlIGNORETHISPART@chello.nl>
Date: 3 Jan 2006 00:15:12 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> hello friends,
>
> For better security, I am porting a design from Xilinx (Spartan3) to
> Actel (ProAsic3E). The Actel part is very nice and works great. The
> only problem i have had is that the design becomes bigger and slower
> than expected. Now, I do understand that some parts of this design
> translate to bigger logic on the Actel part.
> obviously, i need to read more on the subject (and i have read a lot of
> actel docs already). so please enlighten me with all your
> actel-specific optimizations tricks, general optimizations guidelines
> and any other information that may be useful.
>
> in fact, any material about coding style and area optimization is most
> welcome.

Well the part might be great, but it is tools & the part that give you
the best solution. If Spartan 3 can't satisfy your security needs, you
might consider Stratix II, which also has some nice features to solve
both the optimization (ALM they call it) and the security issue
(non-volatile 128-bit AES key)

*and yes I am an Altera engineer*


Article: 93880
Subject: Re: What is the best solution vor PCIe today ?
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 09:15:55 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"sjulhes" <t@aol.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:43ba2de0$0$7180$636a15ce@news.free.fr...
> Hello,
>
> We'll have to design a new board which will have a PCIe interface.
> There will be a xilinx FPGA V2P or V4 because of PPC use, MGT needs and 
> DDR
> interface.
>
> I read that FPGA SERDES were not fully compliant with PCIe.
> Can someone tell me on which points ?
>
> So if the solution is to have an external PHY, what would be the part that
> would be not too expensive and easily available ??
>
> Thanks for your advises.
>
> Stéphane.
>
Hi Stephane,

some advice/hint

1) V4 RocketIO (eg MGT) have BETTER(does not mean FULL!) PCIe compliance 
then the V2Pro MGT
2) before doing any V4 MGT design, check that you can actually get V4 MGT 
production silicon in time for your project, if not then use V2Pro
3) there are 3 PCIe PHYs known to be somewhat available, Philips (Datasheet 
under NDA), TI (no info on TI web!!), Genesys - buy now button on 
hitechglobal but it only leads to 'call' not to online ordering, datasheet 
status unknown ---- NO PCIe is easily available
4) PLXtech PEX8111 1-lane to PCIe to PCI this possible the easiest solution, 
silicon available from online store
5) PLXtech PEX831 PCIe to local bus bridge, datasheet under NDA, also 
package is way larger than PEX8111 (I assume its multi-die BGA!)

if you need MGT, PPC and relativly short time to market then my choice would 
be: V2Pro + PEX8111

Antti
www.xilant.com 



Article: 93881
Subject: Re: optimization tips (badly) needed
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 09:20:43 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Karl" <karlIGNORETHISPART@chello.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1136276112.311477.283990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> hello friends,
>>
>> For better security, I am porting a design from Xilinx (Spartan3) to
>> Actel (ProAsic3E). The Actel part is very nice and works great. The
>> only problem i have had is that the design becomes bigger and slower
>> than expected. Now, I do understand that some parts of this design
>> translate to bigger logic on the Actel part.
>> obviously, i need to read more on the subject (and i have read a lot of
>> actel docs already). so please enlighten me with all your
>> actel-specific optimizations tricks, general optimizations guidelines
>> and any other information that may be useful.
>>
>> in fact, any material about coding style and area optimization is most
>> welcome.
>
> Well the part might be great, but it is tools & the part that give you
> the best solution. If Spartan 3 can't satisfy your security needs, you
> might consider Stratix II, which also has some nice features to solve
> both the optimization (ALM they call it) and the security issue
> (non-volatile 128-bit AES key)
>
> *and yes I am an Altera engineer*
>
and a good one you are - I did never realize that Altera did build in real 
non volatile key storage into S-II !!

this means that S-II is not really RAM only technology and includes 
eeprom/flash technology on the same die as well, this is pretty nice as 
using external battery as it is required for key storage for Xilinx FPGAs is 
kind a pain

-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com 



Article: 93882
Subject: Re: What is the best solution vor PCIe today ?
From: "sjulhes" <t@aol.fr>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:09:36 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you for your answers.

Well it seems that unless you are ATI or Nvidia having a PCIe board running
is not that easy !

But I guess the first thing to check is what are these compliance
differences on V4, to see if they are acceptable for this design.
Can someone tell me where I can find information on this ?

Thanks.

Stéphane.

"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
dpdbrr$ofq$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> "sjulhes" <t@aol.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:43ba2de0$0$7180$636a15ce@news.free.fr...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We'll have to design a new board which will have a PCIe interface.
> > There will be a xilinx FPGA V2P or V4 because of PPC use, MGT needs and
> > DDR
> > interface.
> >
> > I read that FPGA SERDES were not fully compliant with PCIe.
> > Can someone tell me on which points ?
> >
> > So if the solution is to have an external PHY, what would be the part
that
> > would be not too expensive and easily available ??
> >
> > Thanks for your advises.
> >
> > Stéphane.
> >
> Hi Stephane,
>
> some advice/hint
>
> 1) V4 RocketIO (eg MGT) have BETTER(does not mean FULL!) PCIe compliance
> then the V2Pro MGT
> 2) before doing any V4 MGT design, check that you can actually get V4 MGT
> production silicon in time for your project, if not then use V2Pro
> 3) there are 3 PCIe PHYs known to be somewhat available, Philips
(Datasheet
> under NDA), TI (no info on TI web!!), Genesys - buy now button on
> hitechglobal but it only leads to 'call' not to online ordering, datasheet
> status unknown ---- NO PCIe is easily available
> 4) PLXtech PEX8111 1-lane to PCIe to PCI this possible the easiest
solution,
> silicon available from online store
> 5) PLXtech PEX831 PCIe to local bus bridge, datasheet under NDA, also
> package is way larger than PEX8111 (I assume its multi-die BGA!)
>
> if you need MGT, PPC and relativly short time to market then my choice
would
> be: V2Pro + PEX8111
>
> Antti
> www.xilant.com
>
>



Article: 93883
Subject: Clock generation
From: "u_stadler@yahoo.de" <u_stadler@yahoo.de>
Date: 3 Jan 2006 01:23:29 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hi

I have a question: what is the proper way to generate c slow clock. I
have a spartan 3 development board with a 50 MHz external clock. What i
need is a 4MHz clock for an SPI interface. Since the DCM's can only
deliver 18 MHz output with the frequency synthesiser (CLKFX) I need to
devide this clock some more. how is this done properly? a counter? Or
is ther any other sollution?

Thanks
Urban


Article: 93884
Subject: Re: What is the best solution vor PCIe today ?
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:35:56 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"sjulhes" <t@aol.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:43ba3f51$0$7178$636a15ce@news.free.fr...
> Thank you for your answers.
>
> Well it seems that unless you are ATI or Nvidia having a PCIe board 
> running
> is not that easy !
>
> But I guess the first thing to check is what are these compliance
> differences on V4, to see if they are acceptable for this design.
> Can someone tell me where I can find information on this ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Stéphane.


both V2Pro and V4 can be and have been used for working PCIe solution
V2Pro requires external clock recovery V4 possible not any more there are
other minor issues that are not a show stopper for MGT based PCIe design

V4 MGT claim to have fixed most (all ?) missing PCIe compliance issues
there are some docs about that on the xilinx web if you search really 
closely

but for V4 MGT-PCIe first thing todo is CHECK production V4MGT availability 
!!
after that it makes sense to check the tech specification , also consider 
the cost
(both onetime license and FPGA % cost) for FPGA PCIe IP-Core

-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com 



Article: 93885
Subject: Re: optimization tips (badly) needed
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:18:43 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message 
news:dpdc4r$ga6$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> this is pretty nice as using external battery as it is required for key 
> storage for Xilinx FPGAs is kind a pain
>
...but the battery solution has the potential to be more secure than having 
a non-volatile key that can be found by dismantling the device. How much 
pain would there be if someone stole your design?
Cheers, Syms. 



Article: 93886
Subject: Re: optimization tips (badly) needed
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:54:37 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:43ba4f5e$0$15794$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message 
> news:dpdc4r$ga6$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>> this is pretty nice as using external battery as it is required for key 
>> storage for Xilinx FPGAs is kind a pain
>>
> ...but the battery solution has the potential to be more secure than 
> having a non-volatile key that can be found by dismantling the device. How 
> much pain would there be if someone stole your design?
> Cheers, Syms.

generically, yes

but if Altera did it correctly (key storage on-die not separate die inside 
the bga package, some other things to be done RIGHT) then its almost as safe 
as battery. correctly implemented nonvolatile storage for keys would be 
secure for almost all applications.

-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com



Article: 93887
Subject: Re: Clock generation
From: hmurray@suespammers.org (Hal Murray)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:57:16 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

>I have a question: what is the proper way to generate c slow clock. I
>have a spartan 3 development board with a 50 MHz external clock. What i
>need is a 4MHz clock for an SPI interface. Since the DCM's can only
>deliver 18 MHz output with the frequency synthesiser (CLKFX) I need to
>devide this clock some more. how is this done properly? a counter? Or
>is ther any other sollution?

Is it really a clock?  Are you clocking FFs and state machines
with it?  If so, you need to worry about skew.

I'd expect it's just a signal named "clock" coming out of a FSM.
Or maybe that's just the way I'm thinking of it.

-- 
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.


Article: 93888
Subject: Xilinx new year Puzzle: binary counter 0,5,2,3,4,1,6,7...
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:15:32 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

we all know how to count to 10 right?

I did think I can at least until I did see how
a binary counter works in Spartan3e - I am still confused:
the code in FPGA is at the end of the message,
it really is a very normal counter and should count

0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7... ?

well it doesnt, it counts

0,5,2,3,4,1,6,7... !

I have verified this behaviour multiply times and its still
counting this weird sequence where 1 and 5 are changed.

strange thing is that when I load the FPGA after loading the
counter design with another known good bitstream then the
second design works incorrectly about half of the outputs
are not toggling. This only happens when configuring with
non-impact tools. When the 2 designs are loaded with impact
then the second works properly. The weird counter works the
weird way no matter what tool is used to load the FPGA.

So as a real new year surprise I have now really seen an
FPGA that gets configured with partial/damaged bitstream
and still starts and reports done=1

Any suggestions what is wrong?
Is my counter RTL code wrong?

I have tested the wrong count both from my program and with
impact in JTAG debug mode, it really really counts wrong.

It can be that the FPGA is internally damaged as it
was almost the only IC that survived after on-board
switching supply got holes into the plastic and
Strataflash failed to respond to QRY (partially damaged
still responds to ID read).

hum when I have known fabric failing FPGA then its
really nice to work on FPGA test patterns to see
if they catch the failure

Antti


--------------- cut here ---------------------
  LED(6 downto 0) <= ADDR(6 downto 0);

Process_DRCK1 : process (DRCK1) is
begin
 if (SHIFT='0') or (SEL1='0') then
  ADDR <= "0000000000000000000000000";
 else
   if DRCK1'event and DRCK1 = '0' then
   ADDR <= ADDR + "0000000000000000000000001";
  end if;
 end if;
end process Process_DRCK1;

  Inst_BSCAN : BSCAN_SPARTAN3 port map (
                TDO1 => TDO,
                TDO2 =>  '0',
                DRCK1 => DRCK1,
                DRCK2 => open,
                RESET => RESET,
                SEL1 => SEL1,
                SEL2 => open,
                SHIFT => SHIFT,
                TDI => open,
                UPDATE => open
  );

--------------- cut here --------------------- 



Article: 93889
Subject: Re: Clock generation
From: "John Adair" <removethisthenleavejea@replacewithcompanyname.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:25:36 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
A nice way is to generate a clock enable 1 in N from a counter and use in a 
outer IF statement to enable anything within any given process statement. 
The advantage of this is you can different effective clocks in one design 
but in reality a single clock. This avoids clock boundary crossing, and 
variable timing, issues that can get by generating a clock direct from a 
counter.

Sometimes this will generate a slightly bigger logic size but not 
necessarily as the Spartan-3 flip-flop has effectively a clock enable built 
in. This enable is sometimes used by synthesisers in generating a function 
not immediately thought off as a clock enable but equally not and hence 
"free" to use.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd. - Home of Raggedstone1. The Low Cost Spartan-3 Board.
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk


<u_stadler@yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:1136280209.379940.143780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> hi
>
> I have a question: what is the proper way to generate c slow clock. I
> have a spartan 3 development board with a 50 MHz external clock. What i
> need is a 4MHz clock for an SPI interface. Since the DCM's can only
> deliver 18 MHz output with the frequency synthesiser (CLKFX) I need to
> devide this clock some more. how is this done properly? a counter? Or
> is ther any other sollution?
>
> Thanks
> Urban
> 



Article: 93890
Subject: Re: Xilinx new year Puzzle: binary counter 0,5,2,3,4,1,6,7...
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:36:41 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:dpdmcl$6rv$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hi,
>
> we all know how to count to 10 right?
>
> I did think I can at least until I did see how
> a binary counter works in Spartan3e - I am still confused:
> the code in FPGA is at the end of the message,
> it really is a very normal counter and should count
>
> 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7... ?
>
> well it doesnt, it counts
>
> 0,5,2,3,4,1,6,7... !
>
> I have verified this behaviour multiply times and its still
> counting this weird sequence where 1 and 5 are changed.

please dis-regard my prev. posting, it was incorrectly sent as
reply and the issue with the counter seems to be solved it really
is a damaged internal FPGA structure, by floorplanning the
counter into different locations I can produce various
types of wrong counting sequences. So issue solved I think.

Antti 



Article: 93891
Subject: Re: Why 'a plurality of N' must be used for 'N' in patent claims
From: wtxwtx@gmail.com
Date: 3 Jan 2006 03:50:30 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Robert,
It is interesting to note that the styles for patent writing are
changing with time.

In old patents, 'said' was used for 'the'.

Now I found in more patents approved in 2005, they only use 'the',
never use 'said'.

It is very often now that a full sentence usually follows the
'wherein', instead of many separate words followed by descriptive
words.

Thank you.

Weng


Article: 93892
Subject: Re: CPU86 (Intel 8086) VHDL now available (thanks to HT-LAB !)
From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:02:14 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On a sunny day (2 Jan 2006 15:04:01 -0800) it happened wtxwtx@gmail.com wrote
in <1136243041.134288.208780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>Hi Antti,
>There is popular saying in China that if you visited the U.S., but have
>never been in Las Vegas, you would be counted as one who has not
>visited the U.S. Because Las Vegas is its crown. I have never been in
>Las Vegas, but no sorry for it.
>
>I would like to say if you want to be a real ASIC/FPGA engineer, you
>must read CPU86. Because it is the Bible in ASIC. It is the birth place
>of full CPU industry.
>
>Thank you, Antti, for the excellent gift for new 2006.
>
>Weng
>
Is there any reason I should be interested in a segmented processor?
And I have been in Vegas, tried a Dutch quarter in one of the slot machines,
all alarms went of.
Weird place.
LOL ;-)

Article: 93893
Subject: Re: FPGA DVI output with CH7301
From: "ALuPin@web.de" <ALuPin@web.de>
Date: 3 Jan 2006 05:17:27 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Did you set the "Clock Mode Register" corresponding to your
single-edge/dual edge clocking ? And the "DVI PLL Filter Register"
corresponding to your frequency ?

Rgds
Andr=E9


Article: 93894
Subject: Re: FPGA DVI output with CH7301
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:27:16 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<ALuPin@web.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1136294247.789067.18020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Did you set the "Clock Mode Register" corresponding to your
>single-edge/dual edge clocking ? And the "DVI PLL Filter Register"
>corresponding to your frequency ?
>
>Rgds
>André

the clock mode is set properly, but I did not touch the DVI PLL Filter 
Register leaving at factory default

thanks for suggestions

Antti
PS your email is non-responsive, please email me in private




Article: 93895
Subject: Re: optimization tips (badly) needed
From: "Vaughn Betz" <no_spam@altera.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 08:46:18 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message 
news:dpdl5e$hhg$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:43ba4f5e$0$15794$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message 
>> news:dpdc4r$ga6$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> this is pretty nice as using external battery as it is required for key 
>>> storage for Xilinx FPGAs is kind a pain
>>>
>> ...but the battery solution has the potential to be more secure than 
>> having a non-volatile key that can be found by dismantling the device. 
>> How much pain would there be if someone stole your design?
>> Cheers, Syms.
>
> generically, yes
>
> but if Altera did it correctly (key storage on-die not separate die inside 
> the bga package, some other things to be done RIGHT) then its almost as 
> safe as battery. correctly implemented nonvolatile storage for keys would 
> be secure for almost all applications.
>

The key storage is on-die, so it matches what you want Antti.

Vaughn Betz
Altera
v b e t z (at) altera.com 



Article: 93896
Subject: My design to big for the FPGA or not?
From: "Casio" <casio@telia.se>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:50:53 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
When I try to generate a programming file for my FPGA project I get the
following error:





ERROR:Place:419 - The design contains 4 BRAM components that are configured
as

   512x36 BRAMs and 9 multiplier components. The multiplier site adjacent to
the

   location of a 512x36 BRAM component must remain free because of ressource

   sharing. Therefore a device  must have at least 13 multiplier sites for
this

   design to fit. The currently chosen device has only 12 multiplier sites.
Phase 1.1 (Checksum:98d993) REAL time: 3 secs





I use XILINX ISE 6.3.03i. Is there a way to make my design fit inside the
FPGA without reducing the number of multipliers?



Article: 93897
Subject: Xilinx Spartan3E Sample Pack: Real fun for all Ages!
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:00:14 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

different people at different ages have different meaning of FUN.

Too my very surprise Xilinx Spartan3e Sample Pack has been proved
itself to be fun for my younger son who is 3.5 years old and for myself.
The Sample Pack comes with 2 designs loaded, first the running LEDs starts,
on push of the button Dice game is loaded using the Multi Boot Feature.
So while I was working with the board my son did come to look what I am 
doing,
and he played with the board pretty long time showing real interest in it.
I had the secondary design image in the top flash erased so each time
my son triggered multi boot I had to reconfigure the FPGA manually with
either the running LEDs or Dice game. I was doing it with Sample Pack
standaalone utility that displays the LED status on screen in near realtime.
So I explained to my son that the LEDs on the board are also displayed on
screen so we pushed in turns and then looked to monitor to see the number
of the Dice game.
Also it was amazing to see how my son tried to figure it out, following the
power supply cables from the board, then the JTAG cable from board to
Cable IV and then to the PC. Like trying to follow the electrons without
really knowing that.

All this play did keep my son interested way beyound I would have expected.
Actually I got tired before he did. So even if that Rotating LEDs + Dice 
game
looked a bit silly for me at the first look, it is not so bad choice, at 
least those
of us with kids may find that the Sample Pack entertainment level is pretty 
good.

Now, lets see what fun has the board provided for me. First I did burn the
board in with cheap power supply and had to replace the switching supply
and the StrataFlash on the board. That wasnt fun.
After that the board seemed to work.
At least the running LED and Dice did work ok.

But in the matter of fact the FPGA was damaged as well.
After figuring it out that the FPGA fabric is really faulty
Iimpact verify says 460000 bits out of 560000 have verify errors !!!

I was able to rewrite my RTL code to be more fault tolerant and after
that it works. So I fixed an faulty FPGA to work by re-implemnting a design.
Doing that was FUN for me.

I hope that Spartan3e can provide some fun times for all ages and levels
of expertize.

--
The faulty FPGA on my board doesnt mean that the Spartan3E are bad, actually
it shows that FPGAs are very good and useable even on an board where almost
all other silicon was severly damaged due to power surge.
The FPGA survived at least partially and is still at least partially 
useable.
-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com 



Article: 93898
Subject: Re: CPU86 (Intel 8086) VHDL now available (thanks to HT-LAB !)
From: wtxwtx@gmail.com
Date: 3 Jan 2006 06:07:36 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Antti,
One month ago I sent a post asking for why Intel 386 uses at least 2
clocks for any instructions. Now I may have a chance to learn it from
its internal structure.

Even now the latest Intel chip reaches 4GHz, and numerous changes and
inventions, but its basic principles are still there.

I have read PC AT BIOS, DOS code, Keyboard code, Unix source code, C++
source files. All of them contributes to my deep experiences. CPU86 is
not an exception.

"You are taller after you stand on giants' shoulder."  Who says this?

Thank you again, Antti, for the excellent gift for the new 2006.

Weng


Article: 93899
Subject: Re: CPU86 (Intel 8086) VHDL now available (thanks to HT-LAB !)
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:14:43 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<wtxwtx@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1136297256.268161.64320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Antti,
> One month ago I sent a post asking for why Intel 386 uses at least 2
> clocks for any instructions. Now I may have a chance to learn it from
> its internal structure.
>
> Even now the latest Intel chip reaches 4GHz, and numerous changes and
> inventions, but its basic principles are still there.
>
> I have read PC AT BIOS, DOS code, Keyboard code, Unix source code, C++
> source files. All of them contributes to my deep experiences. CPU86 is
> not an exception.
>
> "You are taller after you stand on giants' shoulder."  Who says this?
>
> Thank you again, Antti, for the excellent gift for the new 2006.
>
> Weng
>

Hi Weng,

I have tried todo x86 IP-Core myself, but I had a totally different approuch
the core I had was able to execute most instruction sequences up to 15 bytes 
long
within 1 clock regardless of byte align by using special wide BRAM cache 
block
for instruction storage, what I did is also available

http://gforge.openchip.org

I did not finish my core, the most of testing I ever did was to read
SystemACE and display some data from it on TFT display on ML300 :)

my code isnt much useful, but maybe that wide BRAM cache idea is

-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com 





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