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 139425

Article: 139425
Subject: Re: What does Xilinx mean by "Real 6-input look-up (LUT) technology"?
From: whygee <whygee@yg.yg>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:56:31 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hi,

rickman wrote:
> I would guess that they picked the LUT6 rather than a LUT5 because it
> allows a 4:1 mux with no wasted inputs.
I'm not sure that it is "the" reason but it certainly counts.

> Muxes are real LUT eaters in many designs, including CPUs.
I agree. It's one of my main issues ...

Well, there were no MUX issues in the antifuse-based Actel families :-)
I once used the A1020 that is based on a 4-MUX structure, it was fun
but the other functions were not as easy...


> Rick
yg

-- 
http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org

Article: 139426
Subject: Re: best soft core(s) that have C compiler support
From: "Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 28, 3:27=A0pm, Kolja <ksuli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 28 Mrz., 06:45, "Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com"
>
> <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > =A0if I use MicroBlaze(tm)
>
> Last time I checked there was no registered "microblaze" trademark.
> Neither in
> the US nor in Germany.
> And if there was, it would only prevent you from calling your product
> "Microblaze".
> You could still be 100% compatible.
>
> > clone on Altera, Lattice
> > then I suppose it may get unwanted attention, or if not it will get
> > absolute nil support from the vendors where soft-core marketed
> > by direct competitor is used.
>
> The Microblaze clone is not marketed by Xilinx but by open cores.
>
> ISAs can't be protected and the simple single issue implementations
> hardly use anything that has been patented in the last 25 years.
>
> > > regarding i8080 clones, I assume that neither Xilinx, Altera, Lattice=
,
> > et others
> > would not mind, as Intel is not FPGA vendor.
> > and i do not think intel would send C&D either
>
> And if they to ignore it. Any patents covering 8080 are long expired
> and
> copyright law does not apply (as long as you did not copy any HDL or
> schematics from them)
>
> Please everybody: Don't believe the FUD of the vendors.
> They try to spread incorrect views on the legal situation.
>
> And if I should ever get a C&D from Xilinx I would immediately answer
> with a
> C&D regarding the incorrect use of the GPL in the ISE distribution.
> Well that is a major copyrigh violation on their side.
>
> As a side note to extend you list:
> What about LEON and the other open source versions of SPARC?
> Did not SUN open source their design?
> And doesn't openRISC have C-Compiler support?
>
> Have fun,
>
> Kolja

Kolja

good comments

eh when Altera asked me to stop offering NIOX (clean room NIOS-II
core)
i just did what they asked. It was not yet legal C&D thing, very
polite
well it wonder me a lot why they bothered? NIOS-I open source codes
exist and Altera doesnt mind that. Why did they wanted NIOX off?

as of LEON and openrisc - sure they are on the list if LARGE CORES
are included, well I seem to be VERY biased agains openrisc and
see now reason why use it and not LEON3 if the resource usage allows.

well, actually smallest LEON soc can fit spartan3-400 what so maybe
I should really increase the small-large trip margin for 32 bit cores
eh need run some more synthesis for more comparison data

Antti

















Article: 139427
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:47:21 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:38:50 -0700) it happened Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
<Dqzzl.27297$ZP4.3376@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>> How are you going to get an edge on your competition unless you use
>> stuff that they don't know?
>> 
>
>Oh, I do a lot of unorthodox stuff. Using 74HCU or CD4000 in analog 
>circuits, switcher FETs in servos, RF parts for digital functions and so 
>on. I am just curious what can be done with an FPGA in that respect.


Although I am by no means an FPGA expert, I have done some funny things
with my Spartan 2 FPGA board.
For example did video out with a simple R2R network connected to some
output pins (8 bits), video conversion from 50Hz V and 15625Hz H to
50Hz V and 31250Hz H, for display on a VGA monitor, (with an ADC for input),
and similar stuff.
Of course using a real DAC (I have now) is much better.
Simple pulse things, like John does in that example to charge an integrator, work,
but analog is not the field for FPGAs, the 'right' way is to digitise,
process digitally, and then convert to analog again.
Like for filters, for example a nice lowpass in Verilog for video is only a
few lines of code, etc.
It seems Altera has a _lot_ of real nice video stuff, compete codecs, etc.
For sure I would go Altera if I needed something like that for video again.
Also Xilinx stuff is either not there, and cannot be bought from their online shop
(at least it was that way a while ago).


>A long time ago I was looking into using the old Intel CPLD series that 
>way because of they microamp capabilities. Boy was I glad I didn't, 
>shortly after they ditched the whole line. Thing is, most of my designs 
>are targeted for more than a decade in production. And no trimpots or 
>calibration allowed unless that can be automated.

That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
no monte carlos.
You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
the price too.
The Altera soft runs in MS windows and in Linux in Wine.
The Xilinx stuff has a Linux version that also works, and the tools have a command line
interface that can be used from a script, 

Packages are small, you need a development (or more then one) board for each
FPGA.
And learning a HDL, Verilog or VHDL, or both, will take a lot of your time.
That needs to be calculated in too.

Article: 139428
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:33:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.fpga Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>  
>> Oh, I do a lot of unorthodox stuff. Using 74HCU or CD4000 in analog 
>> circuits, switcher FETs in servos, RF parts for digital functions and so 
>> on. I am just curious what can be done with an FPGA in that respect.
> 
> I once knew someone who built an FM radio transmitter
> using a 74S04 as the output stage.  I suppose
> cheaper than RF transistors at the time.
> 

If this was 20 or more years ago, yes, RF power transistors that could 
be used above 50MHz were painfully expensive. So I just used tubes.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Article: 139429
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
> no monte carlos.


Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the road 
but I don't gamble anyhow.

Oh, wait ...


> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..


Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more conservative 
regions out here :-)


> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
> the price too. ...


That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced 
(having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too many 
purchasing nightmares there.

[...]

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Article: 139430
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:57:26 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
>> no monte carlos.
>
>
>Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the road 
>but I don't gamble anyhow.
>
>Oh, wait ...
>
>
>> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
>
>
>Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more conservative 
>regions out here :-)
>
>
>> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
>> the price too. ...
>
>
>That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced 
>(having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too many 
>purchasing nightmares there.

Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" ;), unique
features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these days.

Article: 139431
Subject: doubts regarding fpga spartan3E kit use.
From: "cpfpga" <cpiitm@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:33:55 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am newbie in using FPGA and while using spartan3E starter kit I have two
doubts.
1.I am making a simple ADC to DAC system using on board ADC and DAC
chips.Do I have to provide 3.3 volt( for creating reference voltage) to
header J5 through external power supply, or does the board has its our
circuitry to provide that internally(from its own power)?I think same will
go for GND too.
2.I have to store samples coming from ADC ,store in memory and do
processing on them.what will be of better use, FIFO or RAM?and how much
memory is available,because it seems I must obtain more than 1 Mega samples
per cycle for my purpose.



Article: 139432
Subject: USB port on FPGA - How is data transmitted?
From: "dts4theworld" <dts4theworld@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:34:04 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi everyone,

I'm currently working on a project which involves a Virtex 5 board with
USB port (and Cypress FX2 MicroController). 
My goal is to connect a webcam to the FPGA board and process that input
data with an algorithm which should detect movement (a simple one).

From the forums I found on the web I understood that this is not an easy
task - connecting the webcam to the FPGA and processing the video signal -
and I'm now searching for any relevant information regarding this.

I'm using an UVC (USB Video Class) compatible webcam, and I have the
documentation for this from usb.org, but still can't figure out exactly how
the video signal is transmitted (how do you initialize the webcam, how does
the host ask for data, and how is the received data structured). By the
way, I'm working in verilog.

Is there any link/documentation or example which could possibly help me? 
 
Thank you in advance,
Chris



Article: 139433
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
krw wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
>>> no monte carlos.
>>
>> Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the road 
>> but I don't gamble anyhow.
>>
>> Oh, wait ...
>>
>>
>>> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
>>
>> Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more conservative 
>> regions out here :-)
>>
>>
>>> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
>>> the price too. ...
>>
>> That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced 
>> (having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too many 
>> purchasing nightmares there.
> 
> Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
> quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" ;), unique
> features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
> have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these days.


That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and 
assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Article: 139434
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:11:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:39:04 +0100, "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message 
>news:s8cts4d6jcmvbk2tu3cd3tua362o6gtde7@4ax.com...
>>
>> We did some playing with FPGA-based PLLs. The classic charge-pump PDs
>> didn't work very well. This works...
>>
>>
>> fpga_up------ak----R-----+-------opamp
>>                         |
>>                         |
>>                         |
>> fpga_dn------ka----R-----+
>>
>>
>> where AK and KA are schottky diodes feeding an opamp integrator (P+I
>> control) thing, and the up/down things pulse in the obvious
>> polarities. The fpga outputs are hard and fast, not tri-state, and
>> overlap a good bit. No deadband, fast as all getout, low phase noise.
>>
>> John
>>
>Even better is :-
>
>                 V+
>                 |
>                 R
>                 |
>fpga_up------ka----ak-----+-------opamp
>                          |
>                          |
>                          |
>fpga_dn------ak----ka-----+
>                 |
>                 R
>                 |
>                 0V
>
>Syms.
>
>

Why is that better? Loop gain and tempco are about the same, and
you've slowed down the drive edges by adding unnecessary hi-Z nodes.
And added a bit of power dissipation. And more parts.

Grrrrr.

John





Article: 139435
Subject: Re: best soft core(s) that have C compiler support
From: Tommy Thorn <tommy.thorn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 27, 10:45=A0pm, "Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com"
<Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> YARI, hm i am interested too, if even the caches could be disabled
> it maybe small enough

Getting rid of the D$ is easy, but running without at least a minimal
directly mapped I$ hardly makes sense (you'd be limited by the
external memory bandwidth). You don't have _any_ memory blocks at all?
The register file requires two 32x32 dual port memory blocks.

If you know you don't need certain instructions like div, rem, mul,
etc, you can save lots of LEs.

Tommy

Article: 139436
Subject: Re: best soft core(s) that have C compiler support
From: Tommy Thorn <tommy.thorn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 27, 11:24 pm, "Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com"
<Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> the goal is to find best CPU for minimal SoC that should be
> possible to fit to widest possible selection of FPGA's thats
> why the huge ones are not listed. L8080 fits into smaller
> end of FPGAs where 32 bit Cores do no longer fit. Also
> some smaller FPGAs may have too small BRAM so
> the 32 bit CPUs would just have too small instruction memory
> for the C compiler to be useable at all.

I guess I should have read this part before replying. Can you site the
memory and LE/LC budget? Will there be external memory?

It's trivial to make YARI run entirely out of BRAM (and get rid of the
tags and the associativity), but MIPS-I obviously isn't the most
compact ISA.

If I was obsessed with space, I would take b16 as a starting point,
work it until it would be feasible to write a compiler for, and then
do that, but I think I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a chop
stick.

FPGA are getting bigger & cheaper at a faster rate than I can write
compiler backends. The very smallest Spartan 6 has 3,400 LC and 32 Kib
+ 144 Kib of memory. I suspect these minimal core will be less
appealing as time progresses.

IMHO
Tommy

Article: 139437
Subject: Re: best soft core(s) that have C compiler support
From: -jg <Jim.Granville@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 30, 12:40=A0pm, Tommy Thorn <tommy.th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you know you don't need certain instructions like div, rem, mul,
> etc, you can save lots of LEs.

Being 100% sure is not easy, but I have wondered about Cores that trap
such opcodes, and vector to a library call ?. They could also include
a simple sticky-bit hardware flag, so you can check if you are
actually needing those opcodes.
-jg



Article: 139438
Subject: Re: best soft core(s) that have C compiler support
From: Tommy Thorn <tommy.thorn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
[Self-follow up is bad form, I know ...]

A 10 min experiment to change YARI to an MCU configuration (Harvard
style split instruction and data memory, and delete multiply and
divide support) slimmed it down to 2,700 LE on an Altera EP1C12. I
suspect it would be easy to get it down < 2,400 LE.

Note, size was never a priority in the original design.

Tommy

Article: 139439
Subject: Re: best soft core(s) that have C compiler support
From: Tommy Thorn <tommy.thorn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 29, 6:15=A0pm, -jg <Jim.Granvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being 100% sure is not easy, but I have wondered about Cores that trap
> such opcodes, and vector to a library call ?. They could also include
> a simple sticky-bit hardware flag, so you can check if you are
> actually needing those opcodes.

That would be trivially easy to add. Also, if the FPGA has a hardware
multiplier (most these days), the multiply really doesn't cost that
much.

Deleting more dead code got it down to 1,960 LC (caveat, I haven't
_tested_ it).

Tommy

Article: 139440
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
>>>> no monte carlos.
>>>
>>> Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the road 
>>> but I don't gamble anyhow.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
>>>
>>> Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more conservative 
>>> regions out here :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
>>>> the price too. ...
>>>
>>> That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced 
>>> (having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too many 
>>> purchasing nightmares there.
>> 
>> Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
>> quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" ;), unique
>> features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
>> have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these days.
>
>
>That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and 
>assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).

No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less.  We have a
pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA.  It would
save a lot of money and grief.  If I was convinced I could do a decent
delta sigma modulator I'd do even more.

Article: 139441
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>krw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
>>>>> no monte carlos.
>>>>
>>>> Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the road 
>>>> but I don't gamble anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, wait ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
>>>>
>>>> Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more conservative 
>>>> regions out here :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
>>>>> the price too. ...
>>>>
>>>> That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced 
>>>> (having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too many 
>>>> purchasing nightmares there.
>>> 
>>> Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
>>> quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" ;), unique
>>> features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
>>> have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these days.
>>
>>
>>That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and 
>>assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).
>
>No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
>going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less.  We have a
>pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA.  It would
>save a lot of money and grief.  If I was convinced I could do a decent
>delta sigma modulator I'd do even more.

D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and
one external RC makes a pretty good dac. 

John


Article: 139442
Subject: Problems with include paths in Eclipse, Nios2, Altera
From: bobrics <bobrics@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I am working on a project on two different computers that have
different installation paths for Altera software. The system
originally developed on one machine, when copied, new include paths
added, cannot find header files. Somehow, the directories are not
being properly searched in Eclipse.

A file has:
#include "myheaderfile.h"

where myheaderfile.h is in the directory that is listed under the
includes. To add the path, I use Project->Properties->C/C++ include
paths...->Add external include path...

I have cleaned and re-built the project. Please let me know what I
could be missing.

Thank you

Article: 139443
Subject: RS232, UART & Igloo nano Kit
From: Bert_Paris <do_not_spam@me.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:29:37 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello,
I have built an Application Note for newbies (& students !) who want to 
understand and implement RS232 (UART) in an FPGA. Especially when it's 
an assignement, they should follow this document instead of asking for 
the UART code (which I give away only in the context of larger 
educational projects).
I have also built a nice (I think) Tutorial to implement and test a 
simple UART in the new Igloo nano Kit (49 $!), complete with all steps 
from installing the (free) development software to building the design, 
programming the kit and testing the RS232 on a PC.
These are available at :
http://www.alse-fr.com/UART/ALSE_RS232.pdf
http://www.alse-fr.com/Actel/ALSE_Igloo_nano.exe
As I state in this document, do not expect tech support for free stuff, 
though I welcome useful remarks and suggestions.

Hope it helps (and will reduce the amount of requests for the UART),

Bert Cuzeau
CTO ALSE
(can be reached at info@ the website in the links above)



Article: 139444
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: Allan Herriman <allanherriman@hotmail.com>
Date: 30 Mar 2009 09:48:25 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>krw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
>>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no
>>>>>> tolerances, no monte carlos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the
>>>>> road but I don't gamble anyhow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
>>>>>
>>>>> Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more
>>>>> conservative regions out here :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources,
>>>>>> watch the price too. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced
>>>>> (having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too
>>>>> many purchasing nightmares there.
>>>> 
>>>> Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
>>>> quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" ;), unique
>>>> features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
>>>> have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these
>>>> days.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and
>>>assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).
>>
>>No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
>>going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less.  We have a
>>pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA.  It would save
>>a lot of money and grief.  If I was convinced I could do a decent delta
>>sigma modulator I'd do even more.
> 
> D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
> trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and one
> external RC makes a pretty good dac.
> 
> John

I've used external CMOS buffers to give a noise-free Voh for this 
application.  FPGA outputs can have quite a lot of noise on them, coupled 
from other outputs on the same bank.  (The numbers vary from family to 
family, etc.)

Regards,
Allan

Article: 139445
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:53:42 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message 
news:5330t4hf57cnve65p8gqm5civ8l5gecrni@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:39:04 +0100, "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in 
>>message
>>news:s8cts4d6jcmvbk2tu3cd3tua362o6gtde7@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> We did some playing with FPGA-based PLLs. The classic charge-pump PDs
>>> didn't work very well. This works...
>>>
>>>
>>> fpga_up------ak----R-----+-------opamp
>>>                         |
>>>                         |
>>>                         |
>>> fpga_dn------ka----R-----+
>>>
>>>
>>> where AK and KA are schottky diodes feeding an opamp integrator (P+I
>>> control) thing, and the up/down things pulse in the obvious
>>> polarities. The fpga outputs are hard and fast, not tri-state, and
>>> overlap a good bit. No deadband, fast as all getout, low phase noise.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>Even better is :-
>>
>>                 V+
>>                 |
>>                 R
>>                 |
>>fpga_up------ka----ak-----+-------opamp
>>                          |
>>                          |
>>                          |
>>fpga_dn------ak----ka-----+
>>                 |
>>                 R
>>                 |
>>                 0V
>>
>>Syms.
>>
>>
>
> Why is that better? Loop gain and tempco are about the same, and
> you've slowed down the drive edges by adding unnecessary hi-Z nodes.
> And added a bit of power dissipation. And more parts.
>
> Grrrrr.
>
> John
>
John,
Easy tiger! :-)
I don't see any more 'hi-Z' nodes than the circuit you suggested. The 
circuit I posted has the same number of nodes as yours, unless you're 
counting power supply nodes? The drive edges are the same. It's better 
because the V+ signal doesn't have to have the noise of the FPGAs power 
supply on it. For sure with a type II phase detector this time is small when 
the PLL is locked, but it's there, nonetheless. Especially as you apparently 
specifically designed your phase detector to have a 'good bit' of overlap.

But well done on the counting front. There are more parts. :-)

Syms. 



Article: 139446
Subject: Re: Silicon Blue Warm-Boot not working properly
From: "Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 20, 1:23=A0pm, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I know this is too much to hope solution, but maybe..
>
> the winter 2008 SBT tools seem to generate a multi boot header for
> cold boot only (works ok)
>
> trying warm-boot with the same multiboot applet doesnt seem to work
> however :(
>
> any help?
> (yes i have submitted help request to SBT)
>
> Antti

Ok

confirmed WARMBOOT works too

there doesnt seem to be a way to disable coldboot pins however
so if the CBSELx are left connected and multiboot is enabled
then image_3 is started at cold boot, what however isnt a problem
as the start addresses can be assigned as needed (only
the boot applet itself needs to be at addr 0)

Antti


Article: 139447
Subject: Re: added jitter on FPGAs
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:05:00 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 30 Mar 2009 09:48:25 GMT, Allan Herriman
<allanherriman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
>>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>krw wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
>>>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no
>>>>>>> tolerances, no monte carlos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the
>>>>>> road but I don't gamble anyhow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, wait ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more
>>>>>> conservative regions out here :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources,
>>>>>>> watch the price too. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced
>>>>>> (having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too
>>>>>> many purchasing nightmares there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
>>>>> quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" ;), unique
>>>>> features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
>>>>> have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these
>>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and
>>>>assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).
>>>
>>>No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
>>>going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less.  We have a
>>>pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA.  It would save
>>>a lot of money and grief.  If I was convinced I could do a decent delta
>>>sigma modulator I'd do even more.
>> 
>> D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
>> trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and one
>> external RC makes a pretty good dac.
>> 
>> John
>
>I've used external CMOS buffers to give a noise-free Voh for this 
>application.  FPGA outputs can have quite a lot of noise on them, coupled 
>from other outputs on the same bank.  (The numbers vary from family to 
>family, etc.)
>
>Regards,
>Allan

A delta-sigma dac needs a ton of lowpass filtering anyhow, so the only
noise that matters is slow stuff on the +3.3 rail, which is usually
easy to control. Most fpga's bank Vcc_out anyhow, so only the "dac
bank" supply needs to be quiet at low frequencies.

John


Article: 139448
Subject: Fiber optics protocols for mid range speed
From: Oliver Faust <oliver.faust@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,
I want to network multiple embedded processors using optical fiber as
physical layer. This network is realised with point to point
connections. At the moment, the network is established using RS232. To
get higher data rates (around 100Mb/s) and better protection against
EMI the electrical RS232 should be exchanged with optical data
transfer.
In order to realise this change, I'm searching for a technology
similar to Fiber Channel (FC). The only, difficulty with FC is that
the speed is too high, the slowest speed for fiber channel is 1Gb/s.
Furthermore, fiber channels use sophisticated IO (Xilinx rocket IO) ,
for cost effectiveness I don't want to invest in these expensive IOs.
I looked around on the net for some possible solutions, but fiber
channel was the closest solution to my problem I could find. My
question is therefore:
Did I overlook something? Is there an IP-core or external chip which
allows me to establish a 100Mb/s data communication link between two
embedded processors using fiber optic.

Thank you in advance for your help.
Oliver Faust

Article: 139449
Subject: Re: USB port on FPGA - How is data transmitted?
From: "dts4theworld" <dts4theworld@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:30:28 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:34:04 -0500, "dts4theworld"
><dts4theworld@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I'm currently working on a project which involves a Virtex 5 board with
>>USB port (and Cypress FX2 MicroController). 
>>My goal is to connect a webcam to the FPGA board and process that input
>>data with an algorithm which should detect movement (a simple one).
>>
>>From the forums I found on the web I understood that this is not an
easy
>>task - connecting the webcam to the FPGA and processing the video signal
-
>>and I'm now searching for any relevant information regarding this.
>>
>>I'm using an UVC (USB Video Class) compatible webcam, and I have the
>>documentation for this from usb.org, but still can't figure out exactly
how
>>the video signal is transmitted (how do you initialize the webcam, how
does
>>the host ask for data, and how is the received data structured). By the
>>way, I'm working in verilog.
>>
>>Is there any link/documentation or example which could possibly help me?

>> 
>>Thank you in advance,
>>Chris
>>
>
>This is  a significant project as you have figured out. It is not
>advisable to try to implement the UVC portion in hardware. My
>suggestion would be to get the linux UVC stack and port the relevant
>portions of it to a processor (soft-core or otherwise) implemented in
>your fpga design.
>Very simplistically, you need a host controller and a UVC driver to
>talk to the webcam. When the webcam is attached, the host controller
>sends it USB packets to enumerate the device to find what kind of
>end-point(s) it supports and hand it off to the UVC stack for video
>related packet processing. You really don't want to (re)do this in
>hardware. Get a processor and port enough of linux UVC stack to it,
>which is a significant task by itself but much smaller than doing all
>of it yourself.
>There is also the problem of convincing the fx2 to act as a usb host.
>It's usually used in peripheral device implementations but it might be
>possible to hack it to behave like a host in a limited way which
>should be enough for your purposes.
>-- 
>Muzaffer Kal
>
>DSPIA INC.
>ASIC/FPGA Design Services
>http://www.dspia.com
>


Dear Mr. Kal,

Thank you very much for your input, such advice is just what I need right
now. 

I'm trying now to figure out what I need to know in order to get some
results. First off, I now need a processor design which can support this
UVC driver (parts of it) - Can I use here an open-core design?
The signal processing has to be hardware.. i'm not sure how to get these
together. You advised me not to try a hardware implementation of the UVC..
but then wouldn't my driver need to control the signal processing part as
well? About the FX2 - the manual sais it's no problem to run it as host.
It's a Virtex 5-LX board from Avnet.

Are there any alternatives which might allow me to skip the USB
communication nightmare? I found some attempts to tap directly into the
camera's signal coming from the image sensor. Would that be a good/feasible
idea?

I was also thinking if it would be easier to get the data from the webcam
through the laptop, which would then feed the FPGA board through some other
interface.

Thank you,
Chris




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