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
2017JanFebMarApr2017

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 25600

Article: 25600
Subject: Re: hardware compatibility and patent infringement
From: Tom Moog <tmoog@polhode.com>
Date: 15 Sep 2000 02:56:58 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Many years ago I was told that the DEC PDP-11
had some patented instructions (subroutine call
through the top element of the stack) and
that this gave them control over any efforts to
clone their machines.




Article: 25601
Subject: Re: Simon,Floating Inputs
From: "Dan" <daniel.deconinck@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:22:12 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The decoupling is four .1uF caps. One at each corner of a QP240. I plan to
make a new PCB with a .1uF at each power pin.

When the device is drawing minimum power, shouldn't four decoupling caps be
enough ?

Dan




Article: 25602
Subject: Whoa, Noise on a digital output pin?, and Minor rant on XC9500 S/W, was
From: "John L. Smith" <jsmith@visicom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:41:54 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------0981A683501ED964A766CDF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

(Hawker, have you seen the thread on 'Clock skew in XILINX CPLD'
where we've been talking about some XC9500 issues? Maybe your note
here would have been more appropriate there, instead of attached
to a thread on XCV50 problem)

 Nevertheless, I'm intensely interested in this issue too, as we
have XC9500 parts going into mission critical H/W.

 When you say 'noise', this doesn't say much.
 Is this a decoded clock that is being generated, and you get
decoding glitches depending on whether some cover logic is
being reduced? If this is the case, not a worry, experienced
designers should know to look out for and how to handle that,
and you've just had your experience.

Much more worrisome is if your output clock is simply a copy of
an input clock pin, and noise is induced depending on routing.
Hawker, which was the case for you?

Usual comments on ground and VCC planes, de-coupling,
termination of high speed edges, everything else
Howard Johnson covers in his very good book.

Sorry, here's the rant...

I know that 9500 followed much different development path than
Xilinx ram based FPGAs. But the S/W should make further attempts
at convergence. Specifically, with the 4000's and Virtex, you
get the wonderful FPGA 'viewer' (uhh, editor), that lets you
see whatever damage the S/W hath wrought. You can see the
routing, you can check the logic. When a circuit doesn't work,
you can go right into the part to bring out a test point
by hand if necessary (and the XLA embedded logic analyser
is NOT going to change the desirability of this feature!,
Xilinx, never give up on that editor, it is one of the better
tools you have, I forgive the way it _used_ to crash!).

 With the 9500, you have no tool that compares. What is it
with CPLDs that vendors don't want to release any kind of
routing viewer? The Lattice parts had this problem, I was
told they didn't want to release routing details for fear
of giving up valuble architectural secrets. The first
time I had a design with those parts that exhibited a
failure mode due to moving things around, I decided to
drop them. Also, what good is it if you can't see inside the
part enough to know whether you even have a reasonable
shot at routing it before you start? Do the design first and
then find out there's no way it will rout? Give me a break!!

I haven't used the Lattice stuff in at least 4 years, just
because they were so secretive about what's inside. Don't
even know if they're still around. It is getting close
to that point with the XC9500 series. I have no idea what
the detailed routing looks like, and why there are failures
showing up that come or go depending on position/existance
of totally unrelated circuits in the part. It is getting
close to the point where I may recommend company wide
boycot of these devices.

CPLD vendors, open up your routing details. Afraid to
give away trade secrets? Surely you're big enough to
invest in a patent for your precious architectures
if they are that valuable. The real value is in giving
engineers tools and parts they can use without head
scratching. My scalp is getting thin.

Hawker wrote:
> 
> Ya know I'm having that problem with of all things a
> XC95108.  You can even see the noise on the clock output pin.
> I changed the synth to not "demorgan" or whatever it does to reduce space
> and problem went away.. course design needs 33% more space!
> These tool sets are annoying me to no end!
> If PADS PCB (the other EDA software I use regularly) had
> as many issues it would never have made it to where it has...
> Thank god Xilinx does not make chips like they make there toolsets!
> 
> Hawker
> 
> Dan wrote:
> >
> > I have a XCV50 design with internal noise. CLBs changing state when they
> > shouldn't.
> >
> > Could this be caused by noise from unused IOBs. Do the unused IOBs need to
> > be configured in a certain way ? If so how ?
> >
--------------0981A683501ED964A766CDF1
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="jsmith.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for John L. Smith
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="jsmith.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Smith;John L.
tel;work:858-320-4102
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.visicom.com
org:Visicom;Imaging Products
adr:;;10052 Mesa Ridge Court;San Diego;CA;92121;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:jsmith@visicom.com
title:Principal Engineer
x-mozilla-cpt:;30864
fn:John L. Smith
end:vcard

--------------0981A683501ED964A766CDF1--

Article: 25603
Subject: Re: hardware compatibility and patent infringement
From: bjolin@lin.foa.se (Björn Lindgren)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 06:43:58 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <8prsfo$1oj$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, nweaver@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU 
says...
>
>In article <39BDE627.FF408617@no-spam.calweb.com>,
>Peter Hanely  <hanelyp@no-spam.calweb.com> wrote:
>>My impression is that you can't patent an instruction set.  Then again,
>>a lot of patents have been granted that are plain stupid.
>>In your favor, there are several Intel clone chips, that Intel would love
>>to shut down if they could.
>
>        I believe Intel has some patents on the IA64 ISA, but then
>there are some significant new and novel features on it.
>-- 
>Nicholas C. Weaver                                 nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu

Intel also managed to get a patent on something published by another company
several years earlier and thereby could be considered as common knowledge.

(And now some people think we europeans should get the same patent rules as
the US. It's IMHO better to do the reverse, but on the other hand that would
get a lot of US lawyers (people who manipulate the law) out of work, and that
could be dangerous)

regards
/Björn Lindgren
* These opinions are my personal ones *


Article: 25604
Subject: Re: Boundary scan
From: david.miller@gecm.com (David Miller)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:25:55 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:29:34 +0100, sergio oyaga
<larrion@euskalnet.net> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>I'm a student of Mondragon University and I=B4m working with Xilinx
>Foundation. I want to practice boundary scan, and I don=B4t know if I can=
>
>do it with a Paralle Download III cable.
>
>Can anybody help me,please?
>
>
What is it you are trying to practice?  Does it have to be Xilinx
specific?

I seem to remeber that Texas Instruments did a JTAG simulator program
that had all the basics.

HTH

David.
Article: 25605
Subject: Re: Guide to useing Atmel FPGA (at40k)
From: "Paul Maddox" <maddoxp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:54:50 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Ben,

>
> One thing I found useful is to print out a copy of
> data sheet of the family of FPGA's you are using and any data
> libraries and data macro function descriptions.

sadly the Atmel website is a bit lacking in .PDF files for these chips..
Im hopeingtheres stuff onthe CD with the IDS software I have.

> Also if your software is time limited it might be wise to
> wait until you got back and you install the software on a virgin
> PC.
>

Its not time limited, and Ive not installed it yet.. I panic everytime I
install new software
incase it screws up my PC.

>
> Many FPGA's are similar in design so general design ideas apply
> to many devices. FPGA's in general don't map well to wide simple
> gates like a 12 input NAND gate but map better to functions of 3
> or 4 variables like a 2 input multiplexer or ripple carry adder
> cell.Registers are often free with every logic cell as well.
> Small ram like 16xN may have to synthesized taking up a large
> number of logic blocks.

the Atmel has distributed RAM so Im hopeing I can use that...

> The other thing is to understand the design you are creating
> well in advance.Some logic layouts don't work well and others do
> often with re thinking of the layout. KISS allways works best.
> (Keep It Simple Stupid ). Good luck on your project.
>

Ive done the design I want using discrete logic, but its 26 odd logic chips
mostly 4 bit adders and latchs (with a bit of SRAM)..
I like to keep stuff simple, it helps when it comes to debugging!

Thanks for the advice

Paul


> Ben.
> --
> "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...
>  We borrow it from our children."
> "Luna family of Octal Computers" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk


Article: 25606
Subject: PCI-Tip? (for Xilinx Virtex/-E)
From: Marc Reinert <reinert@tu-harburg.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:04:33 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello,

has anybody out there experience with PCI designs on a Virtex/Virtex-E?

I'm going to develop a PCI board (33Mhz/32Bit) on one of these devices.
My idea is to have a lot of space left in my FPGA beside the
PCI-Interface.

Is there a core (or better a complete VHDL-Programming) aviable from
Xilinx (or anybody else)? Does it work well and are any features of the
PCI-Bus not supported? Is there a free version aviable on the internet?

O.k., I'm sorry that my idea is not very concrete - I'm just looking for
first information.

Thanks for Your good tips

 Marc Reinert

Article: 25607
Subject: Re: PCI-Tip? (for Xilinx Virtex/-E)
From: Lars Rzymianowicz <larsrzy@ti.uni-mannheim.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:27:59 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Marc Reinert wrote:
> I'm going to develop a PCI board (33Mhz/32Bit) on one of these devices.
> My idea is to have a lot of space left in my FPGA beside the
> PCI-Interface.
> Is there a core (or better a complete VHDL-Programming) aviable from
> Xilinx (or anybody else)? Does it work well and are any features of the
> PCI-Bus not supported? Is there a free version aviable on the internet?

Hi Marc,

Xilinx has the logiCORE PCI macrocell, which is a customizable
33/66/32/64 PCI interface. Check the Xilinx website for it, it's
price is around $5000, i guess.
Since you are a University, you might consider to join the Xilinx
Univ. Prg. XUP. There you can also apply for a donation of the core.
I tried that, but never got any reply on several emails/faxes.
But maybe you have more luck ;-)

Lars
-- 
Address:  University of Mannheim; B6, 26; 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Tel:      +(49) 621 181-2716, Fax: -2713
email:    larsrzy@{ti.uni-mannheim.de, atoll-net.de, computer.org}
Homepage: http://mufasa.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/lsra/persons/lars/
Article: 25608
Subject: Re: Simon,Floating Inputs
From: "S. Ramirez" <sramirez@deleet.cfl.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:57:25 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Dan,
     I have not read Xilinx's notes on power coupling for the CPLD you are
using.  I think that four .1uF caps should suffice, at least minimally, for
this application.  Do you have good ground and power planes on your board?
Planes will help with this minimal decoupling.
     When you say "minimum power," are you speaking of the average power?
The real issue here is the dynamic or instantaneous current draw, and that
is what the caps are for.  If the device switches very fast and there are a
lot of FFs switching, then you will need more caps, regardless of the
average minimum power dissipated.
     There is a lot of variables here  Keep feeding us information, and the
group (which includes you!) will eventually get to the bottom of this.
These problems are interesting.
-Simon Ramirez, Consultant
-Synchronous Design, Inc.


"Dan" <daniel.deconinck@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8miw5.261590$1h3.5258160@news20.bellglobal.com...
> The decoupling is four .1uF caps. One at each corner of a QP240. I plan to
> make a new PCB with a .1uF at each power pin.
>
> When the device is drawing minimum power, shouldn't four decoupling caps
be
> enough ?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>


Article: 25609
Subject: Re: FPGA Express Strikes Again!
From: eml@riverside-machines.com.NOSPAM
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:20:38 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:47:34 GMT, "S. Ramirez"
<sramirez@deleet.cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>Andy,
>     The ultimate and most elegant fix is to switch to Synplicity.
>-Simon Ramirez, Consultant
>-Synchronous Design, Inc.

Except that, last time I looked, Synplify didn't know that Virtex had
a sync reset. This can really mess up your CLB calculations. Don't
know if this has been fixed. Anyone feel brave enough to run up a web
page comparing different synthesisers?
Article: 25610
Subject: Re: Clock skew in XILINX CPLD
From: Nial Stewart <nials@sqf.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:11:59 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"S. Ramirez" wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
>      Of course I still call my company Synchronous Design!  Parallel
> synchronizers are simply a no-no design technique of synchronous design.

Simon,

What techniques do you use for synchronising parrallel data that is 
being generated asynchronously?

Nial.
Article: 25611
Subject: Re: Xilinx PCI interface: buy the LogiCORE or do it yourself?
From: "Francois DUSSAUGEY" <Francois.Dussaugey@bull.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:17:31 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello Jean Paul,

I'm working for BULL company in the servers division. We are currently designing a new I/O channels attachement for the Company's proprietaray mainframe line.
The key for this new channel is the PCI (64 bits/ 66 MHz).
We have 2 PCI agents to design:
- The first one is a MASTER/TARGET PCI agent in a VIRTEX V600E chip. For this one, we use the PCI core and if I remenber correctly we paid $1995 for this core.

- The second chip is a TARGET only agent. We need to have the PCI already configured at power on. So we couldn't use FPGA solution. The idea was to use a CPLD (the biggest of XC9500 family) and design by ourself the PCI TARGET interface. 

If your are interrese in more details, let me know by e-mail...
Article: 25612
Subject: Re: Whoa, Noise on a digital output pin?, and Minor rant on XC9500 S/W,
From: Hawker <Hawker@connriver.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:21:52 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Well I have a phase output at 250HZ that XORS with a 1hz clock to pulse a 
 ":" point in an LCD readout.  I also have a bunch of slow clocks output from
the CLPD
(a 0.5 HZ, 1HZ, 250HZ, 2.048MHZ, 15hz) most VERY slow and 2.048MHZ is not to
slow.
Well whenever the 250HZ !$ 1HZ was high it put a big (1V) spike on both the
2.048MHz
and 250HZ clock bringing it over 5V.. I also saw lots of random noise on the
clock.
Looked like noise bleeding into the clock line.  Changing synthesis settings
changed
all this (and fixed a broken ABEL script that it trashed).

As for grounding etc. issues.. it could be.. the target board was a kludged
board I made
to test the design b4 I went to glass. I have a "surf" board with thick ground
traces
(used solder braid) running close, short and tight. I tried to use good
proto-practice
but it's no substitute for the good 4 layer PCB this will be in the end.  Still
the design
works now and I feel if it can survive my less than ideal proto environment then
it will
definitely survive the real world circuit board (back to PADS to finish this
puppy).

Hawker


"John L. Smith" wrote:
>>  When you say 'noise', this doesn't say much.
>  Is this a decoded clock that is being generated, and you get
> decoding glitches depending on whether some cover logic is
> being reduced? If this is the case, not a worry, experienced
> designers should know to look out for and how to handle that,
> and you've just had your experience.
> 
> Much more worrisome is if your output clock is simply a copy of
> an input clock pin, and noise is induced depending on routing.
> Hawker, which was the case for you?
> 
>
Article: 25613
Subject: timing constraints
From: Richard Meester <rme@quest-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:59:13 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello all,

What is the best way to set up timing constraints. I am using xilinx
3.1li software.

The desing is targeting a spartan II XC2S150-5PQ208, running at 50 Mhz
and using both clock edges. Standard the timing constraints involve only
the OFFSET in BEFORE clock and OFFSET out after clock, and the clock
frequency.

How do i figure out what timing constraints to set. Do i need any
special constraints because i am using the rising and falling edge.
For instance :

    process (clock, reset)
    begin
        if (reset = '1') then
        elsif (falling_edge (clock)) then
            if (input_x = '1') then
                A;
            else
                B;
            end if;
        end if;
    end process;

suppose input_x is set on the rising_edge of the clock, it is used in an
equation on the falling edge, so it should be there before the clock
does. I presume that i must set up a timing constraint. But what kind of
constraint, and how do i do it.

the standard constraints are :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Constraint                                | Requested  | Actual     |
Logic
                                            |            |            |
Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  TS_P2P = MAXDELAY FROM TIMEGRP "PADS" TO  | 20.000ns   | 12.767ns   |
4
  TIMEGRP "PADS" 20 nS                      |            |            |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* TS_clock = PERIOD TIMEGRP "clock"  20 nS  | 20.000ns   | 20.526ns   |
5
    HIGH 50.000 %                           |            |            |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OFFSET = IN 20 nS  BEFORE COMP "clock"    |            |            |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OFFSET = OUT 20 nS  AFTER COMP "clock"    |            |            |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OFFSET = IN 10 nS  BEFORE COMP "clock"    | 10.000ns   | 9.287ns    |
5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* OFFSET = OUT 10 nS  AFTER COMP "clock"    | 10.000ns   | 15.832ns   |
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What excactly do the offset = in and offset = out mean. Do they mean
that a signal must be valid X ns BEFORE the clock signal arives, and
that a signal is Y seconds AFTER the clock has arived stable?

Richard

--
Quest Innovations
tel: +31 (0) 227 604046
http://www.quest-innovations.com


Article: 25614
Subject: Re: PCI-Tip? (for Xilinx Virtex/-E)
From: Newsbrowser@Newsbrowser.com (Newsbrowser)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:13:46 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
If I am remember right, I though Xilinx will provide a free Demo PCI
64 core on their website for use.  

http://www.xilinx.com/products/logicore/pci/pcicorge.htm

This may help or not help you.
 



On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:27:59 +0200, Lars Rzymianowicz
<larsrzy@ti.uni-mannheim.de> wrote:

>Marc Reinert wrote:
>> I'm going to develop a PCI board (33Mhz/32Bit) on one of these devices.
>> My idea is to have a lot of space left in my FPGA beside the
>> PCI-Interface.
>> Is there a core (or better a complete VHDL-Programming) aviable from
>> Xilinx (or anybody else)? Does it work well and are any features of the
>> PCI-Bus not supported? Is there a free version aviable on the internet?
>
>Hi Marc,
>
>Xilinx has the logiCORE PCI macrocell, which is a customizable
>33/66/32/64 PCI interface. Check the Xilinx website for it, it's
>price is around $5000, i guess.
>Since you are a University, you might consider to join the Xilinx
>Univ. Prg. XUP. There you can also apply for a donation of the core.
>I tried that, but never got any reply on several emails/faxes.
>But maybe you have more luck ;-)
>
>Lars
>-- 
>Address:  University of Mannheim; B6, 26; 68159 Mannheim, Germany
>Tel:      +(49) 621 181-2716, Fax: -2713
>email:    larsrzy@{ti.uni-mannheim.de, atoll-net.de, computer.org}
>Homepage: http://mufasa.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/lsra/persons/lars/

Return Email Address is: 
ralphwat dot home at excite dot com 
Article: 25615
Subject: Re: Simon,Floating Inputs
From: "S. Ramirez" <sramirez@deleet.cfl.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:18:38 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Dan,
     Ignore the previous post.  You are using a Virtex XCV600.  Xilinx has
an app note that tells you how much decoupling to use.  I do not have it in
front of me, but I know that it requires big capacitors, and I think these
big capacitors are overkill.  It does require more caps that what you told
us about; however, at the company I work at we collectively decided that
they are not enough.  We think that 0.1uF or 0.01uF caps are required for
every pin.  This assumes ground and power planes.
     Your problem, though, may involve something other than power quality.
I would involve the Xilinx FAE on this one.
-Simon Ramirez, Consultant
 Synchronous Design, Inc.


"Dan" <daniel.deconinck@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8miw5.261590$1h3.5258160@news20.bellglobal.com...
> The decoupling is four .1uF caps. One at each corner of a QP240. I plan to
> make a new PCB with a .1uF at each power pin.
>
> When the device is drawing minimum power, shouldn't four decoupling caps
be
> enough ?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>


Article: 25616
Subject: Re: hardware compatibility and patent infringement
From: Paul Hovnanian ® <hovnania@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:59:45 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Robert Posey wrote:
> 
[snip]
> 
> There should be no threat of people patenting
> existing algorithms, since unless a person can prove they invented something
> first and started the patent process with reasonable dispatch, the patent
> is invalid.  So I can't patent Quick Sort and A*, there goes that easy
> trillion bucks.

The flaw in this logic is that in order to patent something, all I have to
do is to convince a patent examiner that I have developed something novel.
Only if the examiner can find prior patents or examples of prior art will
my patent be denied.

[snip]
> 
> Until Americans acknowledge that the Government needs truly qualified people
> and that to get them will cost real money these problems will continue.  You
> can't expected an agency forced to staff its offices with engineers that
> are paid 20-30% less than private industry, and got C's in school to be
> able to monitor the volume of patent applications they receive.

I don't think that any system that depends on a small group of patent examiners,
no matter how smart or well paid they are, can keep up with developments in
all areas of industry. Alot of 'prior art' exists but is not known well enough
outside of a specific industry where an examiner might be aware of it. In some 
cases, someone may have incorporated some technique or idea into a product
for years without considering it to be patentable. Now, unaware of this (or worse
yet, with full knowledge) a competitor 'discovers' this idea and applies for a
patent. If the prior use of this isn't obvious to an outsider (you might have
to reverse engineer a product or examine a manufacturing process), the first
person has no defense in our patent system unless he(she) is lucky enough
to intervene in the application prior to its final decision.   


-- 
Paul Hovnanian         | (here)  mailto:hovnania@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
Software Conflagration | (there) mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com 
Control                | (spam)  mailto:postmaster@mouse-potato.com
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------
They say that if you have an infinite number of monkeys typing at an 
infinite number of keyboards for an infinite period of time, you will
get the collected works of Shakespeare. If you get the source code to
Microsoft Windows, you need to add more monkeys.
Article: 25617
Subject: Re: 3.3/2.5 voltage regulators
From: Austin Lesea <austin.lesea@xilinx.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:27:58 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Rick,

The increased current draw occurs at about 0.6 to 0.8 Vdc in Virtex.

It occurs at the POR trip point in 4K (see respective data sheets).

The differences between the virtex and 4k power up cleanout circuits are not
something I can discuss.

While a supply is ramping up, it is driving the filter capacitors to the
intended output voltage, and the supply is often current limited (can't supply
any more current than it already is) while doing this, and hence the power ramp
up time is constrained (i.e. not instant, by I=C*dV/dt).

If I had 2000uF of capacitance, and it rises in 2 ms (typical of a really fast
power ramp), that is 2.5V into 2,000uF in 2 ms, or I=2.5A.

If I had 2000uF of capacitance, and the device suddenly requires 500 mA, you can
see what the dV/dt would be.  But, nothing is sudden, and the voltage and
current interact.

Even hot swap PCI has a rise time due to the resistance and inductance of the
pcb traces to the bypass capacitors of usually no faster than 1 ms.

You can think of Virtex as being a really big non-linear capacitor.  It actually
draws less current as the ramp slows down.  This makes this a chicken and egg
problem:  how does the power ramp?  Is the part connected?  they affect one
another.  We test to make sure that if a power supply could supply no more than
500 mA (in Virtex C grade), the device would be ready for configuration and the
vccint is at the power supply vccint (not sagging, or collapsed).  The Virtex
part may put a flat spot in the ramp up, but that is just fine (we just don't
like to see it foldback, and dip which is the case with a power supply that is
arranged for a foldback response -- datasheet recommends against this kind of
behavior!).

We have noted that if you could only supply 100 mA, the ramp might be really
long (~100 ms), but the part would clean out, and start to configure.

Virtex is not going to be characterized for low current startup, as most designs
require more than 500 mA while operating (no market push to do this).

Spartan2 on the other hand will be considered (is now being characterized) for
lower current startup as the markets are different for the two parts (there is a
push to do this).

I hope this answers the first question, and I hope you understand that I can not
discuss the internal circuit design and operation here required to answer you
second question,

Austin

rickman wrote:

> That was not the question. *When* does the high current draw happen. Is
> this as the Vdd ramps up, or is this after the chip is fully powered and
> starts the configuration? Supplying a high current after the supply is
> up is one thing. Suppling the high current while the supply is coming up
> is a different matter.
>
> Specifically, what is it that you are saying is *different* between the
> 4K series and the Virtex series???
>
> Austin Lesea wrote:
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > Virtex I parts require a 2A minimum current limited power supply if you
> > intend to start up at -40C.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > rickman wrote:
> >
> > > Austin Lesea wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Henryk,
> > > >
> > > > The INIT holdoff warning applies to 4K only.  It does not apply to
> > > > Virtex, and Virtex architecture derivatives.
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry for the confusion.
> > > >
> > > > In 4K, holding INIT and preventing clean out does not make the device
> > > > HOT -- it may be that the 4K device is in contention from the Vcc not
> > > > going down below a few hundred millivolts, and then the Vcc returns,
> > > > and the 4K device is in a partially configured state, and drawing
> > > > current.  So the device is already HOT and getting hotter, and INIT
> > > > prevents the clean out.
> > > >
>
> ********************* This bit right here
> ********************************
> > > > Again, Virtex, Virtex E, Spartan2 do not have this behavior.  The
> ********************* This bit right here
> ********************************
>
> This is the statement I am asking you to clarify. Tell us about the
> difference noted above.
>
> Perhaps I am not familiar with the INIT holdoff warning in the first
> place. My understanding was that pulling PRGM low started the clearing
> of the configuration memory. This proceeded until PRGM was released.
> Once complete, the INIT pin was released to indicate that configuration
> could procede. But if the INIT was held low externally, the FPGA would
> wait.
>
> How does this cause high current consumption? The configuration memory
> should have been cleared at this point and the supply current should be
> under control. What am I missing?
>
> > > > design is such that the means of contention that were caused by memory
> > > > contents which occurred in 4K do not exist in Virtex.
> > >
> > > Can you be a little more specific as to what behaviour you are talking
> > > about? The Virtex data sheet claims it needs up to 2 Amps of current for
> > > startup. So I assume that you are saying that the Virtex does not
> > > continue to draw heavy current when INIT is held low? Is that right?
>
> --
>
> Rick Collins
>
> rick.collins@XYarius.com
>
> Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
> removed.
>
> Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
> Specializing in DSP and FPGA design
>
> Arius
> 4 King Ave
> Frederick, MD 21701-3110
> 301-682-7772 Voice
> 301-682-7666 FAX
>
> Internet URL http://www.arius.com

Article: 25618
Subject: Re: Numerically-Controlled Crystal Oscillator (NCXO) or
From: Austin Lesea <austin.lesea@xilinx.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:42:27 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Doug,

Good points re: filters.  That is why I used the crystal based filter.

As for the patent, it still provides revenues for the company I worked for from
licensing fees.  It was even challenged by another company.  I remember hearing
about the engineer at that company who cursed me up and down the halls....he was
too lazy to have documented the "invention" in his notebook or else he could
have shown prior art, and been free to use it, and saved his company a ton of
money.  "Obvious" has a legal meaning.

Ever see that nose strip that holds your nostrils open while you exercise?  The
patent on that is quite valid, and makes someone a whole lot of money.

Austin

doug wrote:

> Filters are a bad idea except under very special conditions.  You need
> to have a fixed frequency and that frequency needs to be in a special
> relationship with the clock.  If you are near a binary divisor of the clock
> frequency, the jitter will produce sidebands too near the carrier to be
> removed by any filter that makes reasonable sense.  The D/A makes
> a tuneable filter and it works well.
> I did extensive computer simulations of this when I made all digital plls
> nearly 20 years ago (probably long predating any patents on the obvious
> idea) and found that with a careful choice of frequency, the spurs could
> be avoided in some small range.  However, making a broad range source
> did not justify the effort to try to skip the D/A.  Sine lookup table are
> not
> necessary.
> Companies like Analog Devices have made the discussion moot with their
> line of cheap and versatile DDCs.  They work very well and are easy to use
> and do not require much in the way of external parts.
>
> "Austin Lesea" <austin.lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> news:39BD6DE1.2F8CC8DC@xilinx.com...
> > You are correct in stating that a filter is required to reduce jitter,
> >
> > A bandpass filter with high Q is what is needed.  The PLL with VCXO has a
> Q of
> > millions.  A good tank circuit works also, but less well (Q ~100).
> >
> > Guess what happens when you put the square wave MSB) into the same band
> pass
> > filter?  Pop: out comes the fundamental (for less money).
> >
> > I always get a kick out of all of those expensive sine wave lookups tables
> and
> > A/D's doing nothing.
> >
> > If a low Q filter is used, there is some tiny improvement in the lookup
> table
> > conversion method due to the sideband power not adding to the overall
> phase
> > noise.
> >
> > Don't take my word for it, use a good spectrum analyzer to analyze the
> sidebands
> > at each point in the circuit.  Take out the D/A and see what changes.  It
> > usually makes the jitter less because of D/A noise issues, reference nosie
> > issues, and comparator noise issues.
> >
> > "The common wisdom is neither common, nor wise." anon.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > rickman wrote:
> >
> > > You are not totally correct Austin. If you want a square wave without a
> > > lot of jitter, then you do need the sine wave which can be filtered to
> > > produce a wave of just the fundamental. This is then compared to a fixed
> > > voltage to produce a square wave with no jitter.
> > >
> > > If you don't do this, you will have a time jitter equal to your master
> > > clock period as you noted. This is often not acceptable and the sine
> > > wave lookup, DAC and filter can be less circuitry than the VCXO, phase
> > > comparator and filter. In fact you can get the whole shebang in one chip
> > > less the filter.
> > >
> > > Austin Lesea wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nestor,
> > > >
> > > > A DDFS (direct digital frequency synthesizer) is an adder/accumulator.
> > > > They have been around for perhaps 30 years now.  I have used them for
> > > > years in FPGAs.  The sine look up table is only used if you want a
> sine
> > > > wave.  I have seen people use a sine look up table, a D/A, and then
> follow
> > > > that mess with a comparator -- TO GET A SQUARE WAVE!  Think about it.
> The
> > > > MSB of the DDFS was already the signal they wanted!
> > > >
> > > > So, if you don't want a sine wave, don't add all that junk.
> > > >
> > > > The p-p jitter is the clock period used, and the Fout < 1/2 Fclock.
> > > >
> > > > I would use the highest frequency I could get away with.  If you
> require
> > > > even less jitter, the output can be passed through a single simple
> VCXO
> > > > used in a PLL loop with an XOR phase detector and an external RC to
> remove
> > > > practically all of the jitter if the frequency output range is narrow
> > > > enough.
> > > >
> > > > Placing the DDFS in a locked loop, results in a complete digital
> locked
> > > > loop (Patented -- look it up, under my name).
> > > >
> > > > There are many nice parts out there that package the whole thing, and
> are
> > > > inexpensive, so you need to evaluate what it is going to be used for,
> and
> > > > decide if you want to build it in, or not.
> > > >
> > > > Also look at:
> > > >
> > > >  http://www.xilinx.com/xcell/xl31/xl31_32.pdf
> > > >
> > > > for fractional synthesis,and other NCO's.
> > > >
> > > > Austin Lesea
> > > >
> > > > Nestor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know any manufacturer who fabricates
> > > > > numerically-controlled crystal oscillators (NCXO), also known as
> > > > > digitally-controlled crystal oscillators (DCXO) which are suitable
> for
> > > > > digital phase-locked loop designs in VHDL and FPGAs?
> > > > >
> > > > > Although these blocks resemble a numerically-controlled oscillator
> > > > > (NCO), they differ in that the NCXO is not oversampled to generate
> the
> > > > > required output signal (an NCO needs to be oversampled by at least
> > > > > 8-times in order to have an acceptable low jitter output).  Rather,
> a
> > > > > digital input word is fed to the NCXO and it synthesizes the
> required
> > > > > output frequency using a standard, low-cost crystal oscillator.  The
> > > > > output is also a square wave, just like the standard crystal.  In
> > > > > general, the NCXO has a narrow tuning range similar to a
> > > > > voltage-controlled crystal oscillator (VCXO), e.g. +/-150ppm
> relative
> > > > > to a frequency in the MHz range.
> > > > >
> > > > > The NCXO technology is fairly recent from what I understand, but
> > > > > allows one to replace a circuit composed of a digital-to-analog
> > > > > converter (DAC) and a VCXO by one chip that performs the exact same
> > > > > task will less design hassles.  The DCXO is ideal for custom-made
> > > > > phase-locked loop (PLL) circuits using digital sections that can be
> > > > > implemented in VHDL and FPGAs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I haven't been able to find any NCXO manufacturers over the
> web,
> > > > > I am now looking to the knowledgeable engineers, designers and
> friends
> > > > > that frequent these newsgroups for some potential referrals and/or
> > > > > links.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance for your help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nestor
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Rick Collins
> > >
> > > rick.collins@XYarius.com
> > >
> > > Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
> > > removed.
> > >
> > > Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
> > > Specializing in DSP and FPGA design
> > >
> > > Arius
> > > 4 King Ave
> > > Frederick, MD 21701-3110
> > > 301-682-7772 Voice
> > > 301-682-7666 FAX
> > >
> > > Internet URL http://www.arius.com
> >

Article: 25619
Subject: Simon , decoupling caps
From: "Dan" <daniel.deconinck@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:48:13 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Simon,

I would bug anyone until I make a four layer board. If the problem is still
there, I'll post details.

I once heard the both a .01 and a .1 cap should be used at each power pin.
Is that correct. My limited knowledge tells me they would be equal to one
cap of .11. However I realize there behaviour is more complex than that.

Is such a recomendation useful ?

Dan



Article: 25620
Subject: Physical Interpretation
From: erika_uk@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:53:59 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hey,

Could someone of you explain me PHYSICALLY why the path delay between
two synchronous components is considered as the maximum clock period.

The logic levels are1 and 0.
so if i send a pulse 1 and later 0 in less than the path delay, from
where comes the problem
dV=-E.dx, and the electrons have the same speed, so why the conflict
occurs?

--Erika





Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Article: 25621
Subject: MAX PLUS 2
From: gk7eong <gk7eong@pd.jaring.my>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:06:33 +0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------BCC250B07A5312AD1C9CF7AF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I'm a final year electrical electronics engineering student. I'm using
Max Plus 2 Baseline 9.6 to do my final year project. Is there anyone out
there with full licences? Can you send me a copy of your license.dat or
can anybody tell me how to get the partitioner features from it. Thanks
in advance.

--------------BCC250B07A5312AD1C9CF7AF
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="gk7eong.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for gk7eong
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="gk7eong.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Goh;Kheng Teong
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;Johor Bahru;Johor;;Malaysia
version:2.1
email;internet:gk7eong@pd.jaring.my
fn:Kheng Teong Goh
end:vcard

--------------BCC250B07A5312AD1C9CF7AF--

Article: 25622
Subject: Re: MAX PLUS 2
From: Andy Peters <"apeters <"@> n o a o [.] e d u>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:20:04 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
gk7eong wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a final year electrical electronics engineering student. I'm using
> Max Plus 2 Baseline 9.6 to do my final year project. Is there anyone out
> there with full licences? Can you send me a copy of your license.dat or
> can anybody tell me how to get the partitioner features from it. Thanks
> in advance.

I can send you a license.dat for ModelSim.  It will be as useful to you
as anyone's Max+Plus 2 license.dat file, since the software is
node-locked.

You could consider having your school pay for the software, which is the
Right Thing to do.

-- a
----------------------------
Andy Peters
Sr. Electrical Engineer
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
950 N Cherry Ave
Tucson, AZ 85719
apeters (at) n o a o [dot] e d u
Article: 25623
Subject: Re: Physical Interpretation
From: Andy Peters <"apeters <"@> n o a o [.] e d u>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:22:07 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
erika_uk@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> Could someone of you explain me PHYSICALLY why the path delay between
> two synchronous components is considered as the maximum clock period.
> 
> The logic levels are1 and 0.
> so if i send a pulse 1 and later 0 in less than the path delay, from
> where comes the problem
> dV=-E.dx, and the electrons have the same speed, so why the conflict
> occurs?

If the path delay between your registers is at most 10 ns, then do the
math.  The reciprocal of time is frequency, so 1/10ns = 100 MHz.

-- a
----------------------------
Andy Peters
Sr. Electrical Engineer
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
950 N Cherry Ave
Tucson, AZ 85719
apeters (at) n o a o [dot] e d u
Article: 25624
Subject: Re: timing constraints
From: Andy Peters <"apeters <"@> n o a o [.] e d u>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:34:30 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Richard Meester wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> What is the best way to set up timing constraints. I am using xilinx
> 3.1li software.
> 
> The desing is targeting a spartan II XC2S150-5PQ208, running at 50 Mhz
> and using both clock edges. Standard the timing constraints involve only
> the OFFSET in BEFORE clock and OFFSET out after clock, and the clock
> frequency.
> 
> How do i figure out what timing constraints to set. Do i need any
> special constraints because i am using the rising and falling edge.
> For instance :
> 
>     process (clock, reset)
>     begin
>         if (reset = '1') then
>         elsif (falling_edge (clock)) then
>             if (input_x = '1') then
>                 A;
>             else
>                 B;
>             end if;
>         end if;
>     end process;
> 
> suppose input_x is set on the rising_edge of the clock, it is used in an
> equation on the falling edge, so it should be there before the clock
> does. I presume that i must set up a timing constraint. But what kind of
> constraint, and how do i do it.

If you put a period constraint on your clock -- in your case, 50 MHz (or
20 ns, which is equivalent) -- and if you use both edges of the clock in
the design, the P+R tools are smart enough to know that you've got a
"two-phase clock" and it will automatically set the constraints for
things "from the rising edge to the falling edge" and "from the falling
edge to the rising edge" to half the clock period, or 10 ns.
 
> What excactly do the offset = in and offset = out mean. Do they mean
> that a signal must be valid X ns BEFORE the clock signal arives, and
> that a signal is Y seconds AFTER the clock has arived stable?

OFFSET IN AFTER means that the data signal into the FPGA will be valid
at the FPGA input pin x ns after the clock arrives at the driving
device's clock pin.

OFFSET IN BEFORE means that the signal going into the FPGA will be valid
at the FPGA input pin x ns before the clock arrives at the FPGA clock
pin.

OFFSET OUT AFTER means that output data will be valid at the FPGA pin x
ns after the clock arrives at the FPGA's clock pin.

OFFSET OUT BEFORE means that output data will be valid at the FPGA pin x
ns before the clock arrives at the next device's clock pin.

Note that you really want to understand your PC board's delays, and you
should probably use a zero-skew clock buffer to make your life easier.

-- a
----------------------------
Andy Peters
Sr. Electrical Engineer
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
950 N Cherry Ave
Tucson, AZ 85719
apeters (at) n o a o [dot] e d u


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
2017JanFebMarApr2017

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