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 29950

Article: 29950
Subject: Re: Spartan-II VREF and VCCO
From: Austin Lesea <austin.lesea@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:30:39 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Don't work so hard!

Less than 50 ps of RMS jitter is an enormous budget!  There are very few
oscillators that are that bad!  Any LVCMOS packaged oscillator will have
typically 50 ps peak to peak jitter, and around 6 to 10 ps RMS jitter.

It is OK to leave any unused IO pin unconnected.

Kolja Sulimma wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have two questions regarding Xilinx Spartan-II I/O.
>
> 1. Abuse of VRef as differential input.
>
> I need one high quality low jitter input clock. (<50ps RMS Jitter)
> I found a couple of Clock Synthesizers with PECL outputs that have a RMS
> jitter down to 2.6ps.
> Now I am wondering how to interface PECL to a Spartan-II.
> Of course I could buy a PECL to CMOS converter. I could also use
> Virtex-II or Virtex-E but engineering
> is the art of building what you need with what you have, therefore I
> woul like to know:
>
> - could I set the VRef to 2.8V and use one of the PECL signals as single
> ended clock input? (2.3V to 3.3V signal)
> - could I connect VRef of one bank to the inverted CLK signal and GCLK
> to the positive CLK signal an get a
>   differential input as aresult? (If have a lot of unused I/O and can
> spare a bank)
>
> 2. Unused VCCO
>
> I am using a PQ208 Package where the VCCO of all banks are internaly
> tied together.
> However I am only using the outputs of two of the I/O banks. Is it
> sufficient to externaly connect VCCO of these two banks and leave the
> unused banks externaly unconnected to simplify the layout?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kolja


Article: 29951
Subject: Re: IRDY/TRDY (was Re: More detailed Spartan II CLB drawings?)
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:46:06 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> 
> Chris Dunlap wrote:
> 
> > You can always look in FPGA editor.  Nothing can be left out there.  If its
> > routed or routable, its there.
> 
> Sure it can be.
> Or can you used the mysterious undocumented IRDY/TRDY pins special features of
> Spartan-II in FPGA editor?

That's in there.  In fact, going through the FPGA editor is the only way you can
get at the IRDY/TRDY feature. Look on the right and left edges about half way
down (in the FPGA editor).  You'll see the IRDY/TRDY boxes there.  And, yes, you
can use the FPGA editor to connect those up.

--
Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com  
http://www.andraka.com

Article: 29952
Subject: Re: about placement and routing
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:53:58 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Use timing constraints.  Unless the rest of the design is dense, you'll probably
make 100 Mhz without doing anything more.  If not, then you can try
floorplanning it or looking a little closer at your implementation.  I think the
way you've described the circuit is going to generate 4 layers of logic not
counting the carry chain.  The decode of that one read address is probably going
to be done in two levels of combinatorial logic.  If you can change your counter
to a downcount that gets loaded with one of two values, you'll get a tighter
implementation (that way you can use the carry out of the counter's carry chain
to trigger a reload, and if you register that carry out you can get 150+ MHz
even in the virtex -4.  Bottom line is look at the virtex structure to tailor
your circuit to work with the architecture if you want the highest performance.



MANJUNATHAN wrote:
> 
> Hello everybody !!!
> 
>    I need to know how to place and route the design given below.
> 
>    the code shown below has to work in 100 mz.but when i synthesized this with xilinx foundation series 2.1 it showed me 32 mz. when i synthesized the same code again it showed me 40 mz working fenquency.
> why this difference ? is it possible it to make 100 mz.
> 
>     is it possible to place and route the design in virtex device such that its  working frequency is
> 100 mz.
> 
>    the code is
> 
> LIBRARY IEEE ;
> USE IEEE.STD_LOGIC_1164.ALL;
> USE IEEE.STD_LOGIC_UNSIGNED.ALL ;
> 
> ENTITY ADDRESS_GENERATOR is
> 
>  port (
> 
>         sfp          : in  std_logic                    ;
>         clk          : in  std_logic                    ;
>         reset        : in  std_logic                    ;
> 
>         READ_address : out std_logic_vector(10 downto 0)
>       );
>  END ADDRESS_GENERATOR ;
> 
> 
> ARCHITECTURE BEHAV OF ADDRESS_GENERATOR IS
> 
> signal read_address_s     : std_logic_vector(10 downto 0);
> 
> begin
> 
> 
>  process(clk,reset)
> 
>    begin
> 
> 
>     if reset='1' then
>        read_address_s <= (others => '0' ) ;
> 
>     elsif clk='1' and clk'event then
> 
> 
> 
>           if sfp='1' then
> 
>            read_address_s <= "00000011000" ;
> 
>           elsif read_address_s ="10000110111"  then
>            read_address_s <= (others => '0') ;
> 
>           else
>             read_address_s <= read_address_s + 1 ;
> 
>           end if ;
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     end if ;
> 
> 
> 
>   end process ;
>   read_address <= read_address_s ;
> end behav ;
> 
> 
> configuration cfg_address_generator_behav of address_generator is
>         for behav
> 
>               end for ;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> end cfg_address_generator_behav;
> 
> is there any material or web sites how to  place and route  the design in to the virtex device such that its working frency is very high.
> 
> thanx in advance
> 
> regards
> Manjunathan

-- 
-Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com  
http://www.andraka.com

Article: 29953
Subject: Re: VHDL code required for a given decimator system
From: Brian Philofsky <brian.philofsky@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:08:41 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------FB49B98140AE9153BCD4CCEA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Hello David,

    Sounds like a homework assignment but I will help out, just in case
it is not.  The sysclk/2 is easy enough in a DLL or DCM if you are
targeting a Virtex-derivative or Spartan-II.  Switching between two
outputs is a simple MUX function.  The only thing here of slight
complication is the 2's compliment function and you are in luck as I have
some VHDL code lying around if you are targeting the above devices.  I
created some structural code a while back implementing a 2's compliment
function in the carry chain the Virtex architecture.  It is fairly fast
and area efficient so it should work for most situations.  It has been a
while since I have played with it but should work properly however I
would definitely test it to be sure it suits your needs as it does not
come with any guarantees or warranties.  Right now it is setup for a
ten-bit operator but that can easily be modified by changing the
"data_width" generic in the code.  This should be a good starting place
for you.

The code is attached.  Enjoy.

--  Brian


David Nyarko wrote:

> Hi,
> Any leads on VHDL code to implement the following system:
>
> Inputs
> Inputseq: A sequence of standard logic vector elements each of the
> same width representing 2's complement inputs typically 16-bits wide.
>
> clock: sysclk
>
> Each input sequence element is clocked in on the rising edge of
> sysclk.
>
> Outputs:
> outputA: same size and type as input
> outputB: same size and type as input
> outclock: sysclk/2
>
> Assuming the input sequence elements are represented as:
>
> x0,x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7...
>
> The desired output elements should be:
>
> outputA: x0,-x2,x4,-x6,x8,...
> outputB: x1,-x3,x5,-x7,x9,.
>
> The outputs are at half the input rate and should
> appear at the same time (i.e x0 and x1 , -x2 and -x3 etc...)
> The output clock (outclock) will be used the clock
> the next processing stage whose inputs will
> be outputA and outputB.
>
> David

--------------FB49B98140AE9153BCD4CCEA
Content-Type: application/x-unknown-content-type-MTI.vhdl;
 name="twos_comp_10.vhd"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="twos_comp_10.vhd"
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--------------FB49B98140AE9153BCD4CCEA--


Article: 29954
Subject: Re: video coding
From: "Ron Proveniers" <ron@proveniers.myweb.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:12:57 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Frode,

Maybe you have a look at www.mpeg.org mpeg is video compression and is used
a lot. Only MPEG2 is available in hardcore?? meaning can be put in FPFA/ASIC
.you have to wait a while if yoy want mpeg4 and 7 in FPGA.


 regards


ron proveniers

Frode Vatvedt Fjeld <frodef@acm.org> schreef in berichtnieuws
2helvugmaa.fsf@dslab7.cs.uit.no...
> Does anyone know of any texts concerning implementing digital video
> coding (compression, DCT etc.) on FPGAs?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Frode Vatvedt Fjeld



Article: 29955
Subject: Cannot Export netlist from Synopsys
From: Qian <qianz@cae.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:23:58 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am using Xlinix Foundation 2.1li
I met this problem
FPGA Express 2.x, 3.x - Cannot Export netlist from Synopsys - For unknown reasons the operation could not be completed. I searched at website and got answer 
Solution 1:

Check to see if you have identical assignment statements in your code. Comment out or delete one of 
these statements, and you will be able to export the netlist. 

This error has also been seen to be a result of a lack of memory. 

Solution 2:

Check the license file. Is it for STD or BAS? Make sure that the user is licensed for Synopsys. 

Solution 1 could not solve my problem
I have no idea how to do with solution 2, do you have some good ideas?
Thanks a lot!

Article: 29956
Subject: TOA measurement
From: "Michal Kvasnicka" <mkvasnicka@volny.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:20:27 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Does anyone know of any texts or references concerning implementing TOA
(time of arrival) measurement of the radar signal on FPGA or DSP chips?

Thanks,

Michal




Article: 29957
Subject: Re: FFT in FPGAs
From: Falk Brunner <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:37:04 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter Alfke schrieb:
> 
> termination ) Every feature of the larger parts, even the 16 global clocks
> with glitch-free input muxes, is available in the tiny XC2V40.  Stop me, I
> just came back from a seminar tour...

;-)))))

-- 
MFG
Falk

Article: 29958
Subject: Simulations in ModelSim...
From: "Swift" <jboss@wxs.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:57:11 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I'm developing a embedded system, which uses a FPGA. Currently I'm writing
VHDL code for it. When I've written a part of the code, I simulate it in
ModelSim. Now is my question: how reliable is ModelSim when you use a Xilinx
FPGA? I'm asking this because my simulation results are OK, but when I
implement (using Synplify an the Xilinx Design Manager) my design (DONE
signal becomes high after programming), it doesn't work the way I simulated
it. How is this possible? For example, I implemented a simple clock divider
to see if my FPGA is working correctly. When I only implement this clock
divider (by 4 from a 33MHz. clock) it works, but when I a add some other
features (an adresdecoder and a 16 bit register) it doesn't work anymore
(the output of the clock divider stays low!). I really don't know what's
wrong. I also took a look at the technology view within Synplify and it
seems to me that it is OK. Could my FPGA be broken (we soldered the FPGA on
the PCB our selves)? The FPGA also doesn't support reprogramming (after INIT
has been pulled low for several u-seconds DONE should become high, but it
doesn't!). I'm using a Xilinx SpartanXL XCS30 PQ208 package FPGA.

Regards,

Jurjen




Article: 29959
Subject: Re: IRDY/TRDY (was Re: More detailed Spartan II CLB drawings?)
From: Kolja Sulimma <kolja@bnl.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:17:49 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Wow, it really is there.
You do not happen to know its functionality?

I assumed it would have something to do with pulling up the outputs at the end of
the access within the time
spec (I found that hard to implement) but it connects to the output clock enables.

One could create a hard macro and instantiate it in VHDL, right?

Kolja Sulimma


Ray Andraka wrote:

> Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> > Chris Dunlap wrote:
> > > You can always look in FPGA editor.  Nothing can be left out there.  If its
> > > routed or routable, its there.
> >
> > Sure it can be.
> > Or can you used the mysterious undocumented IRDY/TRDY pins special features of
> > Spartan-II in FPGA editor?
>
> That's in there.  In fact, going through the FPGA editor is the only way you can
> get at the IRDY/TRDY feature. Look on the right and left edges about half way
> down (in the FPGA editor).  You'll see the IRDY/TRDY boxes there.  And, yes, you
> can use the FPGA editor to connect those up.
>
> --
> Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
> email ray@andraka.com
> http://www.andraka.com


Article: 29960
Subject: Re: TOA measurement
From: Kolja Sulimma <kolja@bnl.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:19:26 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Can you describe the rwquirements in more detail?
Is it just delay measurement with high resolution?
What resolution do you need? And how many channels?

CU,
        Kolja Sulimma

Michal Kvasnicka wrote:

> Does anyone know of any texts or references concerning implementing TOA
> (time of arrival) measurement of the radar signal on FPGA or DSP chips?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michal


Article: 29961
Subject: FPGA based Neural Networks
From: "Chris Ward" <elcpw@NOSPAMstudent.lboro.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:25:59 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Does anyone know of any work to implement unsupervised ANNs in FPGAs
available on the web?

Thanks
Chris



Article: 29962
Subject: Re: Spartan-II VREF and VCCO
From: Kolja Sulimma <kolja@bnl.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:35:15 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Austin Lesea wrote:

> Don't work so hard!

People keep telling me that ;-)

> Less than 50 ps of RMS jitter is an enormous budget!  There are very few
> oscillators that are that bad!  Any LVCMOS packaged oscillator will have
> typically 50 ps peak to peak jitter, and around 6 to 10 ps RMS jitter.

Sorry, I did not provide all the information: I need something around 200Mhz.
I did not find
oscillators for that frequency range. If you have a source for 200MHz
oscillators, please tell me.
That would save me a couple of hours.
But there are a couple of clock synthesizers. Most of them - like ICS525 -
have something like
200ps to 300ps peak to peak jitter. The Spartan DLL for example adds 60ps
jitter to the input jitter.
I only found PECL synthesizers meeting the spec.

> It is OK to leave any unused IO pin unconnected.

How about the VCCO of unused I/O banks?

Thanks,

Kolja

> > I need one high quality low jitter input clock. (<50ps RMS Jitter)
> > I found a couple of Clock Synthesizers with PECL outputs that have a RMS
> > jitter down to 2.6ps.
> > - could I set the VRef to 2.8V and use one of the PECL signals as single
> > ended clock input? (2.3V to 3.3V signal)
> > - could I connect VRef of one bank to the inverted CLK signal and GCLK
> > to the positive CLK signal an get a
> > differential input as aresult? (If have a lot of unused I/O and can
> > spare a bank)
> >
> > 2. Unused VCCO
> >
> > I am using a PQ208 Package where the VCCO of all banks are internaly
> > tied together.
> > However I am only using the outputs of two of the I/O banks. Is it
> > sufficient to externaly connect VCCO of these two banks and leave the
> > unused banks externaly unconnected to simplify the layout?


Article: 29963
Subject: Re: FFT in FPGAs
From: Peter Alfke <peter.alfke@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:10:40 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Rick Collins wrote:

>  So if the XC2V40 and XC2V1000 parts were available
> now and I had some reason to believe that I could get them at reasonable
> prices by the point of production (like a quote) I would love to design
> them in.

Consider them available, and - in your time frame- the XC2V3000 also.

> But one thing I forgot was that I need to interface to a 5
> volt PC/104 bus.  The 5 volt IO would make the design much more
> complex.
> I would have to add another power rail for an XC2S part or add many
> buffer parts. Neither one is very workable.

Well, people are doing it. It's the "price of progress"...

>
>
> I seem to remember that one of the V parts was 5 volt TTL compatible if
> you added series resistors to limit the current. But that would mean
> some 90+ extra resistors on the board! But it might work. Will the XC2V
> work this way?

That's true of XC2V as well as XCV-E. There is a diode to Vccio on each pin ( as
ESD protection). That diode clamps at 0.7 V above Vccio, i.e. at 4.0V, assuming 3.3
V Vccio.
If you have to drive 5-V stuff, you only go to Vccio, which, worst case, could be
as low as 3.0V.
If you receive something from 5-V logic, ( I call that "grandfather logic" ) it
depends on the driving structure. You should be ok if the driver is a totem-pole (
n-channel pull-up and pull-down), but you need a current-limiting resistor if the
5-V driver is complementary, rail-to-rail.

BTW, word is that the start-up current on Spartan-II is being improved, and the
current is now kind-of proportional to size (i.e. part number). So the small 15 and
30 spartan-II devices have a low start-up current.

>
>
> BTW, how can the part be PCI compliant without being 5 volt tolerant? Is
> it only 3 volt PCI compliant?

Yes.

Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications



Article: 29964
Subject: Altera Flex10K config
From: "Shareef Jalloq" <sjalloq@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:12:22 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I get the following error message when trying to configure a 10K10:  'SRAM
load unsuccessful'.  I'm using version 8.1 of MAX+PlusII and a BitBlaster
download cable.  It seems to pause right at the end of the config process.
Any ideas?



Article: 29965
Subject: Re: Hardware Design Engineer Needed in Santa Clara, CA
From: Tom <tomcip@concentric.net>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 20:42:01 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


"Tricia Dolkas, aka Technoyenta" wrote:

> Boy, I sure hope that I don't upset anyone by asking if there is interest in
> my job posting!  I am looking for a HW engineer for one of my favorite
> clients in Silicaon Valley.

Just where, exactly, is the "Silicaon" Valley?  ;-)  . Sounds like some far away
island where the "livin" is easy. I sure hope that you don't mean the "Silicon
Valley" in California, where a salary of $120k would not allow you to live in a
garage attached to a dog house in beautiful Milpitas. Yes, please tell me where
the Silicaon Valley is and I will apply for the job.

(I apologize for bring a pain in the you-know-what but someone has to do it).

Regards
Tom



> Take a look at the description!!
>
> If you are interested, shoot me an email so that I can call you and we can
> discuss the position. Please only contact me if you are a citizen or perm
> resident of the USA and you have experience in most of what they are asking
> for.
>
> (Salary is in the range of $100 - $120k. Great benefits and a great working
> environment. People who get a chance to work at this company LOVE it and
> never want to leave!)
>
> JOB REQUIREMENTS:  5 years of experience that includes 1)Lots of Embedded
> System Design (FPGA, ASIC and Micro controller firmware);  2) EMI issue
> resolution (including analog design skills with A/D and D/A);  3)High-volume
> product development experience that covers the complete life cycle; 4)
> Understanding of mechanical packaging design;  5) Power issues including
> low-cost power supplies, International power standards and connecting to an
> AC main.)
>
> Tricia Dolkas
> (650)964-6644 x126
> tricia@lrc.com


Article: 29966
Subject: Re: TBUFs in Virtex and later chips, going out of fashion, what instead
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 22:19:01 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> writes:

> Jan Gray wrote:
> >
> > But for V-II there seems to be no practical alternative but to a) use
> > (waste) LUTs and their interconnect to build these horizontal muxes, and/or
> > b) recode your design to help your technology mappers merge some of the
> > muxes into other logic.
>
> I haven't looked at it closely, but it seems to me that you might be able to use
> the horizontal OR chains for this.  Have you investigated it?

I went quickly to the data sheet. If I get it correctly, there is only
one ORCY per slice (after the G MUXCY). So if you are using 4bits per
CLB row (given by carry logic) and want one horizontal mux per bit,
you have only 1/2 the needed ORCYs.

Dammit. Using LUTs as (F1-in&F2-enable)|(F3-in&F4-enable) and then
ORCYing them would have solved the problem. And LUTs with 3 inputs
for logic and one enable and ORCY would be ideal.

Xilinx: more ORCYs in Virtex-III, please.


> > Regarding (b), using the Virtex-style carry logic (including MULT_AND), it
> > seems possible to build these "free mux" structures:
> >   1) o[i] = addsub ? (a[i] + b[i]) : (a[i] - b[i])
> >   2) o[i] = add ? (a[i] + b[i]) : c[i]
> >   3) o[i] = addb ? (a[i] + b[i]) : (a[i] + c[i])
> >   4) o[i] = addsub ? (addand ? a[i]+b[i] : a[i]-b[i]) : (addand ? a[i]&b[i]
> > : a[i]^b[i])

Sorry, I do not speak Verilog. Here is my MUXCY based layout:

2input 4input 8input

7      67     4567  each digit is one LUT (F1&F2)|(F3&F4) + MUXCY OR
6      67     4567  digits number data path bit that is processed
5      45     4567  2x2 digits is a Virtex CLB
4      45     4567
3      23     0123
2      23     0123
1      01     0123
0      01     0123

Java/JBits code 4-enables type 4:1 Mux:

for (int Col = MuxCol; Col < MuxCol+2; Col++) {
  for (int Row = MuxRow; Row < MuxRow+MuxBits/2; Row++) {
    /* LUT AND OR AND, 1&2|3&4, 8888|F000 = F888 */
    int Mux2i[] = Util.IntToIntArray(0xF888, 16);
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, LUT.SLICE0_F, Util.InvertIntArray(Mux2i));
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, LUT.SLICE0_G, Util.InvertIntArray(Mux2i));
    /* wide OR with LUT=0 -> !BX (=0) and LUT=1 -> 1 */
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, S0Control.XCarrySelect.XCarrySelect,
      S0Control.XCarrySelect.LUT_CONTROL);
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, S0Control.YCarrySelect.YCarrySelect,
      S0Control.YCarrySelect.LUT_CONTROL);
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, S0Control.AndMux.AndMux, S0Control.AndMux.ONE);
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, S0Control.Cin.Cin, S0Control.Cin.BX);
    Fpga.set(Row, Col, S0Control.BxInvert, S0Control.ON); } }


> > See http://www.fpgacpu.org/log/nov00.html#001112 for details.

I have already employed the jump/increment program counter trick with
the carry logic increment controlled by MUL-AND. Actually read about it
in November, forgot it, reinvented it, and now re-recognized it.


> > This add/mux inference digression aside, abundant TBUFs were useful and will
> > be missed.  But I suppose that any FPGA feature that HDL synthesis users and
> > tools do not take good advantage of, is not long for this world.

So I suppose the line "Consequently, the Virtex routing archi-tecture
and its place-and-route software were defined in a single optimization
process" can be translated as: we the chip designers do not support
Assembler^WJBits fossils^Wprogrammers. :-(


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/FH/BSc, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer

Article: 29967
Subject: Re: TOA measurement
From: "Michal Kvasnicka" <mkvasnicka@volny.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:36:21 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
OK...
From my point of view delay measurement needs two delayed signal which are
compared in the TDE (time delay estimation) algorithm, but TOA measurement
work only with one precisely sampled signal and any available additional
apriory knowledge (pulse shape, noise model, etc.).

Radar pulse can be approximated by trapezoidal (symmetric or asymmetric)
pulse wit the following parameters:
pulse width = 0.5 - 500us (50% amplitude level)
rise time = 20-100ns
fall time = 20-200ns
sample interval = 1 - 10ns
Pulse repetition interval = 1 - 5000us

These pulses (pulse train) is contaminated by noise of the general form
(colored nongaussian, spread spectrum, etc.) with low S/N ration (in many
cases). Finally is represented by 1-channel data stream sampled by 1-10ns
and with precise time stamping.

Time sampling is realized by Rubidium normal (short term stability about
10^-12 ) connected with GPS time receiver for long term stability about
10^-13 - 10^-15.

Required TOA accuracy is about 1-10ns.

So, I need effective and robust TOA algorithm which can be realized on DSP
or FPGA chip sufficiently fast (see PRI value ~ 1-5000us).

Regards,

Michal

"Kolja Sulimma" <kolja@bnl.gov> píse v diskusním príspevku
news:3AB65BBE.2055F00D@bnl.gov...
> Can you describe the rwquirements in more detail?
> Is it just delay measurement with high resolution?
> What resolution do you need? And how many channels?
>
> CU,
>         Kolja Sulimma
>
> Michal Kvasnicka wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know of any texts or references concerning implementing TOA
> > (time of arrival) measurement of the radar signal on FPGA or DSP chips?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michal
>





Article: 29968
Subject: Re: Altera Flex10K config
From: "C.Schlehaus" <carlhermann.schlehaus@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:01:13 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

"Shareef Jalloq" <sjalloq@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:995p83$g4u$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I get the following error message when trying to configure a 10K10:  'SRAM
> load unsuccessful'.  I'm using version 8.1 of MAX+PlusII and a BitBlaster
> download cable.  It seems to pause right at the end of the config process.
> Any ideas?

That a sign, that the Conf_Done Signal (which is controlled by the 10K)
isn't released (You need to have an external pull-Up as shown in the
AN).
The only question is, why the Conf_Done does not change to high
state. You should check, that the Pull is connected an the suggested
value.
Then, You should check for the signal integrity of DCLK and DATA,
as the 10K needs spike-free signals.

HTH, Carlhermann



Article: 29969
Subject: Re: TOA measurement
From: Kolja Sulimma <kolja@bnl.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:16:52 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
If I interpret that correctly the main problem is that the noise on the
relativly slow rise time requires more sophisticated
processing of the data then just computing the center of the pulse or doing
something similar.

I guess in that case I can not help you designing an algorithm, but when you
find one, we can talk about the FPGA implementation.
In general for DSP on small fixed point data FPGA is a good choice.

CU,
        Kolja

Michal Kvasnicka wrote:

> OK...
> From my point of view delay measurement needs two delayed signal which are
> compared in the TDE (time delay estimation) algorithm, but TOA measurement
> work only with one precisely sampled signal and any available additional
> apriory knowledge (pulse shape, noise model, etc.).
>
> Radar pulse can be approximated by trapezoidal (symmetric or asymmetric)
> pulse wit the following parameters:
> pulse width = 0.5 - 500us (50% amplitude level)
> rise time = 20-100ns
> fall time = 20-200ns
> sample interval = 1 - 10ns
> Pulse repetition interval = 1 - 5000us
>
> These pulses (pulse train) is contaminated by noise of the general form
> (colored nongaussian, spread spectrum, etc.) with low S/N ration (in many
> cases). Finally is represented by 1-channel data stream sampled by 1-10ns
> and with precise time stamping.
>
> Time sampling is realized by Rubidium normal (short term stability about
> 10^-12 ) connected with GPS time receiver for long term stability about
> 10^-13 - 10^-15.
>
> Required TOA accuracy is about 1-10ns.
>
> So, I need effective and robust TOA algorithm which can be realized on DSP
> or FPGA chip sufficiently fast (see PRI value ~ 1-5000us).
>
> Regards,
>
> Michal
>
> "Kolja Sulimma" <kolja@bnl.gov> píse v diskusním príspevku
> news:3AB65BBE.2055F00D@bnl.gov...
> > Can you describe the rwquirements in more detail?
> > Is it just delay measurement with high resolution?
> > What resolution do you need? And how many channels?
> >
> > CU,
> >         Kolja Sulimma
> >
> > Michal Kvasnicka wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know of any texts or references concerning implementing TOA
> > > (time of arrival) measurement of the radar signal on FPGA or DSP chips?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Michal
> >


Article: 29970
Subject: Re: Spartan-II VREF and VCCO
From: Austin Lesea <austin.lesea@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:43:44 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I agree,

Oscillators above 100 MHz are hard to find because their IO has to be so much
faster, and hence lvpecl seems to be the only kind available.  I wish they made
lvds oscillators.  HSTL or SSTL compatible oscillators would also work, but I
don't know if anyone makes them.

All unused Vcco's should get tied to a Vcco supply.  You could tie them to the
Vccint supply (as 1.8 Volts is a valid Vcco for some IO families).  I prefer
wiring it to a 3.3 V supply in case I need to use an input or an output to
troubleshoot my design.

Austin

Kolja Sulimma wrote:

> Austin Lesea wrote:
>
> > Don't work so hard!
>
> People keep telling me that ;-)
>
> > Less than 50 ps of RMS jitter is an enormous budget!  There are very few
> > oscillators that are that bad!  Any LVCMOS packaged oscillator will have
> > typically 50 ps peak to peak jitter, and around 6 to 10 ps RMS jitter.
>
> Sorry, I did not provide all the information: I need something around 200Mhz.
> I did not find
> oscillators for that frequency range. If you have a source for 200MHz
> oscillators, please tell me.
> That would save me a couple of hours.
> But there are a couple of clock synthesizers. Most of them - like ICS525 -
> have something like
> 200ps to 300ps peak to peak jitter. The Spartan DLL for example adds 60ps
> jitter to the input jitter.
> I only found PECL synthesizers meeting the spec.
>
> > It is OK to leave any unused IO pin unconnected.
>
> How about the VCCO of unused I/O banks?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kolja
>
> > > I need one high quality low jitter input clock. (<50ps RMS Jitter)
> > > I found a couple of Clock Synthesizers with PECL outputs that have a RMS
> > > jitter down to 2.6ps.
> > > - could I set the VRef to 2.8V and use one of the PECL signals as single
> > > ended clock input? (2.3V to 3.3V signal)
> > > - could I connect VRef of one bank to the inverted CLK signal and GCLK
> > > to the positive CLK signal an get a
> > > differential input as aresult? (If have a lot of unused I/O and can
> > > spare a bank)
> > >
> > > 2. Unused VCCO
> > >
> > > I am using a PQ208 Package where the VCCO of all banks are internaly
> > > tied together.
> > > However I am only using the outputs of two of the I/O banks. Is it
> > > sufficient to externaly connect VCCO of these two banks and leave the
> > > unused banks externaly unconnected to simplify the layout?


Article: 29971
Subject: Re: TOA measurement
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:39:23 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Normally we have a reference to indicate  the timing of the transmit pulse. 
Depending on the radr design, the reference may the leakage from the transmit
pulse into the receiver, or it may be a digital signal from the transmitter that
triggers a receive cycle.

In a simplistic radar, the transmit sync pulse starts the capture of the echo
(perhaps after a fixed delay).  The position of the echo relative to the start
trigger or the coupled in transmit pulse gives you your range information. 
You'll probably need some signal processing to clean up the pulse.  Using a
simple pulse is going to require a fairly high peak power, which in turn is
going to limit your range.  The power under your pulse is going to determine the
range, and the width of your pulse is going to set your range resolution.  You
can get fancier if you can shape your transmit waveform for pulse compression. 
I'd suggest a good study of a radar text such as Brookner, Rader or Skolnik.

The FPGA can handle 5-10 ns range gates fairly easily.  Getting much shorter
than that will require more specialized tricks or some high speed external
logic.

Michal Kvasnicka wrote:
> 
> OK...
> From my point of view delay measurement needs two delayed signal which are
> compared in the TDE (time delay estimation) algorithm, but TOA measurement
> work only with one precisely sampled signal and any available additional
> apriory knowledge (pulse shape, noise model, etc.).
> 
> Radar pulse can be approximated by trapezoidal (symmetric or asymmetric)
> pulse wit the following parameters:
> pulse width = 0.5 - 500us (50% amplitude level)
> rise time = 20-100ns
> fall time = 20-200ns
> sample interval = 1 - 10ns
> Pulse repetition interval = 1 - 5000us
> 
> These pulses (pulse train) is contaminated by noise of the general form
> (colored nongaussian, spread spectrum, etc.) with low S/N ration (in many
> cases). Finally is represented by 1-channel data stream sampled by 1-10ns
> and with precise time stamping.
> 
> Time sampling is realized by Rubidium normal (short term stability about
> 10^-12 ) connected with GPS time receiver for long term stability about
> 10^-13 - 10^-15.
> 
> Required TOA accuracy is about 1-10ns.
> 
> So, I need effective and robust TOA algorithm which can be realized on DSP
> or FPGA chip sufficiently fast (see PRI value ~ 1-5000us).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michal
> 
> "Kolja Sulimma" <kolja@bnl.gov> píse v diskusním príspevku
> news:3AB65BBE.2055F00D@bnl.gov...
> > Can you describe the rwquirements in more detail?
> > Is it just delay measurement with high resolution?
> > What resolution do you need? And how many channels?
> >
> > CU,
> >         Kolja Sulimma
> >
> > Michal Kvasnicka wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know of any texts or references concerning implementing TOA
> > > (time of arrival) measurement of the radar signal on FPGA or DSP chips?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Michal
> >

-- 
-Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com  
http://www.andraka.com

Article: 29972
Subject: Re: Altera Flex10K config
From: "Shareef Jalloq" <sjalloq@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:43:47 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I've got the pull-up in place but I'm not sure about how clean the DCLK
signal is.  This is a Uni project and I've put the device on a piece of
veroboard.  How would I go about cleaning DCLK and DATA0?

Thanks.

"C.Schlehaus" <carlhermann.schlehaus@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:9960b1$811$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hi,
>
> "Shareef Jalloq" <sjalloq@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:995p83$g4u$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I get the following error message when trying to configure a 10K10:
'SRAM
> > load unsuccessful'.  I'm using version 8.1 of MAX+PlusII and a
BitBlaster
> > download cable.  It seems to pause right at the end of the config
process.
> > Any ideas?
>
> That a sign, that the Conf_Done Signal (which is controlled by the 10K)
> isn't released (You need to have an external pull-Up as shown in the
> AN).
> The only question is, why the Conf_Done does not change to high
> state. You should check, that the Pull is connected an the suggested
> value.
> Then, You should check for the signal integrity of DCLK and DATA,
> as the 10K needs spike-free signals.
>
> HTH, Carlhermann
>
>



Article: 29973
Subject: Re: xilinx Webpack missing speed grade
From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 16:39:16 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I wrote:
> WebPACK does NOT support the Virtex parts.  The only FPGAs
> WebPACK supports are the Spartan II and a single Virtex-E part,
> the XCV300E.

Nicolas Matringe <nicolas.matringe@IPricot.com> writes:
> I was only talking about the Floorplanner:
> 
> Floorplanner Guide
> 
> Chapter 1: Introduction 
> 
> Supported Architectures
> The Floorplanner supports all Xilinx architectures in the Spartan/-II™,
> Virtex/-E/-II™, and XC4000™ device families.
> 
> (quoted from the WebPACK help)

Yes, and Floorplanner *does* support those devices --- IF you're running
it from the full-blown Foundation software.  But WebPACK doesn't, so they
don't supply the necessary data files.


Article: 29974
Subject: Re: IRDY/TRDY (was Re: More detailed Spartan II CLB drawings?)
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:15:30 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
it is a 5 input ROM (combinatorial, not configurable).  I had the contents about
a year ago, but alas, I've misplaced the information. Fortunately you can easily
discover the function with a trivial test circuit which you can wire using the
FPGA editor.


Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> 
> Wow, it really is there.
> You do not happen to know its functionality?
> 
> I assumed it would have something to do with pulling up the outputs at the end of
> the access within the time
> spec (I found that hard to implement) but it connects to the output clock enables.
> 
> One could create a hard macro and instantiate it in VHDL, right?
> 
> Kolja Sulimma
> 
> Ray Andraka wrote:
> 
> > Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> > > Chris Dunlap wrote:
> > > > You can always look in FPGA editor.  Nothing can be left out there.  If its
> > > > routed or routable, its there.
> > >
> > > Sure it can be.
> > > Or can you used the mysterious undocumented IRDY/TRDY pins special features of
> > > Spartan-II in FPGA editor?
> >
> > That's in there.  In fact, going through the FPGA editor is the only way you can
> > get at the IRDY/TRDY feature. Look on the right and left edges about half way
> > down (in the FPGA editor).  You'll see the IRDY/TRDY boxes there.  And, yes, you
> > can use the FPGA editor to connect those up.
> >
> > --
> > Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > 401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
> > email ray@andraka.com
> > http://www.andraka.com

-- 
-Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com  
http://www.andraka.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
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