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 59275

Article: 59275
Subject: Re: FPGA/DSP Expert - business partner for innovative FFT
From: "Clay S. Turner" <physicsNOOOOSPPPPAMMMM@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:24:13 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello Seung,

If you have 100% hardware utilization, doesn't this present a problem if you
make a change to the design??

Curious what is the # for your patent??

Clay




"Seung" <kim.seung@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fdf92243.0308131136.74aff961@posting.google.com...
> Hello
>
> I have a patent and recently added one more on innovative FFT
> algorithm and architecture.
> If you're a business minded expert on FPGA with interests in DSP, this
> is a great opportunity. Our FFT is 'the' optimal HW solution as
> follows:
>
> 1. Minimum HW complexity: 100% HW utilization
> 2. Suitable for super fast pipelined FFT: only local data flow - not
> based on butterfly algorithm
> 3. Minimum clock cycles: baseline architecture needs N clock for
> N-point FFT
> 4. Scalable to arbitrary large FFT size
> 5. Multi-dimension extension: world's first 'intrinsic'
> multi-dimensional FFT algorithm & architecture (not relay on 1-D FFTs)
> : great for 2-D/3-D real-time medical imaging, SAR, etc.
>
> If you're interested in building a business together based on this
> innovation,
> please contact me with your resume. It'll be ideal if you have
> contacts for potential customers.
>
> Any help on this matter from FPGA/DSP group members will be
> appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Seung P. Kim, Ph.D
> Silicon Computing, Inc.
> Mountain View, CA




Article: 59276
Subject: Re: Limitations of Quartus II V3.0 Web
From: "Paul Baxter" <pauljnospambaxter@hotnospammail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:29:38 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Remember that you need to adjust the end time and THEN create the vectors
with a longer end time otherwise the simulator will think it has no more
vectors to simulate and will finish.

That said, the Quartus simulator is painful in comparison with some of the
$$$ products.

"Chris" <chris.bailes@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:bc923adb.0308130056.50b1f5b@posting.google.com...
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm trying to simulate a block-based design with Altera's Quartus II
> V3.0 Web version, however I cannot seem to simulate beyond 100ns
> irrespective of what end points I set for the default and for the
> current project.
>
> I've also tried editing the vector waveform file timing parameters
> after generation and Quartus disregards these and ends the simualtion
> at 100ns.  It seems far too controlled to be a bug so I can only
> assume its a limitation of the free version.  Can anyone confirm this?
>
> If it is a limitation of the free version are there any *reliable*
> third party simulators for reasonable money?  I'm sitting on my hands
> as far as this project goes until I resolve this.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Chris Bailes
> (Design Engineer, Studio Systems Electronics LTD).



Article: 59277
Subject: Skew on a clock tree on a virtex II : what is the good figure ?
From: "jean-francois hasson" <jfhasson@club-internet.fr>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:47:09 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I am working on a design involving a virtex II -5. I read in a previous post
that the skew one could expect from a clock tree is less than 100 ps.
However when, on the design I am developping, I run the timing analyzer I
get a skew for some clock on a clock tree of about 450 ps or 500 ps (using
the 5.1i F23). How should I interpret this difference ? Any clue ? Which
figure is the right one ?

J.F. Hasson



Article: 59278
Subject: Re: Skew on a clock tree on a virtex II : what is the good figure ?
From: Austin Lesea <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:32:40 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
J.F.,

The report by the tools is correct.

Different sized parts will have different skews (delays) in the their clock
trees due to size.

Additionally, skew is a function of position on the tree, so from the top left
corner down to the middle of a part all the way to the bottom left corner, the
skew will be less than 130 ps for a 2V6000, wheras from the top left corner over
towards the top middle over to the right corner, it will be about 450 ps for a
2V6000.

Top to bottom: 130 ps.  Right to left: 450 ps.  Smallest in the middles, largest
at the corners.

For a 2V1000, these are all less than 100 ps.

Thus if you wanted to make the highest speed wide parallel interface, I would
use the left or right sides (least skew), rather than the top or bottom edges
(for least skew between bits).

If I had to use the top or bottom edges, I would try to group the IOs near the
center, or near the left and right extremes.

Again the timing reports and FPGA_Editor report the right (worst case) numbers.

Hope this helps,

Austin

jean-francois hasson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am working on a design involving a virtex II -5. I read in a previous post
> that the skew one could expect from a clock tree is less than 100 ps.
> However when, on the design I am developping, I run the timing analyzer I
> get a skew for some clock on a clock tree of about 450 ps or 500 ps (using
> the 5.1i F23). How should I interpret this difference ? Any clue ? Which
> figure is the right one ?
>
> J.F. Hasson


Article: 59279
Subject: Re: Limitations of Quartus II V3.0 Web
From: sdatta@altera.com (Subroto Datta)
Date: 13 Aug 2003 15:13:57 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
chris.bailes@myrealbox.com (Chris) wrote in message news:<bc923adb.0308130056.50b1f5b@posting.google.com>...
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm trying to simulate a block-based design with Altera's Quartus II
> V3.0 Web version, however I cannot seem to simulate beyond 100ns
> irrespective of what end points I set for the default and for the
> current project.
> 
> I've also tried editing the vector waveform file timing parameters
> after generation and Quartus disregards these and ends the simualtion
> at 100ns.  It seems far too controlled to be a bug so I can only
> assume its a limitation of the free version.  Can anyone confirm this?
> 
> If it is a limitation of the free version are there any *reliable*
> third party simulators for reasonable money?  I'm sitting on my hands
> as far as this project goes until I resolve this.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Chris Bailes
> (Design Engineer, Studio Systems Electronics LTD).

Hi Chris,

   There is no limit on the Simulation End Time in Quartus II 3.0 Web
Edition product. Please make sure you do the following:

1. Open the waveform editor on your channel and use the Edit->End Time
command to set the end time correctly.
2. Use the Assignment->Settings command and then choose Simulator
Settings->Time/Vectors. Set the Simulation Period to Run Simulation
until all vector stimuli are used.

- Subroto Datta
Altera Corp.

Article: 59280
Subject: Re: Limitations of Quartus II V3.0 Web
From: charleybrant@hotmail.com (CB)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:25:32 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 13 Aug 2003 15:13:57 -0700, sdatta@altera.com (Subroto Datta)
wrote:

>chris.bailes@myrealbox.com (Chris) wrote in message news:<bc923adb.0308130056.50b1f5b@posting.google.com>...
>> Hi guys,
>> 
>> I'm trying to simulate a block-based design with Altera's Quartus II
>> V3.0 Web version, however I cannot seem to simulate beyond 100ns
>> irrespective of what end points I set for the default and for the
>> current project.
>> 
>> I've also tried editing the vector waveform file timing parameters
>> after generation and Quartus disregards these and ends the simualtion
>> at 100ns.  It seems far too controlled to be a bug so I can only
>> assume its a limitation of the free version.  Can anyone confirm this?
>> 
>> If it is a limitation of the free version are there any *reliable*
>> third party simulators for reasonable money?  I'm sitting on my hands
>> as far as this project goes until I resolve this.
>> 
>> Kindest regards,
>> Chris Bailes
>> (Design Engineer, Studio Systems Electronics LTD).
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>   There is no limit on the Simulation End Time in Quartus II 3.0 Web
>Edition product. Please make sure you do the following:
>
>1. Open the waveform editor on your channel and use the Edit->End Time
>command to set the end time correctly.
>2. Use the Assignment->Settings command and then choose Simulator
>Settings->Time/Vectors. Set the Simulation Period to Run Simulation
>until all vector stimuli are used.
>
>- Subroto Datta
>Altera Corp.

Hi , is there a detailed list of the differences between the free web
Quartus and the paid version ... I have not been able to find this ...
it seems it must be available since Altera wants to sell the full
version ... thanks for any help ... CB




Article: 59281
Subject: Re: Update on Virtex II Pro Linux
From: John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:00:50 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Jon,

Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have integrated various patches and the Xuartlite driver from John 
> Williams to get kernel 2.4.20 up and running on the development board.

Good work!  Glad the driver is useful - let me know if you find any bugs 
or improvements.

> Although I have now done this I am interested to hear official board 
> support status from others. I have yet to hear back from Mind.

Along this line - could you (or anybody else) maybe give us a run-down 
of the status of the various linux ports for the V2Pro PPC devices?  I'm 
aware of the MontaVista commercial port, but am unsure about costs and 
licensing and access and so on.  Someone suggested to me recently that 
the MontaVista V2Pro dev. env. was big $$$.  Is it possible to work 
around this using free tools and so on?

Then there's this "Mind" group you mention, what's that all about?

I guess the reason I ask is that these "fringe ports" seem to languish 
outside the mainstream for a long time, making it difficult for people 
to pick them up and get started.  For example, the NIOS port of uClinux 
was done 2 or 3 years ago, but even now is not fully integrated into the 
"official" uClinux source tree[1].  Further, the extent to which it is 
there seems mostly due to efforts by the uClinux maintainers, rather 
than Altera or Microtronix.  I suppose you need some passionate users 
who are prepared to do the legwork to get this stuff integrated.

Cheers,

John

[1] I'm doing my best to ensure that uclinux on microblaze doesn't 
suffer the same fate!


Article: 59282
Subject: Re: Nios Clock Frequency
From: Ben Twijnstra <btwijnstra@SPAM.ME.NOT.chello.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:30:26 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Ken,

> I'm new to the processor on FPGA world (been using Coldfire) and was only
> lightly involved with the FPGA stuff on our previous designs.  (added a
> few features and fixed a few bugs in an Altera 7000MAX)
> 
> Anyway, my question concerns your statement about "in the rest of the
> FPGA". My understanding is/was that FPGA logic that is not specifically
> tied to
> together in the FPGA runs independently.  For example I assume that I can
> have two (or more) Nios processors running completely independently on the
> same FPGA with little effect unless I choose to tie their logic together.

You're absolutely right. The Cyclone devices allow you to have a comfortable
number of separate clock trees (12, I remember from one device, maybe
more). The Stratix devices even more. 

Indeed, if you don't have any communication between the separate NIOS cores,
these could run at any supported speed. One could run at 50 MHz, and the
other could run at 13.3333MHz. Or somesuch.

As soon as these two (or more) of these need to communicate you're slightly
f*cked because you'll need to write synchronization logic, but that would
be the case with any design that has to cross clock boundaries.

Then again, I've written some code that ties a 16MHz SJA1000 Can controller
to a 50MHz NIOS CPU core. Both designs are externally clocked separately.
It wasn't trivial, but not more than a day and a half of work (given a
decent PC). It's not that hard.

Best regards,



Ben


Article: 59283
Subject: Proto-Board with VirtexII and multiple DDR SDRAM banks?
From: parin_dalal@yahoo.com (PD)
Date: 13 Aug 2003 18:09:47 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi, I could use some help finding an eval/proto-board.  I'm having
trouble finding a board with multiple DDR SDRAM banks (3+) connected
to a VirtexII with 1M+ system gates.

The closest board I can find is the Sundance Multiprocessor Technology
SMT351, which has 4 banks but no DDR (an inadequate data rate).

Any leads?  Thanks for any help you can lend.

Article: 59284
Subject: Old Xilinx FPGAs
From: Jeff Sampson <jsampson@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:48:49 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
[Please pardon an intrusion from a really casual FPGA/CPLD user]

I have a collection of old Xilinx parts. XC2018, XC3020, XC3030, XC3064, 
XC4004A. I gave up years ago trying to find software for the XC2018 parts. But I 
assumed my software would do the XC30xx and XC40xx when I got around to using 
them. Now I notice that the Xilinx web page doesn't have spec sheets for the 
base XC30xx and XC40xx or XC40xxA parts. I also notice that me oldest software, 
Foundation Base 1.4 is too new to include these parts. (after casual browsing 
through Foundation Base 1.4, WebPack 4.2, WebPack 5.1i, Student 2.1i)

So, my question is, am I missing someting? Or do I just need older software?

Can I use XC3030A to create code for a XC3030? I'm guessing that I can't.

What about the XC4004A? Can I use XC4003E or XC4003XL to create code for the 
XC4004A? I'm guessing not.

If I need older software, does anyone have any old software they want to part with?

I'm guessing old software falls into 3 catagories:

   1. Better keep it in case we have to update this old stuff.
   2. It is still here on the shelf because I couldn't bear to throw it away.
   3. Threw it away years ago.

Or should I just throw these old parts away and get some Spartan ot Virtex parts?

-- 
Jeff Sampson
http://tcrobots.org/members/jsamp.htm


Article: 59285
Subject: Anyone familiar with ispXPLD?
From: "Jay" <yuhaiwen@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:31:51 +0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all,

I only have used xc9500 and coolrunnerII before, and we all know such CPLDs
has so little FF resources.
For my current applications I need to map some memorys and I think ispXPLD
is what I'm looking for.
But before I start my work on it, I'd like make something clear:
1.It sounds great that ispXPLD has plennty of memory resources, and that's
what I want most. So what's the payoff compared with common CPLDs, cost?
performance?
2.ispXPLD has a new architecture MFB which I'm not familiar with. From a
designer's point of view, is there any difference between XPLD and CPLD? Do
I need extra knowledges or skills?

Thanks.



Article: 59286
Subject: Re: Limitations of Quartus II V3.0 Web
From: "leon qin" <leon.qin@2911.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:43:26 +0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
large devices

multi platform support: windows,unix,linux




"CB" <charleybrant@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3aba54.6259646@news.compuserve.com...
> On 13 Aug 2003 15:13:57 -0700, sdatta@altera.com (Subroto Datta)
> wrote:
>
> >chris.bailes@myrealbox.com (Chris) wrote in message
news:<bc923adb.0308130056.50b1f5b@posting.google.com>...
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> I'm trying to simulate a block-based design with Altera's Quartus II
> >> V3.0 Web version, however I cannot seem to simulate beyond 100ns
> >> irrespective of what end points I set for the default and for the
> >> current project.
> >>
> >> I've also tried editing the vector waveform file timing parameters
> >> after generation and Quartus disregards these and ends the simualtion
> >> at 100ns.  It seems far too controlled to be a bug so I can only
> >> assume its a limitation of the free version.  Can anyone confirm this?
> >>
> >> If it is a limitation of the free version are there any *reliable*
> >> third party simulators for reasonable money?  I'm sitting on my hands
> >> as far as this project goes until I resolve this.
> >>
> >> Kindest regards,
> >> Chris Bailes
> >> (Design Engineer, Studio Systems Electronics LTD).
> >
> >Hi Chris,
> >
> >   There is no limit on the Simulation End Time in Quartus II 3.0 Web
> >Edition product. Please make sure you do the following:
> >
> >1. Open the waveform editor on your channel and use the Edit->End Time
> >command to set the end time correctly.
> >2. Use the Assignment->Settings command and then choose Simulator
> >Settings->Time/Vectors. Set the Simulation Period to Run Simulation
> >until all vector stimuli are used.
> >
> >- Subroto Datta
> >Altera Corp.
>
> Hi , is there a detailed list of the differences between the free web
> Quartus and the paid version ... I have not been able to find this ...
> it seems it must be available since Altera wants to sell the full
> version ... thanks for any help ... CB
>
>
>



Article: 59287
Subject: Re: flash-disk
From: Kevin Kilzer <kkilzer.remove.this@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 04:50:45 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Tue, 6 May 2003 14:50:23 +0400, "Mikhail" <kostkin@asicdesign.ru>
wrote:

>Could anyone recommend me flash-disk with IDE/ATA for "extremal"
>application?

Try <<http://www.adtron.com>>.  They have both SCSI and ATA
interfaces.

Kevin



Article: 59288
Subject: Spartan II IOB in VHDL
From: Kevin Kilzer <kkilzer.remove.this@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 05:37:09 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am using VHDL and a Spartan IIe to receive clocked data.  The setup
and hold timing between clock and data signals is very tight (like
5ns), so I would like to force the IOB latch to capture the data.

The input clock is asynchronous to my system clocks, and I can build a
pipelined synchronizer to shift the clock domains, but I do not want
to dedicate a global clock to this input signal (in some of my systems
I might have 5 of these inputs, and there are not enough global clocks
to go around).

The data clock is about 1/4 the frequency of my system clock.

Is there a way to instantiate an IOB as a VHDL "object" (macro?), and
explicitly hook the IOB clock to the input clock signal, instead of
using a global clock?  In other words, I would like to have a black
box which is the IOB, and not have to use "dataClock'event" in the
VHDL.  I am using Xilinx tools.

Or is there another way to do this?

Kevin


Article: 59289
Subject: Memory map in Altera NIOS
From: jwing23@hotmail.com (J-Wing)
Date: 13 Aug 2003 22:37:14 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Can anyone tell me how the memory map in the Altera NIOS works (in
software-C and hardware-VHDL)? I am not sure how the layout is and
where to read and write data to user logic.

Article: 59290
Subject: Re: Yet another modelsim problem
From: "K Mussatt" <kmussatt@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 06:14:31 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The FPGAs I have worked and do work with do not allow for a dual edged CLK.
Assuming your does and /or assuming the
synthesizer does some neat trick to allow this for your FPGA, maybe you
could specifiy rising clock edge if in the layer above
this entity, you had a faster clock divide by 2 to make this clock that you
are using here.  I dont' know if that is a possibility, but
I do remember running into some odd synthesis problems once trying to make a
dual edged clock.

Also, it has been my experience to 'not' do a divided clock by using one of
the bits, but rather to use it as an enable to drive
something maintaining sync with the one and only true clock.

PROCESS abc (CLK, RESET) BEGIN

    DIV_2_EN <= COUNTER(2); -- pick the bit off you want to use
    DIV_2_EN_R <= DIV_2_EN; -- make another signal delayed by one (true) clk
value
END PROCESS abc
--outside of the CLK do this:
DIV2CLK <= '1' when DIV_2_EN ='1' and DIV_2_EN_R = '0' else '0'; -- this is
not a 50% duty cycle clock, but it has the correct freq. of CLK/2

-Kip

"Thomas" <tom3@_nostupidspam_protectedfromreality.com> wrote in message
news:oprtseo3y9g7nu3h@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>
>
> Completed process "Generate Post-Translate Simulation Model".
>
> ERROR: Hidden remap failed
> Reason:
>
> Launching Application for process "Simulate Post-Translate VHDL Model".
>
>
>
> not only the software's stupid enough to launch the GUI after the error,
> but there is not a single entry about this error in the xilinx database,
on
> the modelsim server or even in google (but me complaining about the same
> problem a month ago)
> The 'reason' field is as useful as usual :) this time they just didn't
> bother typing a message that makes no sense, they just left it empty.
>
> here's the code:
>
> process(Reset, MasterClock) is
> variable counter : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);
> begin
>   if(Reset = '1') then
> counter := "000";
> elsif(rising_edge(MasterClock)) then
> dividedclock <= counter(2);
> counter := counter + 1;
> end if;
> end process;
>
> so, all the calls to modelsim, regardless of the type (post translate,
post
> map, etc) fail the same way.
>
> then 'generated expected simulation results' yields another interesting
> problem:
>
> if, in the timing constraints, I select the clock to be rising edge only,
> it works; if I pick dual edge, it just 'skips' cycles every 30 or so in
the
> display and everything gets out of sync...
>
> Any ideas?



Article: 59291
Subject: Re: Update on Virtex II Pro Linux
From: antti@case2000.com (Antti Lukats)
Date: 13 Aug 2003 23:17:05 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<bhefdn$q8g$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> Hi Jon,
> 
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have integrated various patches and the Xuartlite driver from John 
> > Williams to get kernel 2.4.20 up and running on the development board.
[]
> Along this line - could you (or anybody else) maybe give us a run-down 
> of the status of the various linux ports for the V2Pro PPC devices?  I'm 
> aware of the MontaVista commercial port, but am unsure about costs and 
> licensing and access and so on.  Someone suggested to me recently that 
> the MontaVista V2Pro dev. env. was big $$$.  Is it possible to work 
> around this using free tools and so on?
[]
> Cheers,
> 
> John

Hi Jon and John,

I also wanted to ask for clarification, because there is uLinux MB
and ?? Linux for PPC V2Pro, I only guess that Jon referred a real PPC
linux, not uLinux for MB running in V2Pro.

as for Linux V2Pro - ELDK has been reported to work on V2Pro devices so
a free linux for V2Pro already exists and has been verified on real
V2Pro development boards. This report was from some avnet guy so his
work is not public ASFAIK, but already the info that ELDK works on V2Pro
(or is easy to get working) should help.

I have only used ELDK to write some Hello.c applications and have run
them in Mvista on ML300, so have not attempted kernel compile or boot
image creation.

antti

Article: 59292
Subject: Re: Update on Virtex II Pro Linux
From: John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:44:56 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti Lukats wrote:

> I also wanted to ask for clarification, because there is uLinux MB
> and ?? Linux for PPC V2Pro, 


> I only guess that Jon referred a real PPC
> linux, not uLinux for MB running in V2Pro.

I share your interpretation! :)

> as for Linux V2Pro - ELDK has been reported to work on V2Pro devices so
> a free linux for V2Pro already exists and has been verified on real
> V2Pro development boards. This report was from some avnet guy so his
> work is not public ASFAIK, but already the info that ELDK works on V2Pro
> (or is easy to get working) should help.

Sounds good.

Cheers,

John


Article: 59293
Subject: Sorry: XLA5 Vs. XS series
From: "Davo" <dgwood@optushome.com.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:12:51 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am looking at very helpful documents at http://www.xess.com/index.html
regarding the use of a Spartan XCS10 frga chip on XS series boards from XESS
corporation. I am using the Digilent XLA board with same chip. Can anyone
telling me if there is significant difference. I want to know if I should
persist with this helpful site to learn more about the about the board we
use at college (XLA Digilent).

Regards

Dave

(A subject would have helped - doh)



Article: 59294
Subject: Re: FPGA/DSP Expert - business partner for innovative FFT
From: kim.seung@sbcglobal.net (Seung)
Date: 14 Aug 2003 01:15:28 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Clay,

Not at all. You just need to add more stages.
My first patent on this is US5528736. The following patent number
is to be issued within three months.
If you are interested in more details, please send me an e-mail.

Regards,

Seung


"Clay S. Turner" <physicsNOOOOSPPPPAMMMM@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<sVw_a.7804$_3.5732@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> Hello Seung,
> 
> If you have 100% hardware utilization, doesn't this present a problem if you
> make a change to the design??
> 
> Curious what is the # for your patent??
> 
> Clay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Seung" <kim.seung@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:fdf92243.0308131136.74aff961@posting.google.com...
> > Hello
> >
> > I have a patent and recently added one more on innovative FFT
> > algorithm and architecture.
> > If you're a business minded expert on FPGA with interests in DSP, this
> > is a great opportunity. Our FFT is 'the' optimal HW solution as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1. Minimum HW complexity: 100% HW utilization
> > 2. Suitable for super fast pipelined FFT: only local data flow - not
> > based on butterfly algorithm
> > 3. Minimum clock cycles: baseline architecture needs N clock for
> > N-point FFT
> > 4. Scalable to arbitrary large FFT size
> > 5. Multi-dimension extension: world's first 'intrinsic'
> > multi-dimensional FFT algorithm & architecture (not relay on 1-D FFTs)
> > : great for 2-D/3-D real-time medical imaging, SAR, etc.
> >
> > If you're interested in building a business together based on this
> > innovation,
> > please contact me with your resume. It'll be ideal if you have
> > contacts for potential customers.
> >
> > Any help on this matter from FPGA/DSP group members will be
> > appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Seung P. Kim, Ph.D
> > Silicon Computing, Inc.
> > Mountain View, CA

Article: 59295
Subject: Re: Actel Core PCI
From: thomas@stanka-web.de (Thomas Stanka)
Date: 14 Aug 2003 01:28:47 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
sarahshen2003@yahoo.ca (sarah) wrote:
> I have a problem when implementing PCI in Acte;l APA300. Does anybody
> know the  very datailed information about ACTEL cORE pci?

Could you be more precise?
The Actel PCI-core is very complex and supports different modi, maybe
I could help you for simple questions, Actel support might also help.

Article: 59296
Subject: Re: Skew on a clock tree on a virtex II : what is the good figure ?
From: jean-francois.hasson@fr.thalesgroup.com (jean-francois hasson)
Date: 14 Aug 2003 01:29:19 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Considering your answer does it imply that the chip (xc2v6000-5) is
not fast enough for a 450 ps skew on the clock to be a problem ?

J.F. Hasson

Austin Lesea <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message news:<3F3AAE78.AF5F5717@xilinx.com>...
> J.F.,
> 
> The report by the tools is correct.
> 
> Different sized parts will have different skews (delays) in the their clock
> trees due to size.
> 
> Additionally, skew is a function of position on the tree, so from the top left
> corner down to the middle of a part all the way to the bottom left corner, the
> skew will be less than 130 ps for a 2V6000, wheras from the top left corner over
> towards the top middle over to the right corner, it will be about 450 ps for a
> 2V6000.
> 
> Top to bottom: 130 ps.  Right to left: 450 ps.  Smallest in the middles, largest
> at the corners.
> 
> For a 2V1000, these are all less than 100 ps.
> 
> Thus if you wanted to make the highest speed wide parallel interface, I would
> use the left or right sides (least skew), rather than the top or bottom edges
> (for least skew between bits).
> 
> If I had to use the top or bottom edges, I would try to group the IOs near the
> center, or near the left and right extremes.
> 
> Again the timing reports and FPGA_Editor report the right (worst case) numbers.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Austin
> 
> jean-francois hasson wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working on a design involving a virtex II -5. I read in a previous post
> > that the skew one could expect from a clock tree is less than 100 ps.
> > However when, on the design I am developping, I run the timing analyzer I
> > get a skew for some clock on a clock tree of about 450 ps or 500 ps (using
> > the 5.1i F23). How should I interpret this difference ? Any clue ? Which
> > figure is the right one ?
> >
> > J.F. Hasson

Article: 59297
Subject: LogicLock flow
From: "Andrea" <aa@bb.cc>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:04:05 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all,

I am going to synthesize a large VHDL design (using Quartus II v. 2.2 + SP
2), composed by several modules (over 10), so I decided to follow LogicLock
methodology. Each sub module has a hierachical structure, and some of theme
instantiate ram/rom blocks.
My aim is to compile each module and assign it to a fixed-size floating
LogicLock region.
After each module compiles properly and meets timing requirements I can
export LogicLock region (.vqm and .esf files) to the top level project. In
the top level project I have one VHDL file wich instantiates entities I
assigned to LogicLock regions, and .vqm files (one for each entity).
After importing LogicLock regions I can compile the top level file.

I am new to LogicLock and I have several doubts:
a. Could anyone confirm me if this approach is correct?
b. Which are the most critical issues to compile a design following a
LogicLock metholody?

Thanks in advance,
Andrea




Article: 59298
Subject: Re: LogicLock flow
From: "Paul Leventis" <paul.leventis@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:58:35 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Andrea,

> ...
>
> I am new to LogicLock and I have several doubts:
> a. Could anyone confirm me if this approach is correct?
> b. Which are the most critical issues to compile a design following a
> LogicLock metholody?

Generally speaking, you want to make your life as a easy as possible.  This
means sticking to a flat push-button compile if it achieves your desired
results.  If doing so hits your timing requirements, then you're done.

If you are having trouble hitting timing, LogicLock is one of a number of
tools at your disposal to help you converge on better results, particularly
in highly regular or data-path designs where providing strong hints to the
fitter will help most.  LogicLock is particularly useful when trying the eek
the last bit of timing out of IO paths -- you can constrain an IO to a
particular set of IOs, or make sure logic related to that IO is place (for
example) within 4 LABs of it, etc.

In Stratix/Cyclone, LogicLock doesn't often give big wins vs. push-button
compile, as it's not that easy for a human to figure out the best
approximate placement for a design.  Even though your design logically has
10 modules, the best possible placement doesn't necessarily have each of the
10 modules placed as a clump.  Your critical path may hop through the
various modules, and that path may need to be crunched together while the
rest of the logic doesn't really care to much about being pulled apart.

In APEX-like families, LogicLock can get bigger wins as there are very clear
boundaries where timing goes from good to bad, and a human can often figure
out a good floorplan for a design.  For example, ensuring that local logic
stays within a MegaLAB.

Application note AN297: Optimizing FPGA Performance Using the Quartus II
Software (http://www.altera.com/literature/an/an297.pdf) provide further
information on achieving desired fitting and performance in your design,
including which steps to take first in increasing order of manual effort vs.
potential reward.

Application note AN161: Using the LogicLock Methodology in the Quartus II
Software (http://www.altera.com/literature/an/an161.pdf) provides further
information on LogicLock in particular.  One feature that is particularly
neat if you choose to go this route is the timing-closure floorplan.  This
shows you a delay map of the device, which is important for deciding how to
constrain your logic for performance.

One of the first things we do when a user sends in a design that is having
trouble hitting timing is remove all location constraints and LogicLock
regions from the design and go push the button.  And this is often enough!

Regards,

Paul Leventis
Altera Corp.



Article: 59299
Subject: Actel: Libero/Synplify "Run" button disabled
From: antti@case2000.com (Antti Lukats)
Date: 14 Aug 2003 03:20:58 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi

I do answer mostly, but maybe I get some answer when I need some too

problem

Actel Libero (latest version) all installed, synplify/actel installed

but when I launch synplify the "Run" button is disabled (also menu)
menu "Compile only" is enabled but doesnt do anything :(
licensing seems to be OK. and I have tried RTFM, but it all tells you
what todo [when Run is enabled]

its probably some real silly problem, but nowhere to look :(

tnx
antti



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