Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 71500

Article: 71500
Subject: Re: Open Collector Circuit - How to Simulate?
From: kal<kal@dspia.deletethis.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:44:12 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 20 Jul 2004 09:13:40 -0700, dhruvish@gmail.com (Drew) wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I need Open Collector Active-Low analog circuit's logical
>representation. I am having pretty hard time putting it togather. I
>used bidirectional tristated bus, but it doesnt solve my problem.
>There are some contentions as I have to read what I write to the Bidir
>Pin (always) and at some point the Bidir Pin works as an output too.

Actually it should. An open collector (which would be for almost all
fpgas) configuration can be modeled with a tri-state output which can
be driven low or tri-stated, not driven-high. You should be able to
use a regular tri-state bi-directional io to do what you need.

Try this:

module od_io(pad, in, oeb);
inout pad;
output in;
input oeb;

wire pad = oeb ? 1'bz : 1'b0;
wire in = pad;

endmodule

this should map to a bi-dir io or you can instantiate one from your
device's library.


Article: 71501
Subject: Altera DEMUX Megafunction - does it exist ?
From: vbishtei@hotmail.com (vadim)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 09:52:41 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
There is a nice parametarizable MUX but how about a DEMUX ??? 

I have already implemented my own 1-bit 4-input DEMUX, but for the
8-bit 4-input version thought Altera would provide something...

Thanks in advance,
Vadim

Article: 71502
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 17:03:06 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <40fa495d_1@127.0.0.1>,
Andrew Rogers  <andrew@_NO_SPAM_rogerstech.co.uk> wrote:
>Simon wrote:
>
>....
>
>> This was after I'd 'upgraded' to something I thought would handle large 
>> amounts of memory well and synthesize/P&R faster... Oh well, back to 
>> windows :-( Xilinx now has the dubious honour of being the only company 
>> for which I maintain a Windows partition :-(
>> 
>> Simon.
>
>I wonder how much Microsoft are paying Xilinx! After all Xilinx don't 
>release ISE WebPACK for Linux. Has anyone heard a REAL reason for Xilinx 
>not releasing WebPACK for Linux?
>

I think it's because they use that MainWin to port from Windows to Linux 
and there is a per-seat license charge they pay for it.  They could have 
used Wine and Winelib to port from Windows to Linux for free, of course, 
and then we wouldn't be asking all these questions ;-)

While the big EDA companies (that cater to ASICs) now consider Linux to be 
a first-class citizen, the FPGA vendors (and EDA companies that cater to 
FPGAs) still don't seem to know much about Linux.  At least they've 
started porting to Linux, but they're still developing on Windows and 
porting to Linux (and other Unices) whereas the big guys are developing on 
Linux and porting to Windows (I know this is true at Mentor Graphics for 
example).  The interesting thing is that if you're coming from the Windows 
world (as Xilinx is) all you know about are proprietary tools whereas when 
you're coming from the Linux world you tend to use cross-platform, open 
source tools from the start.  So porting from Linux to Windows is fairly 
easy because you're probably using a cross platform GUI toolkit like Tk, 
gtk or perhaps Qt.  When you're locked into Windows as your development 
platform, porting to Linux can be a pain (especially if you don't know about 
Wine/Winelib, and you probably wouldn't if you're coming from the Windows 
world).

So, as someone else mentioned, it's not a conspiracy with Micro$oft so 
much as ignorance of the market and of the Linux world that leads to these 
problems.  We need to educate the vendors about Linux and about what's 
possible (like we did the big EDA vendors several years ago).  For 
example, Xilinx could save a lot of $$ if they didn't use 
MainWin for porting and used Wine/Winelib instead - perhaps they didn't 
know about that option - and as an added bonus their product would (of 
course) work under Wine.

BTW: The other issue with getting the Xilinx tools to work under Wine is 
the Jungo parallel port driver.  You may be able to get the development 
tools to work under Wine, but you won't be able to program any parts with 
Impact (unless something has changed very recently).

Phil

Article: 71503
Subject: Re: Spartan 3 termination question (DCI)
From: hmurray@suespammers.org (Hal Murray)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:08:48 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>Modern high-performance sub-150 nm conventional CMOS technology has leakage
>currents that make that goal unattainable (by a long shot).
>Such a  requirement is not mainstream...

A million to one may not be mainstream, but there is a lot of
interest in low leakage parts where modest performance is
adaquate.

Think of all those battery operated gizmos.

An AA cell is roughly 2800 mA hours.  Suppose you use half the energy
in idle current and the other half for real work, and want the system
to run for a year on a battery.  That's an idle current of 0.16 mA,
for the whole system.

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


Article: 71504
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 17:16:39 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <WYsKc.451$h_3.116@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
Simon  <news@gornall.net> wrote:
>Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
>> 
>> I wonder how much Microsoft are paying Xilinx! After all Xilinx don't 
>> release ISE WebPACK for Linux. Has anyone heard a REAL reason for Xilinx 
>> not releasing WebPACK for Linux?
>
>Well, annoying though it is, I don't think it's a conspiracy :-) It's 
>probably a combination of:
>
>  o Most Linux WebPack users will never contribute sufficient funds back 
>to Xilinx to make it worth their while.
>
>  o They pay a per-seat licence for their officially-supported 
>foundation package on Linux to the GUI-library owners. They therefore 
>can't offer it as a download for WebPack.
>
>What it would probably take would be a large customer saying "we're 
>going to move to Altera/whoever unless you do the port before XXX", with 
>XXX being a realistic target in the future. At that point, there's a 
>commercial pressure to do the port, and Xilinx can take a view on 
>whether it's worth it. Even then, their view might be 'see that lake, 
>run and jump' :-)
>
>Another route for Xilinx to get their finger out would be if 
>Altera/whoever did it first - Xilinx wouldn't be far behind then, I'd 
>imagine, bragging rights and image are nowhere near as important as 
>commercial pressures, but they still count :-)
>

It's interesting that for the big EDA companies (Synopsys, Mentor, 
Cadence) the switch to supporting Linux happened several years ago and 
now Linux is probably the majority platform for most of them.  Sure, 
it was easier for them to make the switch because they already did all 
their development on some flavor of Unix, but there was still inertia to 
overcome to get them to move to Linux.  When serious customers started 
asking for Linux, they bagan to take notice.  Now, just as then, It will 
take a lot of customer pressure to get the FPGA companies (and the FPGA 
EDA companies) to properly support Linux.

As a Linux software developer who has done a bit of consulting I've seen 
several environments that were primarily Windows development houses.  The 
people in these groups might be very good developers, but they have no 
idea of what exists in the Linux world (or the open source world in 
general).  They tend to view it as if it were a 
dangerous foreign country that they want to keep their distance from.  So 
what happens is that Linux developers have a hard time communicating with 
Windows developers (and vice-versa).  Right now in Xilinx, I would bet 
that you've got a primarily Windows development culture.  Sure they've 
made steps toward Linux-land, but they're very cautious steps.  With time 
they'll discover that the Linux waters aren't shark-infested and they'll 
become more adventurous ;-)

Phil

Article: 71505
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 17:20:40 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <40fa5b5e_1@127.0.0.1>,
Andrew Rogers  <andrew@_NO_SPAM_rogerstech.co.uk> wrote:
>Simon wrote:
>> Andrew Rogers wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> I wonder how much Microsoft are paying Xilinx! After all Xilinx don't 
>>> release ISE WebPACK for Linux. Has anyone heard a REAL reason for 
>>> Xilinx not releasing WebPACK for Linux?
>> 
>> 
>> Well, annoying though it is, I don't think it's a conspiracy :-) It's 
>> probably a combination of:
>> 
>>  o Most Linux WebPack users will never contribute sufficient funds back 
>> to Xilinx to make it worth their while.
>
>Equally applicable to Windows WebPACK users in my opinion. I'll buy 
>FPGAs if the software is free, I'll buy nothing if the software isn't free.
>> 
>>  o They pay a per-seat licence for their officially-supported foundation 
>> package on Linux to the GUI-library owners. They therefore can't offer 
>> it as a download for WebPack.
>
>How about the command line tools; xst, map, par, bitgen, etc?

That still won't help when it comes to programming devices.  The Jungo 
parallel port driver doesn't work under Wine.  

Phil

Article: 71506
Subject: Re: Altera FPGA's
From: "Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:33:16 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Ed" <Ed@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cdjh0q$uvr$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any experience in programming Altera FPGA's?  In
particular
> a FLEX8000.  What development environment do you use and how much does it
> cost?  Do any free development environments exist for it (VHDL or
Verilog)?
> Also, is the programming hardware expensive?

The free Quartus software you can download from the Altera web site doesn't
support the FLEX 8000, which Altera describes as 'mature'. More recent
devices are supported with VHDL and Verilog. You should use one of those.

The ByteBlaster required for programming Altera devices is quite expensive
at $150, but I made my own. Details are on my web site.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller



Article: 71507
Subject: Re: Spartan 3 termination question (DCI)
From: Peter Alfke <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:07:12 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am not arguing against Low Power.
Yes, there would be a market for ultra-low-power battery-operated circuitry.
But this requirement is, unfortunately, in conflict with the mainstream that
cries for "cheaper, faster, and bigger (and earlier)".
And the market is unmerciful...
Peter Alfke
==================================
> From: hmurray@suespammers.org (Hal Murray)
> Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga
> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:08:48 -0500
> Subject: Re: Spartan 3 termination question (DCI)
> 
>> Modern high-performance sub-150 nm conventional CMOS technology has leakage
>> currents that make that goal unattainable (by a long shot).
>> Such a  requirement is not mainstream...
> 
> A million to one may not be mainstream, but there is a lot of
> interest in low leakage parts where modest performance is
> adaquate.
> 
> Think of all those battery operated gizmos.
> 
> An AA cell is roughly 2800 mA hours.  Suppose you use half the energy
> in idle current and the other half for real work, and want the system
> to run for a year on a battery.  That's an idle current of 0.16 mA,
> for the whole system.
> 
> -- 
> The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
> other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
> commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
> These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.
> 


Article: 71508
Subject: Low Power Applications - enumerate
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:13:37 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hal,

My wife has a talking pedometer.  Neat.  Keeps track of distance walked 
or run, calories, steps, time of day.  Runs on hearing aid coin cells. 
Batteries last about 6 months.  Whoops!  Bad design.  Should have 
skipped talking feature -- too much power added to the budget.

I have a hand held radio.  OK, standby current is 200 mA.  Wow.  Way too 
high.  I like radios that need to be recharged less often than once a 
day.  While transmitting, power can be as much as 2 amperes, but how 
much do you talk?  Better design would have been an ultra low power 
receive mode, and leave all of the power for when you push to talk. 
Again, bad design.

My kids have music players.  Neat.  Plays music for a really long time, 
never worry about batteries.  Good design.

Then we have a remote control (actually four of them).  OK.  Probably 
gets dropped too many times before the batteries go out.  Good design.

And, of course, everyone has a cell phone.  Great.  In town, batteries 
last up to a week with occasional use.  If in a rural area, the 
batteries drain much faster (need the RF power to get out).  Good design 
and compromise.

Most folks have a digital camera.  Varies tremendously with when you 
bought it.  If it was one of the old ones, it ate batteries.  Bad 
design.  If it is one of the new ones, you almost do not care about 
batteries.  Carrying around a spare battery is all you ever need, even 
on a week-long vacation.  Good design.

All of the above devices use uPs, ASICs or ASSPs because a FPGA is not 
cost effective at all in these tasks (volume too large). 
Reprogrammability doesn't add any value to any of the products.  All of 
these products use much older technology CMOS processes tweaked for low 
power (high Vt's).

So, what market even exists that needs reprogramability (as in FPGAs), 
AND also needs extremely low power?

It isn't that I do not believe that there are no low power applications 
out there, it is that I need to be told which ones they are if I am to 
help provide products for them.

Austin



Hal Murray wrote:
>>Modern high-performance sub-150 nm conventional CMOS technology has leakage
>>currents that make that goal unattainable (by a long shot).
>>Such a  requirement is not mainstream...
> 
> 
> A million to one may not be mainstream, but there is a lot of
> interest in low leakage parts where modest performance is
> adaquate.
> 
> Think of all those battery operated gizmos.
> 
> An AA cell is roughly 2800 mA hours.  Suppose you use half the energy
> in idle current and the other half for real work, and want the system
> to run for a year on a battery.  That's an idle current of 0.16 mA,
> for the whole system.
> 

Article: 71509
Subject: Re: Using Verilog to embed the synthesis date and time
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:17:26 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Martin Thompson" <martin.j.thompson@trw.com> wrote in message
news:u3c3m28dk.fsf@trw.com...
> johnp3+nospam@probo.com (John Providenza) writes:
>
> I've embedded the place and route time (year, month, day, hour) in the
> bitstream in the past as the USERCODE 0xyymmddhh
>
Neat!!



Article: 71510
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: Uwe Bonnes <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:13:18 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
,,,
: That still won't help when it comes to programming devices.  The Jungo 
: parallel port driver doesn't work under Wine.  

I had some success with http://www.nahitech.com/jtag-en/ running with wine.
Nahitafu will hopefully enable programming of more devices..

Bye
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

Article: 71511
Subject: Re: Low Power Applications - enumerate
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:26:14 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter Alfke wrote:
 >>> Modern high-performance sub-150 nm conventional CMOS technology has
 >>> leakage currents that make that goal unattainable (by a long shot).
 >>> Such a  requirement is not mainstream...
Austin Lesea wrote:
> Hal,
> 
> My wife has a talking pedometer.  Neat.  Keeps track of distance walked 
> or run, calories, steps, time of day.  Runs on hearing aid coin cells. 
> Batteries last about 6 months.  Whoops!  Bad design.  Should have 
> skipped talking feature -- too much power added to the budget.
> 
> I have a hand held radio.  OK, standby current is 200 mA.  Wow.  Way too 
> high.  I like radios that need to be recharged less often than once a 
> day.  While transmitting, power can be as much as 2 amperes, but how 
> much do you talk?  Better design would have been an ultra low power 
> receive mode, and leave all of the power for when you push to talk. 
> Again, bad design.
> 
> My kids have music players.  Neat.  Plays music for a really long time, 
> never worry about batteries.  Good design.
> 
> Then we have a remote control (actually four of them).  OK.  Probably 
> gets dropped too many times before the batteries go out.  Good design.
> 
> And, of course, everyone has a cell phone.  Great.  In town, batteries 
> last up to a week with occasional use.  If in a rural area, the 
> batteries drain much faster (need the RF power to get out).  Good design 
> and compromise.
> 
> Most folks have a digital camera.  Varies tremendously with when you 
> bought it.  If it was one of the old ones, it ate batteries.  Bad 
> design.  If it is one of the new ones, you almost do not care about 
> batteries.  Carrying around a spare battery is all you ever need, even 
> on a week-long vacation.  Good design.
> 
> All of the above devices use uPs, ASICs or ASSPs because a FPGA is not 
> cost effective at all in these tasks (volume too large). 
> Reprogrammability doesn't add any value to any of the products.  All of 
> these products use much older technology CMOS processes tweaked for low 
> power (high Vt's).
> 
> So, what market even exists that needs reprogramability (as in FPGAs), 
> AND also needs extremely low power?
> 
> It isn't that I do not believe that there are no low power applications 
> out there, it is that I need to be told which ones they are if I am to 
> help provide products for them.
> 
> Austin

Austin,
  You have already given some good examples, and also undelined an 
important point
* First generation designs only have to work, second generation designs
need to work properly *

Here is another example of that :

http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?objectid=B02B0D86-03E0-4485-945E4304605236AE

Seems low power matters to Cypress, and their customers. Some small 
detail of saving a plug pack ?

There was another company offering a bin-selected low power device, as 
it seems they also have customers for whom low power matters.
Who was it now ..... ah, yes, here it is ...

http://www.xilinx.com/prs_rls/silicon_spart/0478s3lp.htm

and it says

  "While defining 'low power' is challenging, preliminary iSuppli 
estimates indicate that as much as $3 billion of the approximately $20 
billion ASIC market could potentially shift to FPGAs if power 
consumption was reduced sufficiently."

  Sounds plausible to me. Seems iSuppli reckons there is a $3B answer to
your question above?

  However it would seem there are two fundamentals against FPGAs in the
chase for ASIC business.
a) To compete the FPGA must be a couple of generations ahead
b) They must compete on price/speed and power.
  Solving a) means they have moved the wrong way in leakage, so
you can compete on price, and on speed, but fall rather behind
on power efficency.
  Sure, 90nm ASICs are very expensive, but to compete with a 90nm FPGA,
you do not need a 90nm ASIC. Costs at the 'back end' of 150-180nm could
even drop, as flows mature, and the cost-recovery models follow the
leading edge.

  There are ways to balance this : eg multiple oxides are now appearing,
plus a MASK variant can have many fewer transistors, and lower loading 
means you have spare speed to trade for power.

  Also, a design can use another 'true low power' device and deploy 
complete power removal from the FPGA in sleep : then the comparison is
  [all in an ASIC] vs [PowerFrugaluC + FPGA]

  This combination can make rational engineering sense, but might have
problems with FPGA vendor's marketing depts, so do not expect to see
it strongly promoted any time soon :)

-jg



Article: 71512
Subject: Re: Low Power Applications - enumerate
From: Peter Alfke <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:37:03 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
There are several methods to reduce power by a factor of two, and there may
be tricks to get if down an order of magnitude ( i.e. factor 10). But to
satisfy the applications that Austin enumerated that's not enough...
So something has to be sacrificed: speed, low cost, complexity, versatility,
sales volume, profit (or all of the above?)

Peter Alfke
====================
> From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
> Organization: TelstraClear
> Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga
> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:26:14 +1200
> Subject: Re: Low Power Applications - enumerate
> 
> Peter Alfke wrote:
>>>> Modern high-performance sub-150 nm conventional CMOS technology has
>>>> leakage currents that make that goal unattainable (by a long shot).
>>>> Such a  requirement is not mainstream...
> Austin Lesea wrote:
>> Hal,
>> 
>> My wife has a talking pedometer.  Neat.  Keeps track of distance walked
>> or run, calories, steps, time of day.  Runs on hearing aid coin cells.
>> Batteries last about 6 months.  Whoops!  Bad design.  Should have
>> skipped talking feature -- too much power added to the budget.
>> 
>> I have a hand held radio.  OK, standby current is 200 mA.  Wow.  Way too
>> high.  I like radios that need to be recharged less often than once a
>> day.  While transmitting, power can be as much as 2 amperes, but how
>> much do you talk?  Better design would have been an ultra low power
>> receive mode, and leave all of the power for when you push to talk.
>> Again, bad design.
>> 
>> My kids have music players.  Neat.  Plays music for a really long time,
>> never worry about batteries.  Good design.
>> 
>> Then we have a remote control (actually four of them).  OK.  Probably
>> gets dropped too many times before the batteries go out.  Good design.
>> 
>> And, of course, everyone has a cell phone.  Great.  In town, batteries
>> last up to a week with occasional use.  If in a rural area, the
>> batteries drain much faster (need the RF power to get out).  Good design
>> and compromise.
>> 
>> Most folks have a digital camera.  Varies tremendously with when you
>> bought it.  If it was one of the old ones, it ate batteries.  Bad
>> design.  If it is one of the new ones, you almost do not care about
>> batteries.  Carrying around a spare battery is all you ever need, even
>> on a week-long vacation.  Good design.
>> 
>> All of the above devices use uPs, ASICs or ASSPs because a FPGA is not
>> cost effective at all in these tasks (volume too large).
>> Reprogrammability doesn't add any value to any of the products.  All of
>> these products use much older technology CMOS processes tweaked for low
>> power (high Vt's).
>> 
>> So, what market even exists that needs reprogramability (as in FPGAs),
>> AND also needs extremely low power?
>> 
>> It isn't that I do not believe that there are no low power applications
>> out there, it is that I need to be told which ones they are if I am to
>> help provide products for them.
>> 
>> Austin
> 
> Austin,
> You have already given some good examples, and also undelined an
> important point
> * First generation designs only have to work, second generation designs
> need to work properly *
> 
> Here is another example of that :
> 
> http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?objectid=B02B0D86-03E0-4485-9
> 45E4304605236AE
> 
> Seems low power matters to Cypress, and their customers. Some small
> detail of saving a plug pack ?
> 
> There was another company offering a bin-selected low power device, as
> it seems they also have customers for whom low power matters.
> Who was it now ..... ah, yes, here it is ...
> 
> http://www.xilinx.com/prs_rls/silicon_spart/0478s3lp.htm
> 
> and it says
> 
> "While defining 'low power' is challenging, preliminary iSuppli
> estimates indicate that as much as $3 billion of the approximately $20
> billion ASIC market could potentially shift to FPGAs if power
> consumption was reduced sufficiently."
> 
> Sounds plausible to me. Seems iSuppli reckons there is a $3B answer to
> your question above?
> 
> However it would seem there are two fundamentals against FPGAs in the
> chase for ASIC business.
> a) To compete the FPGA must be a couple of generations ahead
> b) They must compete on price/speed and power.
> Solving a) means they have moved the wrong way in leakage, so
> you can compete on price, and on speed, but fall rather behind
> on power efficency.
> Sure, 90nm ASICs are very expensive, but to compete with a 90nm FPGA,
> you do not need a 90nm ASIC. Costs at the 'back end' of 150-180nm could
> even drop, as flows mature, and the cost-recovery models follow the
> leading edge.
> 
> There are ways to balance this : eg multiple oxides are now appearing,
> plus a MASK variant can have many fewer transistors, and lower loading
> means you have spare speed to trade for power.
> 
> Also, a design can use another 'true low power' device and deploy
> complete power removal from the FPGA in sleep : then the comparison is
> [all in an ASIC] vs [PowerFrugaluC + FPGA]
> 
> This combination can make rational engineering sense, but might have
> problems with FPGA vendor's marketing depts, so do not expect to see
> it strongly promoted any time soon :)
> 
> -jg
> 
> 


Article: 71513
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: Andrew Rogers <andrew@_NO_SPAM_rogerstech.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:39:18 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
> ,,,
> : That still won't help when it comes to programming devices.  The Jungo 
> : parallel port driver doesn't work under Wine.  
> 
> I had some success with http://www.nahitech.com/jtag-en/ running with wine.
> Nahitafu will hopefully enable programming of more devices..
> 
> Bye

How about GtkJTAG from the same author? That runs on Linux, I have 
downloaded and compiled it. The downside is that in needs to run as root 
due to low level IO. But it should be possible to use the parport device 
driver. I am currently working on a modification to GtkJTAG (well, 
libjtag to be accurate) so that it uses the parport device driver.

As my Spartan 3 kit hasn't arrived yet I haven't been able to test GtkJTAG.

A seperate project aimed at Virtex:

http://www.ddtc.dimes.tudelft.nl/~rene/xilinx-jtag.c

As far as I can tell from XAPP188 this will also program Spartan2 
devices and I can only guess that it may work for Spartan3. I can't find 
an XAPP for spartan3 configuration using JTAG.

Regards
Andrew



Article: 71514
Subject: Area constraint on a sub-module
From: vramtilak@gmail.com (Ramtilak)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 16:11:10 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Can anyone suggest how to assign a area constraint on a sub-module
within my design? I dont care where the other sub-modules are as long
as this particular sub-module is in the required area. I know we can
assign a area constraint for the whole design. But, how to do it for a
sub-module?

Thanks in advance,
Ramtilak

Article: 71515
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 23:33:31 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <KfiLc.322$YM6.78@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
Simon  <news@gornall.net> wrote:
>Phil Tomson wrote:
>
>> 
>> As a Linux software developer who has done a bit of consulting I've seen 
>> several environments that were primarily Windows development houses.  The 
>> people in these groups might be very good developers, but they have no 
>> idea of what exists in the Linux world (or the open source world in 
>> general).  They tend to view it as if it were a 
>> dangerous foreign country that they want to keep their distance from.  So 
>> what happens is that Linux developers have a hard time communicating with 
>> Windows developers (and vice-versa).  Right now in Xilinx, I would bet 
>> that you've got a primarily Windows development culture.  Sure they've 
>> made steps toward Linux-land, but they're very cautious steps.  With time 
>> they'll discover that the Linux waters aren't shark-infested and they'll 
>> become more adventurous ;-)
>
>Mmm, not sure I agree with that. Without wishing to be an apologist for 
>Xilinx (because basically I wish they'd get their act together and 
>support Linux as a tier-1 platform!), I don't think it's a 'unix/linux 
>is bad' attitude. They do support Suns, after all.

Yes, but I suspect that their Solaris port is in the same shape as their 
Linux port.  Also, I suspect that you can't program parts using Impact on 
Solaris either.  My point was that they seem to be doing all of their 
initial development on Windows and then porting over to Linux (or 
Solaris) using MainWin and this, of course, shows.

>
>FWIW, I think it's a cost/reward thing. There's a large proportion of 
>people for whom the platform on which you code VHDL or verilog is 
>irrelevant. These people are more concerned with the end-product of 
>their design than the method of getting there, as all good designers 
>ought to be.

Perhaps, but these days most designers coming to FPGAs from the ASIC world 
are used to running Linux (or perhaps Solaris) so they're not used to 
dealing with all of the virus problems that come with running Windows and 
they would prefer to not bother with them.  Also, they may not want to 
have to take the time it takes to make their Windows box feel like 'home' 
(installing cygwin, scripting languages, etc.)

>
>The issue comes when you have to change OS to do XYZ for a while rather 
>than ABC. With the right environment, it's pretty hard to find any 
>situation where it's impossible to do something on Windows that it is 
>possible to do on Linux: all the 'really useful' things about Unix have 
>been ported to Windows to fill the gaps. What then is the reason to 
>still want a native Linux port ?

As stated above: the 'really useful' part of Linux/Unix that has not been 
ported to Windows yet is stability (and security).  Freedom from 
viruses/worms etc.  That's a big reason why people are not wanting to run 
Windows now and are looking at Linux.

>
>Well, for me (and it's a personal view), it's a matter of 'Linux is my 
>work environment', and 'although there are workarounds (mingw, Wine, 
>etc) none of them really cut the mustard. To whit, I've just had to go 
>and buy Windows XP (and PC world, the only "nearby" computer shop, only 
>had the 'professional' version!) So I'm already £270 ($400 or so for our 
>US friends) down. Now I have to reboot into XP to do any experimenting:
>

>
>Now, I have an idea that I think could be worth some money. What I'm 
>going to do over the next few months is evaluate whether it'll work, and 
>if so, purchase Foundation, because for me, the $2500 (=£1800 after 
>import, probably) will be worth it just for the time spent not switching 
>OS all the time, oh yeah, and it allows me to access the larger chips 
>:-) The critical thing though is that it works under Linux, and I'm 
>willing to put that much money into a bet that I can get a return (hey, 
>I'm only an amateur at this, for you professionals, it obviously makes 
>sense to get Foundation :-)
>

You're very committed to the hobby!  I can't afford such commitment at 
this time.  However, I think it' also important to note that there are 
companies out there running Linux and doing ASIC development on Linux and 
as they look more and more at FPGAs they want tools that will run well on 
Linux.

>I guess the take-home message of what I'm trying to say, is that 
>although for some (perhaps a lot of) people the platform we work with is 
>agnostic. However I'd be willing to guess that most of those people are 
>already Windows users, and therefore 'agnostic' because it doesn't 
>affect their existing choice. My PC (until recently) didn't have Windows 
>on it. For me, the platform is an issue, to the point that I'm willing 
>to spend serious cash to stop it from being such.
>
>Xilinx, please take note: I'm using your devices despite your policy, 
>not because I love it. I suspect that there are more like me, and I 
>further suspect the number is growing. Please at least think about 
>supporting the Linux platform more.
>

Amen.

Phil

Article: 71516
Subject: Re: FPGA in a Compact Flash format.
From: John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:34:09 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
John Carter wrote:
> Does anyone know of a supplier of FPGA's in compact flash format?
> 
> (Yes, I know of FPGA development boards that have slots for compact
> flash storage devices.)

Compaq labs (now HP I suppose) created a device called BackPaq, for the 
Itsy/iPaq research they were doing a few years ago.  It's an iPaq sleeve 
that has an FPGA in it, and connectors to other devices etc.  Very cool, 
but your chances of getting hold of one would be very slim.

stop press - blow me down with a feather, the first google hit for 
backpaq turns up a directory with full schematics for the thing!  Not 
quite off-the-shelf, but interesting and useful regardless.

http://lorien.handhelds.org/backpaq/

I'm off to have a closer look!

John


Article: 71517
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 20 Jul 2004 23:43:00 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <40fd9deb_1@127.0.0.1>,
Andrew Rogers  <andrew@_NO_SPAM_rogerstech.co.uk> wrote:
>Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>> Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
>> ,,,
>> : That still won't help when it comes to programming devices.  The Jungo 
>> : parallel port driver doesn't work under Wine.  
>> 
>> I had some success with http://www.nahitech.com/jtag-en/ running with wine.
>> Nahitafu will hopefully enable programming of more devices..
>> 
>> Bye
>
>How about GtkJTAG from the same author? That runs on Linux, I have 
>downloaded and compiled it. The downside is that in needs to run as root 
>due to low level IO. But it should be possible to use the parport device 
>driver. I am currently working on a modification to GtkJTAG (well, 
>libjtag to be accurate) so that it uses the parport device driver.

There is a libjtag?

>
>As my Spartan 3 kit hasn't arrived yet I haven't been able to test GtkJTAG.
>
>A seperate project aimed at Virtex:
>
>http://www.ddtc.dimes.tudelft.nl/~rene/xilinx-jtag.c
>
>As far as I can tell from XAPP188 this will also program Spartan2 
>devices and I can only guess that it may work for Spartan3. I can't find 
>an XAPP for spartan3 configuration using JTAG.
>

Thanks for the links.

Phil

Article: 71518
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: Simon <news@gornall.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:53:14 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Phil Tomson wrote:

> 
> As a Linux software developer who has done a bit of consulting I've seen 
> several environments that were primarily Windows development houses.  The 
> people in these groups might be very good developers, but they have no 
> idea of what exists in the Linux world (or the open source world in 
> general).  They tend to view it as if it were a 
> dangerous foreign country that they want to keep their distance from.  So 
> what happens is that Linux developers have a hard time communicating with 
> Windows developers (and vice-versa).  Right now in Xilinx, I would bet 
> that you've got a primarily Windows development culture.  Sure they've 
> made steps toward Linux-land, but they're very cautious steps.  With time 
> they'll discover that the Linux waters aren't shark-infested and they'll 
> become more adventurous ;-)

Mmm, not sure I agree with that. Without wishing to be an apologist for 
Xilinx (because basically I wish they'd get their act together and 
support Linux as a tier-1 platform!), I don't think it's a 'unix/linux 
is bad' attitude. They do support Suns, after all.

FWIW, I think it's a cost/reward thing. There's a large proportion of 
people for whom the platform on which you code VHDL or verilog is 
irrelevant. These people are more concerned with the end-product of 
their design than the method of getting there, as all good designers 
ought to be.

The issue comes when you have to change OS to do XYZ for a while rather 
than ABC. With the right environment, it's pretty hard to find any 
situation where it's impossible to do something on Windows that it is 
possible to do on Linux: all the 'really useful' things about Unix have 
been ported to Windows to fill the gaps. What then is the reason to 
still want a native Linux port ?

Well, for me (and it's a personal view), it's a matter of 'Linux is my 
work environment', and 'although there are workarounds (mingw, Wine, 
etc) none of them really cut the mustard. To whit, I've just had to go 
and buy Windows XP (and PC world, the only "nearby" computer shop, only 
had the 'professional' version!) So I'm already £270 ($400 or so for our 
US friends) down. Now I have to reboot into XP to do any experimenting:

   o Hey! what if I use a blockram for the register file, and the high 
bit on the 6-bit register part of the opcode to select the 'switchable' 
32 bank of registers. I can have 16 banks, 64 registers in total with 
the lower 32 at all times and 15x32 switchable). Use as thread-local or 
subroutine accelerators. Worth a try!

  o Hey! What if I use the parity entries of the blockram to implement a 
'this i-or-d-cache value is valid' flag. The CPU can increment it's 
current tag-is-valid 'count' on cache-reset, and only actually clear the 
cache (and hence introduce delay) when 'count' cycles around to 0. 
That's a 16x win :-)

  o Hey! You get the idea. If it takes 15 mins to shut down all the 
programs I'm usually and normally running under Linux (since that's my 
work environment), and reboot into XP and try something, I'm far less 
likely to do it.

Now, I have an idea that I think could be worth some money. What I'm 
going to do over the next few months is evaluate whether it'll work, and 
if so, purchase Foundation, because for me, the $2500 (=£1800 after 
import, probably) will be worth it just for the time spent not switching 
OS all the time, oh yeah, and it allows me to access the larger chips 
:-) The critical thing though is that it works under Linux, and I'm 
willing to put that much money into a bet that I can get a return (hey, 
I'm only an amateur at this, for you professionals, it obviously makes 
sense to get Foundation :-)

I guess the take-home message of what I'm trying to say, is that 
although for some (perhaps a lot of) people the platform we work with is 
agnostic. However I'd be willing to guess that most of those people are 
already Windows users, and therefore 'agnostic' because it doesn't 
affect their existing choice. My PC (until recently) didn't have Windows 
on it. For me, the platform is an issue, to the point that I'm willing 
to spend serious cash to stop it from being such.

Xilinx, please take note: I'm using your devices despite your policy, 
not because I love it. I suspect that there are more like me, and I 
further suspect the number is growing. Please at least think about 
supporting the Linux platform more.

[grin: no, not really a Xilinx apologist :-)]

Simon





Article: 71519
Subject: Re: Xilinx 6.2i ISE WebPACK running under wine?
From: Duane Clark <junkmail@junkmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:18:07 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Phil Tomson wrote:
> In article <KfiLc.322$YM6.78@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
> Simon  <news@gornall.net> wrote:
>>
>>Mmm, not sure I agree with that. Without wishing to be an apologist for 
>>Xilinx (because basically I wish they'd get their act together and 
>>support Linux as a tier-1 platform!), I don't think it's a 'unix/linux 
>>is bad' attitude. They do support Suns, after all.
> 
> 
> Yes, but I suspect that their Solaris port is in the same shape as their 
> Linux port.  Also, I suspect that you can't program parts using Impact on 
> Solaris either.  My point was that they seem to be doing all of their 
> initial development on Windows and then porting over to Linux (or 
> Solaris) using MainWin and this, of course, shows.
> 

The "conventional wisdom" for some time has been that the command line 
tools, which are the things that do the actual work, were written on 
Unix platforms. After all, I seem to remember a time (my memory could be 
faulty here) when the tools were only available on Unix. In those days 
(not really so long ago), the GUIs were also written in X (probably 
Motif, which is what most vendors were using at the time).

It looks to me like the command line tools are still either developed on 
Unix, or on Windows/Unix pretty much simultaneously. Only the gui has 
become a Windows thingy. I mainly think this because it is clear that 
the command line tool interface really has not changed much since "the 
old days", and they remain separate from the gui even now. The gui 
remains just a button clicking front end to those tools. I have not used 
Solaris in awhile, so I have no idea how that GUI performs these days.

-- 
My real email is akamail.com@dclark (or something like that).

Article: 71520
Subject: Altera FPGA's
From: "Ed" <Ed@nospam.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:24:32 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Does anyone have any experience in programming Altera FPGA's?  In particular
a FLEX8000.  What development environment do you use and how much does it
cost?  Do any free development environments exist for it (VHDL or Verilog)?
Also, is the programming hardware expensive?

Thanks for any info,



Article: 71521
Subject: Re: Area constraint on a sub-module
From: Jim Wu <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.COM>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:16:59 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Ramtilak wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Can anyone suggest how to assign a area constraint on a sub-module
> within my design? I dont care where the other sub-modules are as long
> as this particular sub-module is in the required area. I know we can
> assign a area constraint for the whole design. But, how to do it for a
> sub-module?

For Xilinx FPGA and tools, add something like below to the ucf file:

INST “hierarchy/path/to/submodule” AREA_GROUP = "your_area_group_name";
AREA_GROUP “your_area_group_name” RANGE = range;

HTH,
Jim (jimwu88NOOOSPAM@yahoo.com remve NOOOSPAM)
http://www.geocities.com/jimwu88/chips

Article: 71522
Subject: Re: 32-channel PC-based logic analyzers
From: "Ed" <Ed@nospam.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:59:19 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"ernie" <ernielin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7fe9825.0407191638.58b29e0c@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone recommend any good (and cheap) 32-channel analyzers?  By
> cheap I mean less than or approximately $1000.  It would be nice if
> the software supported complex triggering and the analyzer had
> decently fast sampling rates.  Sample depth is not really a critical
> issue but more is obviously better.
>
> Thank you!

You might be better off buying a second hand logic analyzer (non PC based)
from eBay.  Any PC based logic analyzer is going to be limited, especially
with 32 channels.  A lot of logic analyzers have RS232 or Network connectors
so you can transfer the data to a PC.



Article: 71523
Subject: Re: Area constraint on a sub-module
From: "Cody" <cody1980@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:13:22 +0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
remember to check the KEEP_HIERARCHY in the XST Options, and put
AREA_GROUP “your_area_group_name” PLACE =  CLOSED;
AREA_GROUP “your_area_group_name” GROUP =  CLOSED;

Kelvin





"Jim Wu" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:fujLc.30825$F8.15097@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Ramtilak wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can anyone suggest how to assign a area constraint on a sub-module
> > within my design? I dont care where the other sub-modules are as long
> > as this particular sub-module is in the required area. I know we can
> > assign a area constraint for the whole design. But, how to do it for a
> > sub-module?
>
> For Xilinx FPGA and tools, add something like below to the ucf file:
>
> INST “hierarchy/path/to/submodule” AREA_GROUP = "your_area_group_name";
> AREA_GROUP “your_area_group_name” RANGE = range;
>
> HTH,
> Jim (jimwu88NOOOSPAM@yahoo.com remve NOOOSPAM)
> http://www.geocities.com/jimwu88/chips



Article: 71524
Subject: Re: Low Power Applications - enumerate
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:23:04 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Austin Lesea wrote:
(snip of many low power applications)

> All of the above devices use uPs, ASICs or ASSPs because a FPGA is not 
> cost effective at all in these tasks (volume too large). 
> Reprogrammability doesn't add any value to any of the products.  All of 
> these products use much older technology CMOS processes tweaked for low 
> power (high Vt's).

> So, what market even exists that needs reprogramability (as in FPGAs), 
> AND also needs extremely low power?

> It isn't that I do not believe that there are no low power applications 
> out there, it is that I need to be told which ones they are if I am to 
> help provide products for them.

If the logic isn't there, the applications won't be developed.

I remember being surprised some years ago when EPROMs started
to be used in production devices.  With the right price and
convenience, they win out over masked ROMs.  FPGA's have a
similar advantage when the price and convenience are right.

They will be slower and smaller than the state of the art
devices, but the applications will come.

-- glen




Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search