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 86025

Article: 86025
Subject: 5 Volt tolerance - Altera
From: Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:07:52 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am using a MAX II part in a new design with 3.3V supplies.

I understand why the inputs might not be 5 volt tolerant.

Altera states that the outputs are not 5 volt tolerant when driving CMOS 
but are OK for TTL. Since TTL is essentially dead, I'm not sure this is of 
any real benefit, however this is not my main concern.

I don't see why there would be any problem driving a CMOS input provided 
that the CMOS input will accept 3.3V signals as high. There certainly isn't 
going to be any significant current flow into the CMOS gate. 

I think this situation is similiar for a number of FPGAs as well.

Could someone enlighten me as to the reasons why, instead of Altera's 
"because we said so" 


-- 
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com

Article: 86026
Subject: System Generator
From: "Chintan Trehan" <utrehcx@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:12:47 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi, I was wondering how can LVPECL/LVDS buffers be implemented in system generator. I am getting illegal buffer when I tried that. Thanks in advance, -Chintan

Article: 86027
Subject: Re: Design tools comparison between Xilinx, Altera and Lattice for FPGA designs
From: Ben Twijnstra <btwijnstra@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:16:26 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Luc,

> I found:
> Lattice starter has included Leonardo/Precision RTL and Synplify, no
> ModelSim
> Xilinx ISE WebPack : XST, no Leonardo/Precision, no Synplify, no
> ModelSim
> Altera QuartusII Web Edition: support for Synplify, Precision and
> Modelsim?
> 
> I know it's a simple comparison, but I would like to be clear on this.

You should be the expert on the Lattice kit, so I won't comment on that.

Quartus Web Edition includes QIS - which is "Quartus Integrated Synthesis",
which by now is a pretty decent VHDL/Verilog synthesis tool - and that's
coming from someone who used to do tech support for Leonardo.

Also, as you stated, Quartus Web Edition indeed has support for, but does
not _include_ an RTL simulator. However, it does include a built-in
gate-level (functional or timing) simulator, which can also do parts of the
design's power analysis.

I also understand that there's a hugely crippled, but free version of
Modelsim that you can get from Xilinx (this must cost them a fortune), but
which, as long as you only code RTL, you can also use for Lattice, Altera,
Actel and whichever other vendor, as long as you initially mentally intend
to target a Xilinx ;-) However, I haven't read the EULA to the letter.

Best regards,


Ben


Article: 86028
Subject: Re: How to reset a PLB/OPB Peripheral
From: Paul Hartke <phartke@Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:25:02 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I'm using EDK 7.1.1 and there is an option in IP Import Wizard for "S/W
Reset and Module Information Register" that includes device driver
support as well.

Paul  

Joey wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I would like to know how we can reset an OPB/PLB Peripheral during runtime.
> 
> Thank you
> Joey

Article: 86029
Subject: Re: Lattice LFEC
From: Jedi <me@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:34:32 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jedi wrote:
> Luc wrote:
> 
>> Rick,
>>
>> I can't speak for LatticeEC in specific, but I know that some
>> designers tend to write their VHDL very specific for one family. Than
>> it will be hard to get the same performance from another device.
>>
>> I.e. does the compiled design make use of the IO cell? Switching this
>> option of can save quite some time (Clock to Out).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Luc
> 
> 
> Actually I test with an out-of-the-box t80 design...
> 
> I know that Altera Quartus does some good job in
> using RAM blocks instead of registers automatically
> since version 4.1 or 4.2 8and old 2.2 I think) whereas
> the backend tools in ispLever and Actel Libero don't.
> 

Hmm..actually t80 performance degraded continiously
in Altera Quartus since version 4.1 with same
standard settings (and no automatic RAM block placing).
Same is true for other similar CPU cores as well...

rick

Article: 86030
Subject: Re: Design tools comparison between Xilinx, Altera and Lattice for FPGA designs
From: rkruger@altera.com
Date: 20 Jun 2005 15:41:35 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


amko wrote:
> ISE Webpack is definitly better choice than Altera Web Edition. Web
> Edition does not generate image files (pof. and sof.). In additional
> ISE Webpcack has minimal limitations and only big disadvantage is core
> generator which is not included in the  Webpack. It means you can not
> use Xilinx FIFO, DP RAM,... but anywhere you have PLL (DCM)...
> Synthisiser XST is also very good and in most case you dont need it
> Leonardo or Synplify...
> Free Simulator tool (Xilinx Modelsim ) is also avaiable with  ISE
> Webpack....
>
> In the other words you can do it much more with  ISE Webpack...
>
> Regards ,
>
> Amir

As Jesse mentioned, Altera's Quartus II Web Edition does in fact
generate .pof and .sof programming image files and includes everythiong
need to design for Altera's latest CPLD and low-cost FPGA device
families. Quartus II Web Edition includes the Quartus II integrated
synthesis feature and will work with all of the leading third-party
synthesis tools on the market.

Quartus II Web Edition in fact includes most of the same features
included in the subscription version minus some device support for the
largest high-density FPGA devices and HardCopy Structured ASICs. A
comparison between Quartus II Web Edition and Quartus II subscription
edition software can be viewed on the Altera web site at
http://www.altera.com/products/software/products/quartus2web/features/sof-quarweb_features.html.


Quartus II Web Edition also supports Altera's OpenCore Plus evaluation
IP so you can configure and evaluate IP in hardware before purchasing
an IP license. OpenCore Plus IP can be downloaded from the Altera IP
MegaStore at http://www.altera.com/products/ip/ipm-index.html.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Regards,
Rob Kruger
rkruger-at-altera.com


Article: 86031
Subject: Re: 5 Volt tolerance - Altera
From: "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: 20 Jun 2005 15:42:09 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
This is the case of very cautious worst-case specifications.

If the CMOS output is truly complementary (most of them are nowadays),
and there is no pulldown load, Voh will in reality be exactly = Vcc
(although the specification will probably mention a lower value.)
So Voh min = 3.0 V or slightly higher.

A True CMOS input has an input threshold around 40 to 60% of Vcc ( or
30 to 70%), and Vcc might be as high as 5.5 V So the input threshold
might be well above 3 V.
Now you see that this interface does not work "worst case"

If the CMOS input is called TTL (just an indication of input threshold,
no other realtion to the bipolar TTL technology), then the input
threshold is artificially made much lower, around 1.5 V, and the
interface works perfectly.
Clear?
Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications


Article: 86032
Subject: Re: 5 Volt tolerance - Altera
From: "Eric Crabill" <eric.crabill@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:50:49 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Hi,

I think the important distinction to make is the distinction between TTL
signaling levels and TTL parts.  I see many people (including myself) who
use "TTL" and "seventy four hundred series devices" interchangably.

> I don't see why there would be any problem driving a CMOS input provided
> that the CMOS input will accept 3.3V signals as high. There certainly
isn't
> going to be any significant current flow into the CMOS gate.

What you cite is exactly the issue.  If a 5.0v CMOS device has a Vih,min
that is 90% of the 5.0v supply rail, your programmable logic device output
isn't going to satisfy the requirement -- because it will only be able to
pull up to 3.3v.

Counterpoint, consider a 5.0v TTL device, where the Vih,min might be around
2.4 volts.  Your programmable logic device will be able to pull up higher
than what is required, so it will work properly.

At the end of the day, the best advice I can offer you is to read the
datasheets of both parts and carefully consider the signaling levels and
thresholds, and don't forget to design for some noise margin.

Eric



Article: 86033
Subject: Re: ISE 7.1 Service Pack 2 - Ready yet?
From: Jeremy Stringer <jeremy@_NO_MORE_SPAM_endace.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:33:36 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Marc Randolph wrote:
> Jeremy Stringer wrote:
> 
>>I'm starting a new project at the moment, and I'm looking at upgrading
>>to ISE 7.1, since I prefer not to change synth/par tool versions
>>mid-project.  I noted that a number of people complained about 7.1 when
>>it first came out, but also noted that Service Pack 2 is out now.  Can
>>anybody comment on the state of ISE 7.1 at the moment?
> 
> 
> Howdy Jeremy,
> 
> I don't use Linux, but Windoze based 7.1i has stablized enough that
> chances are slim you'd run into any problems with it - and even if you
> do, they are likely fixed in SP3 (due out in the next week or so).

Thanks Marc,

Looks like I'll upgrade after all :)

Jeremy

Article: 86034
Subject: Re: 5 Volt tolerance - Altera
From: Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:51:40 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in news:1119307329.734267.74850
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> This is the case of very cautious worst-case specifications.
> 
> If the CMOS output is truly complementary (most of them are nowadays),
> and there is no pulldown load, Voh will in reality be exactly = Vcc
> (although the specification will probably mention a lower value.)
> So Voh min = 3.0 V or slightly higher.
> 
> A True CMOS input has an input threshold around 40 to 60% of Vcc ( or
> 30 to 70%), and Vcc might be as high as 5.5 V So the input threshold
> might be well above 3 V.
> Now you see that this interface does not work "worst case"
> 
> If the CMOS input is called TTL (just an indication of input threshold,
> no other realtion to the bipolar TTL technology), then the input
> threshold is artificially made much lower, around 1.5 V, and the
> interface works perfectly.
> Clear?
> Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications
> 

Hi,

I think the important distinction to make is the distinction between TTL
signaling levels and TTL parts.  I see many people (including myself) who
use "TTL" and "seventy four hundred series devices" interchangably.

> I don't see why there would be any problem driving a CMOS input 
provided
> that the CMOS input will accept 3.3V signals as high. There certainly
isn't
> going to be any significant current flow into the CMOS gate.

What you cite is exactly the issue.  If a 5.0v CMOS device has a Vih,min
that is 90% of the 5.0v supply rail, your programmable logic device 
output
isn't going to satisfy the requirement -- because it will only be able to
pull up to 3.3v.

Counterpoint, consider a 5.0v TTL device, where the Vih,min might be 
around
2.4 volts.  Your programmable logic device will be able to pull up higher
than what is required, so it will work properly.

At the end of the day, the best advice I can offer you is to read the
datasheets of both parts and carefully consider the signaling levels and
thresholds, and don't forget to design for some noise margin.

Eric



Thanks Peter & Eric,

This explanation makes perfect sense to me now. I understand that my CMOS 
inputs need to interpret a nominal 3.3 V level reliably as a logic high 
signal level. This is usually the case with the devices I will be 
interfacing with.  

I think Altera could have clearly stated this in their manuals or web 
site as well (perhaps Xilinx does).

-- 
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com

Article: 86035
Subject: Re: FPGAs: Where will they go?
From: "lovesinghal" <lovesinghal@gmail.com>
Date: 20 Jun 2005 18:21:59 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi All,
Thanks for your responses.
Marc and Jim, your responses were very interesting. I learned a lot
going through those searches.
Rene, I did not say that I will base my PhD topic on this discussion.
My advisor is helping me decide a topic in a major way. Through this
side discussion, I want to know the industry opinion and opinions of
people who use FPGAs in their designs.

Regards,
-Love


Article: 86036
Subject: Real Example of Xilinx IPCore Instantiation
From: "angilberto" <angilberto@yahoo.com>
Date: 20 Jun 2005 19:47:12 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all,
I'm having a hell of a time trying to use a Xilinx IPCore (DDS).

I can generate the CORE, it seems I can instantiate it (not sure --
verilog/fpga newbie).

Everything seems to be ok, but I get no output -- like the output pins
are not connected to module's sin/cos output...

Can anyone provide a sample (small one) code showing how to really
instantiate a CORE into a Verilog projet ?

Thank you,

Angilberto.


Article: 86037
Subject: Post Translate Timing
From: yaseenzaidi@NETZERO.com
Date: 20 Jun 2005 21:13:56 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Greetings,

I have a situation where Post Translate timing is significantly
different from behavioral/RTL simulation. I am not not speaking of
simple delays, the outputs/data are different than what they should be.


What is interesting is that the design works on the FPGA board.
I implemented a serial port in loopback mode in Xilinx, if I type a
character on Hyperterm I get the same returned from the FPGA.

I have set timing constraints but to no effect.

YZ


Article: 86038
Subject: Re: : Parts Back on Xilinx Online Store (www.xilinx.com/store)
From: rickystickyrick@hotmail.com
Date: 20 Jun 2005 21:39:54 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Steve,

Thanks for the update.  This is good news!

What about the XC3S1000s?  I thought I saw those
on the website yesterday but now they are gone.

Were the bigger parts on the webstore before the
availability problems?

Ricky (big XC3S1000 user).


Article: 86039
Subject: Re: Xilinx MacFir5.0 - Block Ram requirenments
From: Jim George <send_no_spam_to_jimgeorge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:50:28 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Nemesis wrote:
> Hi all,
> I implemented a fir filter using the MacFir5.0 core from Xilinx.
> The filter 2 coefficient sets of 33 taps, with 14 bit
> coefficients and data.
> 
> I was looking at the resouces utilization and I found a strange data,
> the filter requires 33 multipliers and 33 block ram.
> 
> I can't understand why it requires so much block rams! Each block ram
> should store 1k x 18bits!
> If I set the core to use the distributed ram for coefficients or
> for data this number doesn't change, of course it goes to zero when
> I set the core to use the distributed ram for both coefficients and
> data.
> 
> I read on the User Guide that multipliers and block ram shares routing
> resources,
> is that the cause of the great number of bram used?
> 

AFAIK, the core will pack together a MULT18x18 and a BRAM with a 
connection between the two to maximize speed. The coefficients end up 
getting replicated in each BRAM. If you want to reduce the area, check 
to see if your input data rate is low compared to the clock rate. If so, 
you can tell the core gen about this and it will re-use the same 
multiplier for multiple taps. If you can't do this, consider using DA 
filters.

-Jim

Article: 86040
Subject: FPGA Filter Design
From: "Johnson Liuis" <gpsabove@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:32:37 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Does anybody have filter design experience with FPGA? I would like to know a 
general picture with recent FPGA technologies like XtremeDSP and others. I 
am also curious about the limitation of FPGA design on filter design, like 
the maximum center frequency and bandwidth of the filters that can be 
implemented with FPGA. Could anybody let me know if I am able to simulate a 
SAW (surface acoustic wave ) filter with 185MHz center frequency and 4MHz 
double-side bandwidth, and Max. 20dB insertion loss inside of a FPGA?

Any information will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Johnson 



Article: 86041
Subject: Re: Design tools comparison between Xilinx, Altera and Lattice for
From: David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:09:09 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
amko wrote:
> ISE Webpack is definitly better choice than Altera Web Edition. Web
> Edition does not generate image files (pof. and sof.). In additional
> ISE Webpcack has minimal limitations and only big disadvantage is core
> generator which is not included in the  Webpack. It means you can not
> use Xilinx FIFO, DP RAM,... but anywhere you have PLL (DCM)...
> Synthisiser XST is also very good and in most case you dont need it
> Leonardo or Synplify...
> Free Simulator tool (Xilinx Modelsim ) is also avaiable with  ISE
> Webpack....
> 
> In the other words you can do it much more with  ISE Webpack...
> 
> Regards ,
> 
> Amir
> 

Perhaps you've been using a version of Quartus Web Edition from long 
before I started looking at FPGAs...

QII web edition can do pretty much everything the "full" edition can do 
except really big designs - if you are looking for medium or large 
Stratix I/II chips, logic region locking, RTL viewing, and a few other 
big design features, you'll need the full pack.  Otherwise, the web 
edition will do it all.  I also get the impression that steadily more 
features get moved from the "full" edition down to the web edition - 
it's not long ago that physical synthesis for register retiming was full 
edition only.

About the only thing missing from the web edition is a Linux version - I 
expect that will come soon, though, now that there is a free Linux 
version of the Xilinx tools...




Article: 86042
Subject: Re: Xilinx MacFir5.0 - Block Ram requirenments
From: "Nemesis" <nemesis2001@gmx.it>
Date: 20 Jun 2005 23:31:57 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jim George wrote:

[MAC_FIR and BRAM]
> AFAIK, the core will pack together a MULT18x18 and a BRAM with a
> connection between the two to maximize speed. The coefficients end up
> getting replicated in each BRAM.

Ah! OK, so this is the cause.

> If you want to reduce the area, check
> to see if your input data rate is low compared to the clock rate. If so,
> you can tell the core gen about this and it will re-use the same
> multiplier for multiple taps.

This is not my situatuon. I have a data rate of 64MHz and I need to
decimateit to 32MHz, when I syntesize the core with
sample_rate=clock=64MHz, I get a maximum clock frequency of 180MHz
(V2pro50-6), but if I synthesize the core with sample_rate=64MHz and
clock=128MHz then XST reports the maximum clock to be 126MHz.

> If you can't do this, consider using DA filters.

I think I'll try them, now I just checked "use distributed ram" for
both coefficients and data, and spending some extra slices I got 0 BRAM
used. But I have one last question, are these BRAM really free to use?


Article: 86043
Subject: Re: BIG PROBLEM : Configuration Boot Problem Stratix
From: patrick.melet@dmradiocom.fr (Patrick)
Date: 21 Jun 2005 00:49:22 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<3hoeseFi5l05U1@individual.net>...
> "Patrick" <patrick.melet@dmradiocom.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:54b3002.0506200605.3dadb7cc@posting.google.com...
> 
> > Perhaps it's be better if the RESET is after the 3.3V power-on ?
> 
> Use a voltage monitor that releases the reset after ALL voltages are valid.
> 
> Regards
> Falk


We add a RC circuit beetween the reset from the Stratix circuit to the
MAX circuit. So the MAX is resetted after the 3.3V is ON and sometimes
the program from the flash don't boot !!!
This is a big problem for our system which uilizes 3 boards...
My Support from Altera don't explain me what's happen...

So is there anybody who have this problem with these EP1S25 cards and
is there a solution ?

Article: 86044
Subject: Re: FPGAs: Where will they go?
From: Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:35:20 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
lovesinghal wrote:

> Rene, I did not say that I will base my PhD topic on this discussion.
> My advisor is helping me decide a topic in a major way. Through this
> side discussion, I want to know the industry opinion and opinions of
> people who use FPGAs in their designs.

Ok, you couldn't have known. The FPGAs are great to work
with, enable a lot of developments and save a lot of work.
Whether they further evolve or not doesn't change much
as what is here already is plenty.
The development is a bit too fast though.
When you do a new design with brand new chips, then they
tend to be outdated the next time you assemble a batch.

Rene
-- 
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Article: 86045
Subject: Re: Spartan 3 availability
From: Mike Harrison <mike@whitewing.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:19:39 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 20 Jun 2005 13:37:10 -0700, "xilinx_user" <barrinst@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Yes. I think we owe a big round of thanks to Peter Alfke and his crew
>for making this happen.
>
>Mike Harrison wrote:
>> Further to recent discussiuons here, I Just noticed That S3s have appeared in the Xilinx web store.
>> A few are even shown as in stock....

Hmmm now everything is shown in stock but the parts bigger then 400 have disappeared - I'm sure they
were there at the weekend when I first noticed.....


Article: 86046
Subject: Re: 5 Volt tolerance - Altera
From: Mike Harrison <mike@whitewing.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:21:27 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:07:52 GMT, Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote:

>I am using a MAX II part in a new design with 3.3V supplies.
>
>I understand why the inputs might not be 5 volt tolerant.
>
>Altera states that the outputs are not 5 volt tolerant when driving CMOS 
>but are OK for TTL. Since TTL is essentially dead, I'm not sure this is of 
>any real benefit, however this is not my main concern.

TTL is dead but HC and AC logic is available with TTL input levels (HCT/ACT), which you will need to
use if driving from 3.3v logic.


Article: 86047
Subject: Altera SCFIFO
From: ALuPin@web.de
Date: 21 Jun 2005 03:12:43 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I have generated two SCFIFOs with Altera Quartus (4.2 SP1)
MegaWizardManager.

One optimized for best speed (that is Quartus is said to
add output registers)

and one for smallest area (no output registers).

After compiling the two FIFOs I have a look at their
structure in the RTLViewer.

And yet I cannot see any output registers for the "best speed"
optimized one. I can go down the hierachy until I see the
RAM block but there are no additional flipflops between the
RAM block and the outputs of the SCFIFO.

Why ?

Rgds
Andr=E9


Article: 86048
Subject: Re: Altera SCFIFO
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 05:03:37 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
ALuPin@web.de wrote:

> And yet I cannot see any output registers for the "best speed"
> optimized one. I can go down the hierachy until I see the
> RAM block but there are no additional flipflops between the
> RAM block and the outputs of the SCFIFO.

Speed/Area constraints are just hints.
If you know what you want, skip the wizard
and write your own code.

       -- Mike Treseler

Article: 86049
Subject: Re: Post Translate Timing
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 05:12:09 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
yaseenzaidi@NETZERO.com wrote:

> I have a situation where Post Translate timing is significantly
> different from behavioral/RTL simulation. I am not not speaking of
> simple delays, the outputs/data are different than what they should be.

Gate level sims are more complex than functional.
I expect your error is here.
However, if static timing is ok and the thing works
I wouldn't bother performing or debuging a gate sim.

       -- Mike Treseler



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