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 88775

Article: 88775
Subject: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: "Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:55:42 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private mails 
from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me it 
looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get 
support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain him 
that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail 
today).

Thomas 



Article: 88776
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:05:38 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4311c25c$0$27166$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
> I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private mails
> from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me it

Me too ;-)

> looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get
> support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain him
> that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail
> today).

The road to wisdom is long and full of stones.

Regards
Falk



Article: 88777
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: Jeff Cunningham <jcc@sover.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:19:15 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>>I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private mails
>>from Aman Mediratta

yep, me too.

Article: 88778
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: "Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:20:32 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thanks, I'll train my spam-filter ;-)

Thomas

www.entner-electronics.com

"Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:3ne289F13ae5U1@individual.net...
>
> "Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4311c25c$0$27166$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
>> I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private 
>> mails
>> from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me 
>> it
>
> Me too ;-)
>
>> looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get
>> support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain 
>> him
>> that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail
>> today).
>
> The road to wisdom is long and full of stones.
>
> Regards
> Falk
>
> 



Article: 88779
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:27:50 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thomas,

I was wondering about that.

I call it the "student surprise" issue.

The student suddenly realizes they have to do work, and then go about 
trying to find out how to get it done.

This is my standard reply:

"Aman,

Specifically, you need to join the university support forum:

http://www.xilinx.com/univ/profsupport.htm

This page is for university and school students, and their questions.

It is a separate and complete support system.

http://toolbox.xilinx.com/cgi-bin/forum

is a list of useful forums we sponsor, and newsgroups that might be 
helpful.  Although it mentions comp.arch.fpga, I suspect you will get 
better help from one of the targeted forums (embedded processors looks 
appropriate).

The questions you are asking are all typical of systems archectecture. 
To architect a system, one has to balance all of the advatages and 
disadvantages of each architecture, and strike the balance that 
satisfies the requirements.

In fact, you should devote time, energy, and document the process of 
architecting the system for your advisors in your report or thesis.  It 
is a valuable part of demonstrating that you can actually engineer 
something in the future.
These things may be answered in part for you, but you will have to do 
the real work of assembling the alternatives (on paper) and evaluating 
the pros and cons, and then making the choices, and then doing the work.

You have some idea what is involved (ie DLL's), but you have not mapped 
out all the potential solutions.  The forums may provide you with others 
who have DLLs, or have done what you want to do already.

In very general terms, if the solution can be directly mapped to the 
logic of the FPGA, that is always the simplest and most direct solution.

The 405PPC is useful when you don't have room for the logic (some runs 
slow, and can be mapped to the processor - in effect the reverse of C to 
gates, gates back to C).  The "ultracontroller" is an IP core we provide 
which is very good for this, as you need no operating system, or bus 
structure, or in fact, anything at all to just run some C code and 
provide solutions for your problems.

http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/appnotes/xapp672.pdf

Good luck,

Austin"

You have my permission to notify any student that there is a whol eother 
world of support out there, designed just for them, and then mark them 
as spam, and continue with your own work.

The nect generationn of Xilinx FPGA users is important to us for the 
future, but folks on this newsgroup are important to us RIGHT NOW for 
the designs they are doing.

Thanks for letting us all know we have a more creative than usual 
student out there...

Austin

Thomas Entner wrote:

> I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private mails 
> from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me it 
> looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get 
> support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain him 
> that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail 
> today).
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 

Article: 88780
Subject: CPLD Jitter
From: "Andrew Holme" <andrew@nospam.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:44:03 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The dividers and the phase detector of my experimental frequency synthesizer
are implemented in a 15ns Altera MAX7000S CPLD.  I've tried different
multiplication factors (kN) to see how the close-in phase noise varies.  At
a 1 KHz offset, I get:

-82 dBc/Hz for N=198 (VCO=19.8 MHz, comparison freq = 100 KHz)
-95 dBc/Hz for N=39 (VCO=19.5 MHz, comparison freq = 500 KHz)

Calculating the equivalent phase noise at the PFD:

-82-20*log10(198) = -128 dBc/Hz
-95-20*log10(39) = -127 dBc/Hz

Given the 5:1 ratio of comparison frequencies, at a guess, I'd expect these
to differ by 13 dB if the noise was mainly due to a fixed amount of time
jitter at the PFD.

I'm using a 10 MHz canned crystal oscillator, which I'm dividing down
(inside the CPLD) to obtain the reference frequencies.  I've read these are
good for at least -130 dBc/Hz (before dividing down) so I'm a bit
dissappointed with my noise levels.  Maybe it got a bit too hot when I
soldered it to the ground plane!  I must try another....

Googling for "altera cpld jitter" doesn't turn-up much, and they don't
mention jitter in the datasheet.  Does anyone know what sort of performance
can be expected from a CPLD in this regard?  I don't know if the CPLD, or my
circuit lash-up is the root cause.

A full write-up of the project can be found at
http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Frac2/Main.htm  It has a fractional-N
capability, but noise-levels are the same in integer-N mode with the
external RAM disabled.

Thanks,
Andrew.



Article: 88781
Subject: Re: Best FPGA for floating point performance
From: "JJ" <johnjakson@yahoo.com>
Date: 28 Aug 2005 08:54:43 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

robin.bruce@gmail.com wrote:
> Regarding  x86 vs FPGA for double-precision floating-point arithmetic:
>
> Good points about the relative performances, but you need to look at
> more than the peak FLOPs/s to do a comparison between the
> architectures. Non-trivial double precision algorithms running on
> microprocessors can use anything between 5 and 90 % of their peak
> FLOPs/s. Floating-point algorithms are typically memory bound for
> microprocessors. FPGAs on the other hand are typically bound by peak
> FLOPs/s. FPGAs are able to significantly outperform modern
> microprocessors on memory bandwidth sensitive double precision
> operations. Microprocessors still beat FPGAs for non-memory bound
> operations because they have higher peak FLOPs/s, but this situation
> won't last. Peak FLOPs/s for FPGAs are set to exceed those of uP's in
> the not too distant future. To chase the increases in peak FLOPs/s on
> microprocessors you need ever more complex memory hierarchies, while in
> FPGAs it looks like it will be some time before such techniques will be
> needed to get the most out of the floating-point units.



Some thoughts

I think that both FPGAs and Multi cpus could go through some serious
evolution and end up much closer to the same spot.

FPGAs will obviously get some FPU capability sooner or later and be
able to cross over current single threaded cpus but maybe one day high
end cpus will get some FPGA capability too (inside not outside, but at
1/10th the clock or so).

Single cpus will give way to Multis, ever so slowly programmers are
going to learn to deal with concurrency, many will need a big wallop to
the head before they get a real clue. We have already been there
(transputers, occam ->HandelC there is a large body of knowledge on how
to do parallel SW well but most choose to ignore it).

Now if cpu guys really get moving away from x86 backwards
compatibility, we could see much more massive reduction in complexity
of cpus which immediately makes space for many more simple cores which
would put them far ahead again of FPGAs in FP. But the world is
addicted to x86 compatibility (for no good reason IMHO) except of
course in the embedded space where FPGAs are, so this will remain the
domain of Clearspeed and a few other massive cpu-count on a chip
vendors.

If two guys sharing an apartment, one at say I/A/I, one at say A/X had
a clean sheet to design new massively multi cpu on a chip and again for
FPGA with cpu components like FPU, we would end up in a more similar
place.  Both will be memory IO bound since either can use the same near
1000 pin packages. Cpus though have traditionally used el cheapo junk
DRAM with massive SRAM caches to make up for the low speed, turning
100ns into 1ns BUT only for highly localised codes. Use a semi random
no to index large array bigger than L2 and fastest cpu in the world
reduces to a few Mips. FPGA guys such as Ray and many others here are
far more familiar with space time trade off, some times less is really
more if you can go serial faster, and far easier to P/R.

This leads to use of exotic memories where needed, if you want more
memory IO to speed up the application, we have RLDRAM, FCDRAM, QDR SRAM
with orders more useful bandwidth than SDRAM with effective issue rates
closer to the cpu L2 SRAM caches (ie 2.5ns RLDRAM). I think if X or A
were seriously going to put significant nos of FPUs in the fabric, also
put in ready to use memory controllers that can match the speed of
these memories. Right now RLDRAM moves at 400MHz but FPGAs can only
drive them at 300MHz and next year Micron promises 533MHz sub 2ns issue
rates. Rambus too has amazing IO rates but useless latencies. It would
be neat to see an FPGA actually drive the fastest memories out there
while watching cpus miss their TLBs and pass through the OS and DRAM to
get data.

If you combine these memories with ready to use highest speed mem
interface and FPUs in fabric in quantity to make up for clock speed,
then things get interesting. An FPGA will limit density of FPUs  to
something like 1 every 4 BlockRams or 4 18.18 muls. On the cpu side, a
cluster of cpus will be limited to the relative cost of FPU v whole
superscaler+cache+TLB+ stuff. If cpus continue to use the current model
of shared cache models they will lose the race eventually and
deservedly so even with a 10x clock speed advantage.

If cpu designers also look more deeply at using high issue rate DRAMs
(<3ns) with multi threading to hide the relatively small left over
latency (20ns and falling), then cpus will likely get the upper hand,
but I don't see such a radical change there. I will be presenting such
a processor (Transputer) design though at cpa2005 in a few weeks.

If I could influence FPU development, I might suggest a more humble
approach, build a std double capable IEEE unit around a single 18b mul
and do it serially, clocks don't matter, wires do. Most of the cost is
in the mul array, it can be used for both int or real use. The
controller logic to do this in FPGA fabric eats up resources no end but
a slow but steady serial FP controller might not use so much logic.
Anyway as hard logic its no doubt 20x smaller and can be disabled out.
Now if every 18.18 mul is 20% more expensive and can be enabled as a
serial real math unit thats very valuable on a fine grain and if there
were upto 500 of them they can be ganged more practically in the time
line than space area. I would hate to have to deal with P/R for a real
64 bit engine that would be available in the wrong place.

just my 2 bits

johnjakson at usa ...
transputer2 at yahoo ...


Article: 88782
Subject: Re: CPLD Jitter
From: kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:30:55 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <desmbt$i07$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Holme <andrew@nospam.com> wrote:
[...]
>Googling for "altera cpld jitter" doesn't turn-up much, and they don't
>mention jitter in the datasheet.  Does anyone know what sort of performance
>can be expected from a CPLD in this regard?  I don't know if the CPLD, or my
>circuit lash-up is the root cause.

If you have other signals running through the CPLD, part of the problem 
could be crosstalk.  Power supply noise will also show up as a jitter.

There seems to be a bad solder joint in the upper left corner.

Check the LM78M05 for oscillations. We don't see the traces hooking up the 
bypasses on it.  


You also have to be careful when making things like flip-flop phase
comparitors inside the MAX series.  When I made one, I had to add some 
extra logic after the flip-flops so that the "both" state of the flip-flop 
pair was used to gate off the output.  I think the CLRN timing was the 
problem bit once I got it working, I stopped looking for the root cause.

IIRC:

BothLatch = (UpFlipFlop # DownFlipFlop) & BothLatch
             #  UpFlipFlop & DownFlipFlop;

Up = UpFlipFlop & !DownFlipFlop & !BothLatch;


>
>A full write-up of the project can be found at
>http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Frac2/Main.htm  It has a fractional-N
>capability, but noise-levels are the same in integer-N mode with the
>external RAM disabled.
>
>Thanks,
>Andrew.
>
>


-- 
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge


Article: 88783
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: "Marco" <marcotoschi@nospam.it>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:05:53 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Me too...


"Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de> wrote in message 
news:3ne289F13ae5U1@individual.net...
>
> "Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4311c25c$0$27166$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
>> I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private 
>> mails
>> from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me 
>> it
>
> Me too ;-)
>
>> looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get
>> support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain 
>> him
>> that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail
>> today).
>
> The road to wisdom is long and full of stones.
>
> Regards
> Falk
>
> 



Article: 88784
Subject: Re: TTL, CMOS and spartan
From: james <george@washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:39:35 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 25 Aug 2005 10:27:17 -0700, "dlharmon" <harmon.darrell@gmail.com>
wrote:

>+<CMOS wrote:
>+<> im looking for some advice/information on how to interface spartan3
>+<> FPGA with TTL and CMOS chips.
>+<> does anybody know any ways to solder CLCC (CMOS image sensor ) at home?
>+<>
>+<>
>+<> Thank you
>+<
>+<As far as interfacing chips goes, just make sure the bank voltage
>+<matches the IO standard you want to use. Take a look at the datasheet
>+<for what the FPGA supports. You will most likely be using LVCMOS33 for
>+<most of your IO. The spartan 3 does not have 5V tolerant IO, so if you
>+<have any 5V logic, you will need translators.
>+<
>+<To solder the CLCC, you probably can just use your iron and a lot of
>+<flux. I like this method better than using a toaster oven since you can
>+<add parts one at a time and test. See
>+<http://dlharmon.com/solder/smd.html  I only use a toaster oven for BGA.
>+<
>+<Darrell Harmon
*******

I have had very good sucess with SMD soldering using a 4 inch square
hot plate. Set it for about 225 C, I also had the advantage of having
3 inch square alumina ceramic substrate material to set on the hot
plate to aid in sliding the pcb off.

james

Article: 88785
Subject: Question about program and memory location
From: "Marco" <marcotoschi@nospam.it>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:07:30 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hallo,
I have made a small microcontroller based on microblaze.
I have copied into lmb bram a bootloader which copies my software into 
external ram and then points to that address.

Here the bootloader code:

#define ADDRREAD 0x1

int main (void) {
int (*func_pointer) ();

prom_read(ADDRREAD);

func_pointer = XPAR_SRAM_256KX32_MEM0_BASEADDR;


func_pointer();

return 0;

}



After doing this, the memory location where bootlader is, will be cancelled 
automatically and used for other instructions/datas?

Many Thanks

Marco



Article: 88786
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: "John Adair" <removethisthenleavejea@replacewithcompanyname.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:27:20 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
And me too.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd. - Home of Broaddown2. The Ultimate Spartan3 Development 
Board.
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk

"Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at> wrote in message 
news:4311c25c$0$27166$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
>I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private mails 
>from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me it 
>looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get 
>support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain him 
>that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail 
>today).
>
> Thomas
> 



Article: 88787
Subject: Re: CPLD Jitter
From: hmurray@suespammers.org (Hal Murray)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:47:48 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

>I'm using a 10 MHz canned crystal oscillator, which I'm dividing down
>(inside the CPLD) to obtain the reference frequencies.  I've read these are
>good for at least -130 dBc/Hz (before dividing down) so I'm a bit
>dissappointed with my noise levels.  Maybe it got a bit too hot when I
>soldered it to the ground plane!  I must try another....

Can you measure the raw oscillator output?

It may not be as good as you expect.  Many low volume oscillators
now use a PLL.  They program the dividers rather than grind the crystal
to get custom frequencies.

I'd expect that numbers like 10 MHz would have enough volume so that
they would avoid the PLL but maybe it's cheaper to have one production
setup and use it for the common frequencies too.

-- 
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: 88788
Subject: Re: CPLD Jitter
From: "Daniel Lang" <invalid@invalid.caltech.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:07:08 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I would suggest inserting a 100 ohm resistor between C3 and C7 and placing
a 100uF capacitor in parallel with C7.  The noise on the output of U4 is
just as critical as the noise on the + input of U3.

You may also want to add an RC filter on the output of U5 before feeding
it to U6.

Daniel Lang

"Andrew Holme" <andrew@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:desmbt$i07$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> The dividers and the phase detector of my experimental frequency 
> synthesizer
> are implemented in a 15ns Altera MAX7000S CPLD.  I've tried different
> multiplication factors (kN) to see how the close-in phase noise varies. 
> At
> a 1 KHz offset, I get:
>
> -82 dBc/Hz for N=198 (VCO=19.8 MHz, comparison freq = 100 KHz)
> -95 dBc/Hz for N=39 (VCO=19.5 MHz, comparison freq = 500 KHz)
>
> Calculating the equivalent phase noise at the PFD:
>
> -82-20*log10(198) = -128 dBc/Hz
> -95-20*log10(39) = -127 dBc/Hz
>
> Given the 5:1 ratio of comparison frequencies, at a guess, I'd expect 
> these
> to differ by 13 dB if the noise was mainly due to a fixed amount of time
> jitter at the PFD.
>
> I'm using a 10 MHz canned crystal oscillator, which I'm dividing down
> (inside the CPLD) to obtain the reference frequencies.  I've read these 
> are
> good for at least -130 dBc/Hz (before dividing down) so I'm a bit
> dissappointed with my noise levels.  Maybe it got a bit too hot when I
> soldered it to the ground plane!  I must try another....
>
> Googling for "altera cpld jitter" doesn't turn-up much, and they don't
> mention jitter in the datasheet.  Does anyone know what sort of 
> performance
> can be expected from a CPLD in this regard?  I don't know if the CPLD, or 
> my
> circuit lash-up is the root cause.
>
> A full write-up of the project can be found at
> http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Frac2/Main.htm  It has a fractional-N
> capability, but noise-levels are the same in integer-N mode with the
> external RAM disabled.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew.
>
> 



Article: 88789
Subject: Re: Best FPGA for floating point performance
From: mk<kal*@dspia.*comdelete>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:29:16 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 28 Aug 2005 08:54:43 -0700, "JJ" <johnjakson@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Now if cpu guys really get moving away from x86 backwards
>compatibility, we could see much more massive reduction in complexity
>of cpus which immediately makes space for many more simple cores which
>would put them far ahead again of FPGAs in FP. But the world is
>addicted to x86 compatibility (for no good reason IMHO) except of
>course in the embedded space where FPGAs are, so this will remain the
>domain of Clearspeed and a few other massive cpu-count on a chip
>vendors.

Actually I don't think this is an issue anymore. These days the ISA
management is really a small portion of a CPU implementation. Take a
look at the following picture
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/Opteron_Instr_Cache.jpg and decide
for yourself how much area you would save if you replaced the x64
decoder with a mips 64 style decoder. The rest of the die is mostly
cache and integer and fp alus which you'd need anywhere.


Article: 88790
Subject: Re: mails from Aman Mediratta
From: Philip Freidin <philip@fliptronics.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:53:43 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:55:42 +0200, "Thomas Entner" <aon.912710880@aon.at> wrote:
>I was just wondering if also other peoples in this group get private mails 
>from Aman Mediratta, asking for technical support with EDK, etc. For me it 
>looks like he is mass-mailing his support-questions. Also a way to get 
>support... I would call it "support-spam". (I tried to shortly explain him 
>that there are newsgroups for this yesterday, just to get another mail 
>today).
>
>Thomas 

I get these ALL the time. Often these newbies don't even know about usenet
and news groups. I direct them to this page:

    http://www.fpga-faq.org/FAQ_Posting.htm




===================
Philip Freidin
philip.freidin@fpga-faq.org
Host for WWW.FPGA-FAQ.ORG

Article: 88791
Subject: Re: Best FPGA for floating point performance
From: "JJ" <johnjakson@yahoo.com>
Date: 28 Aug 2005 16:49:15 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

mk wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2005 08:54:43 -0700, "JJ" <johnjakson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Now if cpu guys really get moving away from x86 backwards
> >compatibility, we could see much more massive reduction in complexity
> >of cpus which immediately makes space for many more simple cores which
> >would put them far ahead again of FPGAs in FP. But the world is
> >addicted to x86 compatibility (for no good reason IMHO) except of
> >course in the embedded space where FPGAs are, so this will remain the
> >domain of Clearspeed and a few other massive cpu-count on a chip
> >vendors.
>
> Actually I don't think this is an issue anymore. These days the ISA
> management is really a small portion of a CPU implementation. Take a
> look at the following picture
> http://www.chip-architect.com/news/Opteron_Instr_Cache.jpg and decide
> for yourself how much area you would save if you replaced the x64
> decoder with a mips 64 style decoder. The rest of the die is mostly
> cache and integer and fp alus which you'd need anywhere.

While the significance of any ISA implementation starts to shrink in
comparison to the caches, that is exactly the point I was making. The
caches are the way to make huge slow memory seem faster through ever
more complexity in the cpu design though every comp arch trick in the
book. In the end you only get 1 or 2 cpus for now (at 2-3GHz though)
hanging on to the caches coat tails. Notice the Itanium is also almost
entirely cache too and thats why it is also lower cost than most would
expect since the SRAM is repairable while cpus are not.

Again if you build single threaded architectures (any ISA will do), you
end up with something like an Opteron/G5 cache hierarchy. If you go to
highly threaded cpus and matching highly interleaved memory
architectures, the threading on both side allows the latencies to more
or less match for very much simpler cpu designs. In effect DRAM can
replace cache as long as the issue rate compares with L2 access rates
and it now does with RLDRAM and as long as the latency hiding is in the
same ballpark as the reduced DRAM latency. In return you can use lots
of small latency hiding cpus but one must now deal with lots of threads
something that some people know what to do with.

johnjakson at usa ..


Article: 88792
Subject: Maybe a very cool FPGA a throw away idea for Xilinx
From: cpu16x1832@wmconnect.com
Date: 28 Aug 2005 17:59:26 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Why doesn't Xininx include a simple programmable bus manager like Mr.
Moore's 25X for fabrication efficiency or application development?

a reference url,
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch/msg/414981c0fe44fe89?dmode=source&hl=en

maw


Article: 88793
Subject: Re: CPLD Jitter
From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:11:55 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello Andrew,

> I'm using a 10 MHz canned crystal oscillator, which I'm dividing down
> (inside the CPLD) to obtain the reference frequencies.  I've read these are
> good for at least -130 dBc/Hz (before dividing down) so I'm a bit
> dissappointed with my noise levels. ...

Check its data sheet. If it doesn't have any noise specs on there get a 
better one. Or better yet, roll your own. CTS is a good source though.

> http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Frac2/Main.htm

How are the Altera GND pins connected to the plane? I can't see any 
connections. If that is via traces that's the first easy thing to fix.

Look at your VCC. Switch the scope to AC and crank it way up. When 
called out to clients that is were I found the main contributors for 
phase noise. Video line sync, RAM banking spikes, whatever, it all ended 
up adding a little AM modulation to the logic output stages which in 
turn causes jitter.

Sometimes others thought now I'd gone crazy: It often helps to take a 
very good comm receiver, put on tight fitting headphones and listen to 
your signals. Both sidebands plus wide open w/o IF filter. Often that 
revealed the tiny telltale "weeeee" or "rat-tat-tat". A spectrum 
analyzer on the pins and also on VCC can help as well.

Then there is the usual, such as 0.01uF caps tightly fitted from VCC 
pins (all of them) to the ground plane. Also, check what else is 
happening in the FPGA. As Ken wrote this could cause crosstalk, 
especially if other outputs are heavily loaded or must drive longer traces.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Article: 88794
Subject: Bootloading with flash-config devices
From: "jai.dhar@gmail.com" <jai.dhar@gmail.com>
Date: 28 Aug 2005 18:18:01 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi everyone,

 Sorry if this topic has come up before - I have read numerous threads
on this newsgroups regarding this topic, however, I cannot seem to
piece together a straight answer. Basically, I would like to boot up my
NIOS processor from an EPCS device upon powerup. Since my current board
doesn't have any parallel flash, I thought adding an SPI flash onto
extra pins could be done instead, provided I wrote some custom code to
bootload from that. Then I learnt that their EPCS devices are the same
thing as the ST micro Flash devices :) So now, my question is, I have a
64Mbit flash device from STMicro. Can I use this too bootload my FPGA
and NIOS processor?? I have read some application notes, particularly:

http://www.altera.com/end-markets/refdesigns/sys-sol/indust_mil/ref-asmi.html

And this seems great and all, however, I can only select EPCS1 and 4
from SOPC builder in the ASMI interface. Any easy way to do this?


Article: 88795
Subject: Re: CPLD Jitter
From: "Brian Davis" <brimdavis@aol.com>
Date: 28 Aug 2005 18:32:01 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Andrew,
>
> Does anyone know what sort of performance can be expected
> from a CPLD in this regard?
>
  Asides from the supply/clocking suggestions already made,
I'd also add the following caution: the output stages of most
programmable digital parts are not intended for producing
clean reference signals to a PLL used for low-noise RF signal
generation.

 A few times over the years that I've considered doing this,
the first thing I've done is build something like a pulse output
divide-by-ten in the intended technology, driven the part with an
oscillator having known phase noise, and looked at the divider output
on both a spectrum analyzer & phase noise measurement system.

 Most of the programmable parts I've measured have had output spurs
50-60 db down that vary strongly in frequency with supply voltage,
and can cross over the intended output frequency, making it impossible
to keep them out of the loop BW. ( also, the crud in the output
spectrum will generally behave differently with an even duty cycle
output than for a pulse output divider )

 other (hastily conceived) random thoughts:
  - what's the noise floor of your spectrum analyzer at 1 KHz?
  - try using a surplus ocxo for your 10 MHz source
  - if you disable the uC/SRAM, and implement a fixed divide entirely
    internal to the CPLD, does the noise get any better?

have fun,
Brian


Article: 88796
Subject: Re: Best FPGA for floating point performance
From: mk<kal*@dspia.*comdelete>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:46:56 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 28 Aug 2005 16:49:15 -0700, "JJ" <johnjakson@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Again if you build single threaded architectures (any ISA will do), you
>end up with something like an Opteron/G5 cache hierarchy. If you go to
>highly threaded cpus and matching highly interleaved memory
>architectures, the threading on both side allows the latencies to more
>or less match for very much simpler cpu designs. In effect DRAM can
>replace cache as long as the issue rate compares with L2 access rates
>and it now does with RLDRAM and as long as the latency hiding is in the
>same ballpark as the reduced DRAM latency. In return you can use lots
>of small latency hiding cpus but one must now deal with lots of threads
>something that some people know what to do with.
>
the problem with highly threaded cpus is that they are not very good
at running wordprocessors, spreadsheets and fpga p&r tools and that's
where most cpus are used so the two cpu developers put most of their
money into developing slightly threaded architectures with full
multi-cores instead of smt. if you noticed the new multi-core i86
implementations don't support ht anymore. another reason this idea is
not very easy to implement is that regardless what's happening with
power on 90nm and lower processes, speed still counts and embedding
dram on a high speed logic process is a big problem. if and when a new
memory structure comes out which can be embedded in logic process and
as inexpensive as 1t+1c dram, i am sure isa architects will look at
highly threaded cpus again but probably not before then. also keep in
mind that developing cpus is a very expensive endevour and anyone who
is not developing an x86 compatible one seems to be giving up
including intel. i expect sun will drop sparc pretty soon and intel
will drop itanium too; moving their itanium developers to xeon
projects doesn't bode too well which is for the better as we won't
have to deal with a completely proprietary, fully moated with patents
isa.

Article: 88797
Subject: digilent spartan 3 kit example project
From: "CMOS" <manusha@millenniumit.com>
Date: 28 Aug 2005 22:18:11 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
does any one know where to find some example projects for spartan 3
starter board for digilent. 
CMOS


Article: 88798
Subject: Altera nios-debug via JTAG
From: "evan" <evan1979@gmail.com>
Date: 28 Aug 2005 22:53:36 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I have been trying to debugg a simple "hello world" program running in
an Altera Cyclone device with Nios 32 (including OCI-Core) via JTAG. I
can use serial comms for the upload but I need the serial
communications available during execution. The problem is that the JTAG
upload gives me the following error:



# 2005.08.29 13:34:24 (*) nios-init-mdi -i

WARNING: Do not attempt to use Quartus to re-program your device while
         GDB/Insight is connected.  (See nios_readme.txt for details.)


# 2005.08.29 13:34:24 (*) nios-gdb-server --ocibase=0x00100000
--tcpport=2342&

# 2005.08.29 13:34:24 (*) downloading m.out (please be patient)

# 2005.08.29 13:34:24 (*) nios-elf-gdb --command=/tmp/m_setup.gdb
# [nios-gdb-server] nios-gdb-server starting up
# [nios-gdb-server] accepting gdb connection
# [nios-gdb-server] connecting to OCI, ocibase 0x00100000
# [nios-gdb-server] ...using ByteBlaster (altlpt1)
# [nios-gdb-server] mdi error: found 0 devices instead of 1
# [nios-gdb-server] failed to connect



Any ideas why my ByteBlaster is not connecting? I have no problem using
the same LPT1 connection for uploading .sof files using the Quartus II
"Programmer" tool.

Thank you very much in advance.

/evan


Article: 88799
Subject: Re: Best FPGA for floating point performance
From: Tommy Thorn <foobar@nowhere.void>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:00:00 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
mk wrote:
> the problem with highly threaded cpus is that they are not very good
> at running wordprocessors, spreadsheets and fpga p&r tools and that's
> where most cpus are used

Actually, that's rather to generous to us fpga p&r users.  If instead 
you do take a minute to look at the kind of benchmarks that are always 
put forward to test the latest iteration of x86, you'd find 
predominately parallel friendly workloads (eg. anything "multimedia" and 
to a moderately degree games).  Spreadsheets are inherently not parallel 
hostile and performance of wordprocessors are not really an issue.

I believe John's point was that the x86, RISC, and all the rest of the 
inheriently sequential architectures will never scale and we should 
abandon them.  It's an old war cry that we've been hearing on and off 
for decades, but recent Hotchips 17, not least David Kirk's keynote, 
really felt like the wind of change.   Power efficiency has become a 
mainstream concept and it will slowly but surely require us to change 
our ways.

Back in the real world, John, people have sizable investments in 
existing (x86) software which aren't going away anytime soon, but the 
change is coming: on-chip multi cores, Cell, xbox-360, Niagria.

Eh, isn't this the "Not enough parallelism in programming" on comp.arch? 
  What has this got to do with "Best FPGA for floating point 
performance" :-)

Tommy




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