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

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarApr2017

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

Custom Search

Messages from 12350

Article: 12350
Subject: Re: Design security again - the Actel solution
From: rk <stellare@NOSPAMerols.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:02:53 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter wrote:

    <snip bunch of stuff>

> I don't know if an antifuse is optically visible, but Neocad obviously
> did not spend $300M reverse engineering Xilinx's bitstream, and all
> the "secrets" of every FPGA's SRAM/antifuse mapping are in any case
> revealed when you disassemble their place & route tools.

programmed antifuses from actel are not visible optically, even when you
grind it down, layer by layer.

rk

Article: 12351
Subject: Re: clock divider chips
From: Joe Gallegos <ja.gallegos@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:42:10 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
There are various low skew clock divider/generator chips avail...

Eg. Look at IDT's IDT49FCT series or Motorola's MC889XX series
clock drivers ..

Professionally yours,
Joe


Thomas Dölle wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for high speed (up to 80 MHz input) clock divider chips with
>
> programmable ratio (1/2, 1/4, 1/8). The outputs should be at CLK and
> CLK/X with low skew (100 - 1000ps) and low jitter. The input is driven
> by a external clock source. Does anybody know whether there are chips
> commercially available?
>
> Thomas

Article: 12352
Subject: Re: Altera embedded FIFO RAM (using EABs)
From: "SFCFM Volunteer" <stahr@andix.com>
Date: 9 Oct 1998 15:46:43 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
err, single-port (data_in and data_out) FIFO...

SFCFM Volunteer wrote in message ...
>How can I implement this very simple dual port RAM using genmem
>to embed it on a Flex10K device. Altera memory type "csfifo" is
>a "cycle-shared" FIFO (what is that?)
>
>
>***************************************************************
>module fram2_8 (
>   clk,
>   write_n,   // Write enable
>   write_ptr, // Write Address
>   read_ptr,  // Read Address
>   data_in,   // Write Data
>   data_out   // Read Data
>.
>.
>.
>
>always @(read_ptr or reg0 or reg1 or reg2 or reg3 or reg4 or reg5 or
>             reg6 or reg7)
>       casez (read_ptr)
>          3'b000 : data_out = reg0;
>          3'b001 : data_out = reg1;
>          3'b010 : data_out = reg2;
>          3'b011 : data_out = reg3;
>          3'b100 : data_out = reg4;
>          3'b101 : data_out = reg5;
>          3'b110 : data_out = reg6;
>          3'b111 : data_out = reg7;
>       endcase
>
>    // Update RAM on a write pulse
>    always @(posedge clk)
>       if( !write_n)
>       casez (write_ptr)
>          3'b000   : reg0  <= data_in;
>          3'b001   : reg1  <= data_in;
>          3'b010   : reg2  <= data_in;
>          3'b011   : reg3  <= data_in;
>          3'b100   : reg4  <= data_in;
>          3'b101   : reg5  <= data_in;
>          3'b110   : reg6  <= data_in;
>          3'b111   : reg7  <= data_in;
>       endcase
>
>endmodule
>*********************************************************************
>
>
>


Article: 12353
Subject: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: "Donald Espinoza" <despinoze@hotmail.com>
Date: 9 Oct 1998 20:50:42 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
It appears that Xilinx may not be supporting Viewlogic Viewdraw schematic
entry for Virtex (or any other schematic entry tool for that matter). 
SOMEhow, SOMEone, interviewed SOME people, and these people were apparently
taken by the Xilinx decision making tree as the 'golden' cross section of
'important' users.  These SOME people said they did not want schematics,
that HDLs would do fine.

Now, nothing against HDLs, as I do use them, and they are fine...BUT there
are some things just done better in schematics.  Let's not get into that
subject, as we all have bantered this issue of schematics v HDLs about, but
for Xilinx to dictate what my design methodology is to be is not OK. 
Personally, I think this, what I would call, a quite 'uneducated' decision,
is a very bad decision....

ANYone else know ANYthing more about this?

Austin Franklin
darkroom@ix.netcom.com



Article: 12354
Subject: Re: Software tool
From: "Bob Deasy" <bobd@model.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:57:46 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Take a look at www.model.com


Ido Kleinman wrote in message <6vjevi$n0a$1@news.inter.net.il>...
>Dear all,
>
>I am looking for a good VHDL development (compiling, simulation, gate-level
>sim/FSM support, Testbench generator) software tool. I need it to have a
>comfortable interface to maxplus2 for exporting compiled designs for
>synthesis in Altera's devices.
>I've been looking around lately and I've evaluated Aldec's "Active-VHDL"
and
>quite happy with it, but I have a slow internet connection, therefore,
>before I start downloading tens of megabytes again, I would like to know if
>there are any other compact software tools worth looking at...?
>
>Anyone got any experience with Aldec's tool?
>Are the big ones (Synopsys, Examplar..) worth the investment?
>
>
>--
>
>
> Ido Kleinman.
> kleinn@mail.biu.ac.il
>
>
>
>


Article: 12355
Subject: Re: Verilog Vs VHDL
From: Joe Gallegos <ja.gallegos@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:13:23 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Get a hold of Douglas J. Smith's book "HDL Chip Design" pub by Doone..All of his
examples include VHDL and Verilog equivalent examples...

Verilog is a more hardware intuitive langauge..VHDL was initially a software
behavioral language, hence not as hardware intuitive...VHDL I believe is the
accepted fpga/ASIC language of choice for military applications...

craig_jacobs@asl-tk.com wrote:

> Hello, I have been programming Altera FPGA's for several years using the
> altera HDL and graphic designs.  We are considering transferring new and some
> existing designs to either VHDL or Verilog.  I don't know anything about
> either language, and I would like a list of pro's and con's about each.
>
> Craig Jacobs
> Systems Engineer
> Advanced Product Development
> Automotive Systems Lab
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Article: 12356
Subject: NEW ENGINEERING PAGE: Please Visit
From: Scott Paul Johnston <metad@globalnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 22:43:21 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Please visit and comment on my Electronics and Electrical Engineering
pages located at:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~metad/eee.htm

Containing:
Introduction to EEE
Resources (over 100 web links)
Employment Statistics and newspaper excerpts
Engineering Poems, Quotations and Jokes
EEE at Glasgow University

In addition my homepage (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~metad/)
contains:

A section about me
My CV
A James Bond Section
A guestbook
Humour
500+ cool links in the "new look" bookpage
Cool background MIDI and graphics
Literary quotations
Photo Album
Awards Page
Poems...

Basically, something for everyone!

PLEASE VISIT VIA MY MAIN HOMEPAGE ADDRESS!

Please send you comments via the guestbook or by Email (containing
your full name and Email and webpage addresses) and visit via
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~metad/.

Thanks
Scott Johnston
metad@globalnet.co.uk




Article: 12357
Subject: Re: clock divider chips
From: "Gareth Baron" <Gareth.Baron@eng.efi.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:15:42 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Try Cypress and IDT as they do a lot of these clock driver chips.

Quality Semi do some of these as well especially clock distribution ICs with
on-board PLL.  They also have a nice device which alows you to program (via
pull-ups/downs) the skew of the o/ps so that you can change the skew of
different clock paths to account for PCB transmission line effects.





Thomas Dölle wrote in message <361DD1B3.4EFC8575@fb.sony.de>...
>Hi,
>
>I'm looking for high speed (up to 80 MHz input) clock divider chips with
>
>programmable ratio (1/2, 1/4, 1/8). The outputs should be at CLK and
>CLK/X with low skew (100 - 1000ps) and low jitter. The input is driven
>by a external clock source. Does anybody know whether there are chips
>commercially available?
>
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>


Article: 12358
Subject: Re: Software tool
From: "jj" <jj@do.gov>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:58:34 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Ido Kleinman wrote in message <6vjevi$n0a$1@news.inter.net.il>...
>Dear all,
>
>I am looking for a good VHDL development (compiling, simulation, gate-level
>sim/FSM support, Testbench generator) software tool. I need it to have a
>comfortable interface to maxplus2 for exporting compiled designs for
>synthesis in Altera's devices.
>I've been looking around lately and I've evaluated Aldec's "Active-VHDL"
and
>quite happy with it, but I have a slow internet connection, therefore,
>before I start downloading tens of megabytes again, I would like to know if
>there are any other compact software tools worth looking at...?
>
>Anyone got any experience with Aldec's tool?
>Are the big ones (Synopsys, Examplar..) worth the investment?

depends on what you plan to do.

if you'll be doing big designs, pushing the technology real hard (area and
timing wise) then having a real synthesis tool with back-annotation, design
exploration is a must.

if your just doing small glue-logic like fpga desing w/o any performance
issues, maxplus2 should be good enough for you. they have an ok
verilog/vhdl/ahdl frontend and their optimization should be good enough...

btw, from exemplar i know that they sell single-technology solutions (e.g.
altera only) which is much cheaper than the full-blown package...

endric schubert
axis systems inc
>
>
>--
>
>
> Ido Kleinman.
> kleinn@mail.biu.ac.il
>
>
>
>


Article: 12359
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: Ray Andraka <no_spam_randraka@ids.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 21:13:29 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Looks like Austin changed his email address so no one would know it was him!
I too, am rather annoyed by this (I heard it from the same place Austin did),
as I use schematic entry extensively in datapath and DSP designs (In these
cases it is faster to use schematic and more readable than HDL code).  I'd feel
alot better if it was just a misinformed FAE spreading bad info.  Anyone else?
Phil, have you heard anything like this?

Donald Espinoza (aka Austin Franklin) wrote:

> It appears that Xilinx may not be supporting Viewlogic Viewdraw schematic
> entry for Virtex (or any other schematic entry tool for that matter).
> SOMEhow, SOMEone, interviewed SOME people, and these people were apparently
> taken by the Xilinx decision making tree as the 'golden' cross section of
> 'important' users.  These SOME people said they did not want schematics,
> that HDLs would do fine.
>
> Now, nothing against HDLs, as I do use them, and they are fine...BUT there
> are some things just done better in schematics.  Let's not get into that
> subject, as we all have bantered this issue of schematics v HDLs about, but
> for Xilinx to dictate what my design methodology is to be is not OK.
> Personally, I think this, what I would call, a quite 'uneducated' decision,
> is a very bad decision....
>
> ANYone else know ANYthing more about this?
>
> Austin Franklin
> darkroom@ix.netcom.com

--
-Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email randraka@ids.net
http://users.ids.net/~randraka


Article: 12360
Subject: Re: Help Desperately Needed with Altera Microprocessor Design.
From: michael_23@my-dejanews.com
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 01:20:04 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all,  I'm just letting you all know I have managed to find out what the
problem is. Thanks for all your help, it was greatly appreciated.  It turned
out that the problem was the student edition crashed when it tries to use the
partitioner. So my problem is it wasn't fitting on the 10k20 chip. After
poking around and some great help from you guys I found out that I was indeed
trying to use 8 EAB's when the 10k20 only has 6. It was because the EAB is
256 * 8 that caused my problem.  I was using 2 for the instruction ROM, 2 for
the data RAM. Here's the killer I was using 4 for the Register file. I need 2
RAM's for the register file to have duel output ports, each 16 bits wide so
this gives me the 4 EAB's, most of which is wasted.  I originally wanted to
use FlipFlops for the Register file, but this wouldn't fit on the chip (takes
60% of the chip just for the Register File).  Okay so now I have to fix it by
using extra clock cycles to use less RAM. I will need 8 clock cycles for
this, which is very wasteful. (I would have thought I could do it in 4, ie
Write, Read, Write, Read  but for some reason there is some time lag and I
need an extra 2 clock cycles. Thus I need to puch this out to 8 clock cycles
to make it all fit evenly)

I guess if anyone knows of a better way to make my register file I would be
greatly appreciated, if not then thanks for all you help and I'll just have
to slow down my processor by half. I'm hoping this won't be too big a problem
as I can show that I can make it a lot faster if I use a bigger chip. (ie
FF's for the Register file.)

Cheers,
Michael





In article <6vftjf$52c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  michael_23@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hi all,
> 	I desperately need some help. I am doing my final year engineering
> project where I am designing a 16 bit Microprocessor. I am using the student
> version of Altera for this project, which gives me the EPF10K20RC240-4 device.
> I have completed my design and I have been testing it as I go, so I know all
> the components are working properly. Here is my problem, and it is a big
> problem as the deadline is coming up very close and I am starting to panic.
> I was going along fine until I hit this problem. Okay, so when I was at my
> last step (I'm so close) when I was trying to compile the whole thing I got
> the following error about half-way through compilation:
> "Internal Error: (CMP) Fatal application error in Partitioner at 10%"
>
> Does anyone know what this means and what has caused it?
>
> I have done a LOT of fiddling around testing things and trying to figure
> out the problem. I was thinking maybe I have run out of room on the device.
> I broke the top level design up into 2 parts and compiled each one
> seperately with no problems. When I looked at the report file, it says I
> have used the following space:
>
> Mem bits  Mem %   LCs  LCs %
> 4608      37%     597  51%      First Half
>
> 4096      33%     110  9%       Second Half
>
> 8704      70%     707  60%      Total
>
> Looking at this, I have 30% of my memory bits free and 40% of my LCs free so
> I shouldn't be out of room.
> I am now thinking that maybe I have enough memory bits and LCs but not
> enough connections between them free. Would this seem reasonable to you? I
> was of the impression that you could use the memory bits without affecting
> the use of the LCs and vice vera. That is by using some memory bits you
> don't take room off the LCs. Is this right.
>
> As you can see I am in a horrible mess here and am in desperate need of a
> solution. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong, and any ways of perhaps
> fixing my problem? I would be eternally greatful.
>
> Perhaps there may be some way of changing the Global Logic Synthesis
> settings that might use less space and allow me to fit it all on, or am I
> completely on the wrong track here?
>
> If you have any suggestions at all, then can you PLEASE PLEASE send them to
> me, even if you're not sure it'll work I'm willing to try everything. I've
> tried all I can think of.
>
> Thanks so much,
> Bruce.
>
> PS: I also checked the number of inputs and outputs, and they are all okay
> too.
>
> PPS: Another thought, I wonder if there is a limit of the number of memory
> elements I can use. It will let me use 3 RAM elements, but as soon as I use
> a 4th (even if it is only 4 bits), it comes up with that error again. I have
> a very strong suspicion this could be what's causing the problem. Can anyone
> confirm this?
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    
Article: 12361
Subject: Re: Help Desperately Needed with Altera Microprocessor Design.
From: Ray Andraka <no_spam_randraka@ids.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 21:40:27 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Unfortunately, you've discovered one of the things that make Altera a not so good
choice for DSP and data path applications:  Register files (and delay queues) are
expensive, as they eat up your EAB resources or use an ungodly amount of LE's to
implement.  For these type of designs, I prefer to use Xilinx 4K.  The CLB LUTs can
be configured as small synchronous RAMs which can then be used as 16x2 or 32x1 or a
pair of 16x1 register files.  With a small counter, those can be used to make a
delay queue of up to 33 clocks (including the CLB flip flop).

michael_23@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I guess if anyone knows of a better way to make my register file I would be
> greatly appreciated, if not then thanks for all you help and I'll just have
> to slow down my processor by half. I'm hoping this won't be too big a problem
> as I can show that I can make it a lot faster if I use a bigger chip. (ie
> FF's for the Register file.)

--
-Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email randraka@ids.net
http://users.ids.net/~randraka


Article: 12362
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroo8m@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 10 Oct 1998 02:09:09 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Huh?  No, I didn't change my e-mail address....I have no idea what
happened.  Obviously it got posted, but I can't see it...only your (Ray's)
response....but that is what I wrote (and signed, so I wasn't trying to
hide much ;-).

Austin
Still darkroom@ix.netcom.com



Ray Andraka <no_spam_randraka@ids.net> wrote in article
<361EB4B8.64B6F220@ids.net>...
> Looks like Austin changed his email address so no one would know it was
him!
> I too, am rather annoyed by this (I heard it from the same place Austin
did),
> as I use schematic entry extensively in datapath and DSP designs (In
these
> cases it is faster to use schematic and more readable than HDL code). 
I'd feel
> alot better if it was just a misinformed FAE spreading bad info.  Anyone
else?
> Phil, have you heard anything like this?
> 
> Donald Espinoza (aka Austin Franklin) wrote:
> 
> > It appears that Xilinx may not be supporting Viewlogic Viewdraw
schematic
> > entry for Virtex (or any other schematic entry tool for that matter).
> > SOMEhow, SOMEone, interviewed SOME people, and these people were
apparently
> > taken by the Xilinx decision making tree as the 'golden' cross section
of
> > 'important' users.  These SOME people said they did not want
schematics,
> > that HDLs would do fine.
> >
> > Now, nothing against HDLs, as I do use them, and they are fine...BUT
there
> > are some things just done better in schematics.  Let's not get into
that
> > subject, as we all have bantered this issue of schematics v HDLs about,
but
> > for Xilinx to dictate what my design methodology is to be is not OK.
> > Personally, I think this, what I would call, a quite 'uneducated'
decision,
> > is a very bad decision....
> >
> > ANYone else know ANYthing more about this?
> >
> > Austin Franklin
> > darkroom@ix.netcom.com
> 
> --
> -Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
> email randraka@ids.net
> http://users.ids.net/~randraka
> 
> 
> 
Article: 12363
Subject: Re: Help Desperately Needed with Altera Microprocessor Design.
From: "James E. Stine" <jes6@eecs.lehigh.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 23:03:50 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

This sound reasonable.  Do you know if this is because Xilinx uses SRAM based
FPGA's and Altera uses floating-gate technology with small SRAM cells per
CLB?

James Stine
jes6@eecs.lehigh.edu

Ray Andraka wrote:

> Unfortunately, you've discovered one of the things that make Altera a not so good
> choice for DSP and data path applications:  Register files (and delay queues) are
> expensive, as they eat up your EAB resources or use an ungodly amount of LE's to
> implement.  For these type of designs, I prefer to use Xilinx 4K.  The CLB LUTs can
> be configured as small synchronous RAMs which can then be used as 16x2 or 32x1 or a
> pair of 16x1 register files.  With a small counter, those can be used to make a
> delay queue of up to 33 clocks (including the CLB flip flop).
>
> michael_23@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I guess if anyone knows of a better way to make my register file I would be
> > greatly appreciated, if not then thanks for all you help and I'll just have
> > to slow down my processor by half. I'm hoping this won't be too big a problem
> > as I can show that I can make it a lot faster if I use a bigger chip. (ie
> > FF's for the Register file.)
>
> --
> -Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
> email randraka@ids.net
> http://users.ids.net/~randraka

Article: 12364
Subject: Re: Altera MAXPLUS2 V9 slow.
From: x@xxx.x
Date: 10 Oct 1998 03:38:18 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 8 Oct 1998 13:07:26 GMT, "Eric Pearson"
<ecp@focus-systems.nospam.on.ca> wrote:

>Has anyone noticed problems in re-compiling designs that worked in v8.0 of
>maxplus2 under v9.01 and found comilation times went throught the roof even
>to the point excess ( I aborted after 100 hours v9 vs 1 hour under v8 ).
>
>Eric Pearson - Focus Systems
>

I have a design that will recompile on 8.3 in about 15 minutes.  When
I tried 9.01, I gave up after about 10 hours. I never figured it out,
so I currently use 8.3.  (The design is for a 6024A chip).
Article: 12365
Subject: Re: VHDL'93 in MaxPlus
From: carlhermann.schlehaus@t-online.de (Carlhermann Schlehaus)
Date: 10 Oct 1998 04:27:25 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Ido Kleinman schrieb in Nachricht <6vji7m$qh3$1@news.inter.net.il>...
>Hi,
>Anyone knows how do I activate VHDL93 compiling ability in MaxPlus2?
>
-schnipp-

To activate VHDL93 You have to open the compiler window, choose 'interfaces'
in the compiler menue bar and click on 'VHDL Netlist reader settings'.
Clicking on this point will open another window with selection of VHDL87 or
VHDL93...

Tschuessing, Carlhermann


Article: 12366
Subject: Re: Altera's reply to request for Max+Plus II under Linux
From: nospam_ees1ht@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Hans)
Date: 10 Oct 1998 08:30:02 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <361bd824.10916642@news.oar.net>, timo@novaengr.com says...
>
>I'd emailed Altera to express my interest in someday having a version
>of Max+Plus II that runs under Linux.  
>worthwhile investment.  However, if more and more customers continue
>to request support for that operating system, it will eventually be
>looked at more seriously.    

Didn't Intel recently invested some $$ in Red Hat Linux ? Now that's an 
interesting development :-)

Hans.

Article: 12367
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: msimon@tefbbs.com
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:22:14 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I vote for schematics.

To Xilinx: Bad Move

Simon
================================================================
Ray Andraka <no_spam_randraka@ids.net> wrote:

>Looks like Austin changed his email address so no one would know it was him!
>I too, am rather annoyed by this (I heard it from the same place Austin did),
>as I use schematic entry extensively in datapath and DSP designs (In these
>cases it is faster to use schematic and more readable than HDL code).  I'd feel
>alot better if it was just a misinformed FAE spreading bad info.  Anyone else?
>Phil, have you heard anything like this?
>
>Donald Espinoza (aka Austin Franklin) wrote:
>
>> It appears that Xilinx may not be supporting Viewlogic Viewdraw schematic
>> entry for Virtex (or any other schematic entry tool for that matter).
>> SOMEhow, SOMEone, interviewed SOME people, and these people were apparently
>> taken by the Xilinx decision making tree as the 'golden' cross section of
>> 'important' users.  These SOME people said they did not want schematics,
>> that HDLs would do fine.
>>
>> Now, nothing against HDLs, as I do use them, and they are fine...BUT there
>> are some things just done better in schematics.  Let's not get into that
>> subject, as we all have bantered this issue of schematics v HDLs about, but
>> for Xilinx to dictate what my design methodology is to be is not OK.
>> Personally, I think this, what I would call, a quite 'uneducated' decision,
>> is a very bad decision....
>>
>> ANYone else know ANYthing more about this?
>>
>> Austin Franklin
>> darkroom@ix.netcom.com
>
>--
>-Ray Andraka, P.E.
>President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
>401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
>email randraka@ids.net
>http://users.ids.net/~randraka
>
>

Design Your Own MicroProcessor(tm) http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.htm
Article: 12368
Subject: Re: Need 100MHz Counter with 3 Comparators
From: Ed McCauley <emccauley@bltinc.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:14:01 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
It'l work fine Justen, just pipeline your comparators.

-- 
Ed McCauley
Bottom Line Technologies Inc.
http://www.bltinc.com
Specializing Exclusively in Xilinx Design, Development and Training
Voice: (500) 447-FPGA, (908) 996-0817
FAX:   (908) 996-0817


justen wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I need for my new project (PWM Generator)  a 100MHz 16-Bit Counter with
> 3 Comparators. Because, I have no experience with such a high frequency,
> I would like to know if this PWM-Generator works inside a XILINX
> XC4010XL FPGA or a 95108 CPLD? I can't find an answer for this question
> in my current databook.
> 
> Thanks
> Detlef Justen
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dipl.-Ing. D.Justen               ______|  _____|   ___|   ___|
> Center for Sensor Systems (ZESS)     __|   __|     __|    __|
> Paul-Bonatz-Str. 9-11               __|    ____|    __|    __|
> 57074 Siegen                       __|     __|       __|    __|
> Germany                           ______|  _____| ____|  ____|
> Tel.:       ++49271/ 740-2432
> Fax.:       ++49271/ 740-2336
> E-Mail:     justen@zess.uni-siegen.de
> Homepage:   http://www.zess.uni-siegen.de
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
Article: 12369
Subject: Re: Spartan: strange problem
From: Ed McCauley <emccauley@bltinc.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:22:47 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Laurent,

For starters, I'd get in epic and verify your basic FF's existence and configuration.  I'd also
verify that the signals are going to the pins you THINK they are!  Seems like another case of a
little glitch causing big problems.  Take it one step at a time and don't assume anything including
the fact that the device is even configured!

-- 
Ed McCauley
Bottom Line Technologies Inc.
http://www.bltinc.com
Specializing Exclusively in Xilinx Design, Development and Training
Voice: (500) 447-FPGA, (908) 996-0817
FAX:   (908) 996-0817
Article: 12370
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: Ed McCauley <emccauley@bltinc.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:36:22 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi group.

As a member of the Xilinx EUC, I've had multiple conversations with Xilinx on this matter.  Xilinx
has two conflicting beliefs:

1. That 100% of the world will go HDL
2. That Virtex will be THE product of the future

Well, we all know that the world is full of folks that are going to remain schematic based - at
least for a long time.  I think that Xilinx is beginning to recognize that, if they expect Virtex to
be the solution for everyone, they better consider their design entry roadmap.

Stay tuned.... same bat channel......

-- 
Ed McCauley
Bottom Line Technologies Inc.
http://www.bltinc.com
Specializing Exclusively in Xilinx Design, Development and Training
Voice: (500) 447-FPGA, (908) 996-0817
FAX:   (908) 996-0817
Article: 12371
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: Rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:05:40 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Isn't is possible to turn your schematic output into VHDL? I know that
is how it is done in Orcad and that is what happens when you use
Foundation with Active VHDL. 

If you can perform the schematic to VHDL translation, where does the
non-support come in?



Ray Andraka wrote:
> 
> Looks like Austin changed his email address so no one would know it was him!
> I too, am rather annoyed by this (I heard it from the same place Austin did),
> as I use schematic entry extensively in datapath and DSP designs (In these
> cases it is faster to use schematic and more readable than HDL code).  I'd feel
> alot better if it was just a misinformed FAE spreading bad info.  Anyone else?
> Phil, have you heard anything like this?
> 
> Donald Espinoza (aka Austin Franklin) wrote:
> 
> > It appears that Xilinx may not be supporting Viewlogic Viewdraw schematic
> > entry for Virtex (or any other schematic entry tool for that matter).
> > SOMEhow, SOMEone, interviewed SOME people, and these people were apparently
> > taken by the Xilinx decision making tree as the 'golden' cross section of
> > 'important' users.  These SOME people said they did not want schematics,
> > that HDLs would do fine.
> >
> > Now, nothing against HDLs, as I do use them, and they are fine...BUT there
> > are some things just done better in schematics.  Let's not get into that
> > subject, as we all have bantered this issue of schematics v HDLs about, but
> > for Xilinx to dictate what my design methodology is to be is not OK.
> > Personally, I think this, what I would call, a quite 'uneducated' decision,
> > is a very bad decision....
> >
> > ANYone else know ANYthing more about this?
> >
> > Austin Franklin
> > darkroom@ix.netcom.com
> 
> --
> -Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
> email randraka@ids.net
> http://users.ids.net/~randraka

-- 

Rick Collins

redsp@XYusa.net

remove the XY to email me.
Article: 12372
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroo3m@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 10 Oct 1998 14:58:04 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Converting schematics to VHDL..  An idea who's time has, well, er, hum... 
I can't think of an appropriate word.  Kind of like converting assembly
language to COBOL in order to run it ;-)

For one, you are then CONTROLLED by how good the schematic to VHDL
translator is, and THEN by how good the VHDL compiler is.  This is the very
issue I use schematics to avoid....I want full control of how the design
gets put into the chip, how the logic is grouped and where it is placed.

Currently, to my knowledge, if a design is in HDL, you have to spend an
inordinate amount of time making the design so it can be controlled
(basically, instantiating everything you want control of), if you can
control it at all.  This means I would loose one of the major reasons I use
schematics for in the first place....

If I could use FMAPs (map the logic) and somehow put placement information
in the design, or in some file somewhere (that I wouldn't have to change
with every compile because of goofy name changes because I changed one gate
somewhere and OU1/n1168/U32 got changed to OU1/n1168/U25...) I might be
able to work with that.

I'm sure simulation will end up being a major issue too...

Austin


Rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<361F69B4.498D844@yahoo.com>...
> Isn't is possible to turn your schematic output into VHDL? I know that
> is how it is done in Orcad and that is what happens when you use
> Foundation with Active VHDL. 
> 
> If you can perform the schematic to VHDL translation, where does the
> non-support come in?
> 
> Ray Andraka wrote:
> > 
> > Looks like Austin changed his email address so no one would know it was
him!
> > I too, am rather annoyed by this (I heard it from the same place Austin
did),
> > as I use schematic entry extensively in datapath and DSP designs (In
these
> > cases it is faster to use schematic and more readable than HDL code). 
I'd feel
> > alot better if it was just a misinformed FAE spreading bad info. 
Anyone else?
> > Phil, have you heard anything like this?
> > 
> >  Austin Franklin wrote:
> > 
> > > It appears that Xilinx may not be supporting Viewlogic Viewdraw
schematic
> > > entry for Virtex (or any other schematic entry tool for that matter).
> > > SOMEhow, SOMEone, interviewed SOME people, and these people were
apparently
> > > taken by the Xilinx decision making tree as the 'golden' cross
section of
> > > 'important' users.  These SOME people said they did not want
schematics,
> > > that HDLs would do fine.
> > >
> > > Now, nothing against HDLs, as I do use them, and they are fine...BUT
there
> > > are some things just done better in schematics.  Let's not get into
that
> > > subject, as we all have bantered this issue of schematics v HDLs
about, but
> > > for Xilinx to dictate what my design methodology is to be is not OK.
> > > Personally, I think this, what I would call, a quite 'uneducated'
decision,
> > > is a very bad decision....
> > >
> > > ANYone else know ANYthing more about this?

Article: 12373
Subject: Re: Xilinx may not support schematics for Virtex?????
From: Rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:39:51 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Converting schematics to VHDL..  An idea who's time has, well, er, hum...
> I can't think of an appropriate word.  Kind of like converting assembly
> language to COBOL in order to run it ;-)
> 
> For one, you are then CONTROLLED by how good the schematic to VHDL
> translator is, and THEN by how good the VHDL compiler is.  This is the very
> issue I use schematics to avoid....I want full control of how the design
> gets put into the chip, how the logic is grouped and where it is placed.
> 
> Currently, to my knowledge, if a design is in HDL, you have to spend an
> inordinate amount of time making the design so it can be controlled
> (basically, instantiating everything you want control of), if you can
> control it at all.  This means I would loose one of the major reasons I use
> schematics for in the first place....
> 
> If I could use FMAPs (map the logic) and somehow put placement information
> in the design, or in some file somewhere (that I wouldn't have to change
> with every compile because of goofy name changes because I changed one gate
> somewhere and OU1/n1168/U32 got changed to OU1/n1168/U25...) I might be
> able to work with that.
> 
> I'm sure simulation will end up being a major issue too...
> 
> Austin

Austin,

I don't think you understand what happens when you want to simulate in a
VHDL simulator. The schematic must be converted to VHDL since that is
the only format the simulator understands. You also might not be
familiar with structural VHDL. This is equivalent to a netlist. So it is
just another form of the schematic. There is no synthesis involved so
the compilier can't mess up what you have written. 

It sounds to me like you have tried VHDL and had VHDL shock. I am very
familiar with that having just learned VHDL within this past year.
However I found VHDL to be a good tool which may make some tasks a
little harder, at least until you learn how to do them in a different
way, but it makes many tasks easier. 

If you need so much control over your design that you think in terms of
FMAPs at all times, then you likely would not find VHDL useful. But I
have found that the 90/10 rule applies to hardware just as it does to
software. 90% of your design will work just fine with auto place and
route, even in a fast design. The other 10% can be tweeked by hand, even
using VHDL. 

I may be a little biased towards VHDL since it is a programming language
and I have some background as a programmer. But I can tell that as my
designs get larger I will no longer have the option of drawing
schematics to record my design. I will be forced to use VHDL in order to
get increased productivity. 

The one big point that got me to try my first VHDL project was testbench
capability. A testbench is a VHDL program which allows you to create a
"virtual environment" to test your design. It is much more than a batch
file. It has the capability to interactively stimulate the design and
verify results. It is also portable across different vendors. 

I don't think I will do another design of any real size again without
VHDL. 


-- 

Rick Collins

redsp@XYusa.net

remove the XY to email me.
Article: 12374
Subject: Re: Help Desperately Needed with Altera Microprocessor Design.
From: "Jan Gray" <jsgray@acm.org.nospam>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:34:40 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
As discussed in http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=336757776, the new 10KE
family EABs promise four times the bandwidth (twice as wide, true dual
ported) of the 10K EABs, a great improvement for building processor register
files, caches, cache tags, TLBs, etc.

For example, Lexra recently announced the LX-4080P for the Flex 10K200E.
See
"Lexra’s MIPS core runs on Altera FPGA" at
http://www.eet.com/story/OEG19981006S0006.

Jan Gray





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

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarApr2017

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

Custom Search