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 125700

Article: 125700
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: raullim7@hotmail.com
Date: 1 Nov 2007 06:33:27 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote:
> raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > My FPGA master clock is at 100MHz. I have assigned a counter to count
> > from 0 to 99 to achieve a period of 1usec. As the counter is counting
> > from 0 to 99, i will take 1 sample at each count and therefore i have
> > a total of 100 samples. Now my task requires me to increase my sample
> > size to 200. However, i can't increase the counter count to 0 - 200 as
> > this will increase the period to 2usec. My task requires me to double
> > the sample size while maintaing the period at 1usec.
>
> Use a PLL to double the clock frequency, if your FPGA has one.
>
> --
> Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.dehttp://www.frank-buss.de,http://www.it4-systems.de

Hi Frank, i am not allowed to double the clock frequency, my clock
period have to remains at 10ns(1usec/100).


Article: 125701
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: "Mike Lewis" <someone@micrsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:09:22 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

<raullim7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1193906454.426594.11470@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote:
>> raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > My FPGA master clock is at 100MHz. I have assigned a counter to count
>> > from 0 to 99 to achieve a period of 1usec. As the counter is counting
>> > from 0 to 99, i will take 1 sample at each count and therefore i have
>> > a total of 100 samples. Now my task requires me to increase my sample
>> > size to 200. However, i can't increase the counter count to 0 - 200 as
>> > this will increase the period to 2usec. My task requires me to double
>> > the sample size while maintaing the period at 1usec.
>>
>> Use a PLL to double the clock frequency, if your FPGA has one.
>>
>> --
>> Frank Buss, 
>> f...@frank-buss.dehttp://www.frank-buss.de,http://www.it4-systems.de
>
> Hi Frank, i am not allowed to double the clock frequency, my clock
> period have to remains at 10ns(1usec/100).
>

Have half of the samples sampled with the pos edge of the clock and the 
other half caught with the neg edge of the clock. Treat these as 
asynchronous clocks.

Mike 



Article: 125702
Subject: Re: 2 FPGAs /w programming FLASH in one JTAG chain
From: colin <colin_toogood@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:29:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 1 Nov, 12:23, "Toni Merwec" <mistertorp...@freenet.de> wrote:
> "Patrick Dubois" <prdub...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1193673009.082475.114600@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The two proms can be considered as one big prom twice as large. No
> > prom is exclusively dedicated to one FPGA in particular. For example,
> > the bit file for FPGA #1 might take 2/3 of the first prom and the bit
> > file for FPGA #2 might be half in prom #1 and half in prom #2. This is
> > handled for you when you create your mcs files for the proms.
>
> Okay, thank you very much. But one more question: What about the DO pins
> from the PROMs to the FPGA? In the Platform Flash In-System Programmable
> Configuration PROMs data sheet ds123.pdf (page 18) it is recommended to tie
> the DO outputs of both PROMs together and connect the FPGAs in series. I
> don't see any reason to do it this way. What I would have done normally
> (without having read the user guide) is having the DO of one PROM connected
> to one FPGA (DIN) and the other DO of the second PROM to the the other DIN
> of the remaining FPGA. What is the reason not to do so, i.e. is there any
> reason? Any help is highly appreciated!
>
> Regards
>
> Toni

Surely this is a simple bom cost option. If each fpga needs 4.1 Mbit
you would need two 8MBit PROMs seperately or an 8 and a 1MBit if
combining them.


Article: 125703
Subject: Re: 2 FPGAs /w programming FLASH in one JTAG chain
From: "Toni Merwec" <mistertorpedo@freenet.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:36:15 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"colin" <colin_toogood@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1193927393.785875.316600@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Surely this is a simple bom cost option. If each fpga needs 4.1 Mbit
> you would need two 8MBit PROMs seperately or an 8 and a 1MBit if
> combining them.


So I'm fine with my solution if cost doesn't matter, right? :-) Technically 
it is not wrong, I guess... 



Article: 125704
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: Peter Alfke <peter@xilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:32:26 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
You are "not allowed to"...
Do you live in a police state that prohibits obvious solutions?
What's the penalty?
Peter Alfke
==============
On Nov 1, 6:33 am, raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote:
>
> > raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > My FPGA master clock is at 100MHz. I have assigned a counter to count
> > > from 0 to 99 to achieve a period of 1usec. As the counter is counting
> > > from 0 to 99, i will take 1 sample at each count and therefore i have
> > > a total of 100 samples. Now my task requires me to increase my sample
> > > size to 200. However, i can't increase the counter count to 0 - 200 as
> > > this will increase the period to 2usec. My task requires me to double
> > > the sample size while maintaing the period at 1usec.
>
> > Use a PLL to double the clock frequency, if your FPGA has one.
>
> > --
> > Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.dehttp://www.frank-buss.de,http://www.it4-systems.de
>
> Hi Frank, i am not allowed to double the clock frequency, my clock
> period have to remains at 10ns(1usec/100).



Article: 125705
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: "Mike Lewis" <someone@micrsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:59:23 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>>
>> > raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > My FPGA master clock is at 100MHz. I have assigned a counter to count
>> > > from 0 to 99 to achieve a period of 1usec. As the counter is counting
>> > > from 0 to 99, i will take 1 sample at each count and therefore i have
>> > > a total of 100 samples. Now my task requires me to increase my sample
>> > > size to 200. However, i can't increase the counter count to 0 - 200 
>> > > as
>> > > this will increase the period to 2usec. My task requires me to double
>> > > the sample size while maintaing the period at 1usec.
>>

Is the requirement to keep the period at 1usec or the frequency at 100Mhz?

mike 



Article: 125706
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: Frank Buss <fb@frank-buss.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 18:15:02 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
raullim7@hotmail.com wrote:

> Hi Frank, i am not allowed to double the clock frequency, my clock
> period have to remains at 10ns(1usec/100).

Maybe you misunderstood me: The PLL is inside the FPGA (at least in
Spartan, Cyclone etc.). Most FPGA clock circuits even provide multiple
outputs. So you can run the rest of your design at 100 MHz and the sampling
at 200 MHz. But maybe you need some FIFO and other tricks to couple it to
the 100 MHz domain, or if the speed is too high for your built-in memory or
external memory.

-- 
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

Article: 125707
Subject: ISE ignores LOC constraints for BUFGMUX clock buffers
From: noreply.larthe@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:19:42 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all!
I have a simple Spartan3A design where I feed a digital video stream
to bank 3 of the device. The idea is to use one of the Left hand
clocks in the device to clock data in the IO pads and to the write
side of a FIFO and then use a Global clock for the read side and
further processing. In order for this to work I have created an
AREA_GROUP with all the logic where the Left hand clock occurs,
including the BUFGMUX and have assigned a range of slices and clock
buffers for this goroup to confine it to the left half of the device,
where the clock is supposedly available. Moreover, I have given a
specific LOC constraint to the BUFGMUX. All these constraints have
been accepted by Translate.

The sad part is that (apart for a breif moment last night) PAR
persists in placing the BUFGMUX in one of the global sites in bank 2.
This means that the routing from the clock pin (that is one of the
LHCLK-pins right near the left hand BUFGMUX) goes across the die and
screws ut the timing. I see no reason for this, the clock net is
confined to the left hand of the die (verified in FPGA editor) and the
specified left hand BUFGMUX is free.

Here is a snippet from the .ucf-file. The dual range AREA_GROUP
constraint (commented out below) does not seem to make any differance,
I have tried both with and without it. I have also tried giving a
range for the LOC constraint, spanning all the left hand BUFGMUX, but
no cigar.

# Video input clock buffer, Left hand BUFGMUX X0Y2
INST "fe_mux_inst/vin_clk_buf_inst" LOC = BUFGMUX_X0Y2;
# Force VinCLK related logic and clock to left hand side
INST "fe_mux_inst" AREA_GROUP = "LeftHandClockedGRP" ;
INST "fe_engine_inst" AREA_GROUP = "LeftHandClockedGRP" ;
INST "fe_mux_inst/vin_clk_buf_inst" AREA_GROUP =
"LeftHandClockedGRP" ;
AREA_GROUP "AG_LeftHandClockedGRP" RANGE = SLICE_X0Y0:SLICE_X31Y143 ;
#AREA_GROUP "AG_LeftHandClockedGRP" RANGE =
SLICE_X32Y8:SLICE_X39Y135 ;
AREA_GROUP "AG_LeftHandClockedGRP" RANGE = RAMB16_X0Y0:RAMB16_X0Y15 ;

Time is ticking, the deadline is aproaching, the desperation is
building... Any clues out there?

I run ISE 9.1.03i under Windows XP. Synthesis is XST. Clobber me if
there are more details I should have included...

/Lars

(Remove the obvious from the email address for direct replies)


Article: 125708
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: Matthew Hicks <mdhicks2@uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 17:24:50 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Sounds like a homework restriction to me.


---Matthew Hicks


> You are "not allowed to"...
> Do you live in a police state that prohibits obvious solutions?
> What's the penalty?
> Peter Alfke
> ==============
> On Nov 1, 6:33 am, raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> raull...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>> My FPGA master clock is at 100MHz. I have assigned a counter to
>>>> count from 0 to 99 to achieve a period of 1usec. As the counter is
>>>> counting from 0 to 99, i will take 1 sample at each count and
>>>> therefore i have a total of 100 samples. Now my task requires me to
>>>> increase my sample size to 200. However, i can't increase the
>>>> counter count to 0 - 200 as this will increase the period to 2usec.
>>>> My task requires me to double the sample size while maintaing the
>>>> period at 1usec.
>>>> 
>>> Use a PLL to double the clock frequency, if your FPGA has one.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Frank Buss,
>>> f...@frank-buss.dehttp://www.frank-buss.de,http://www.it4-systems.de
>> Hi Frank, i am not allowed to double the clock frequency, my clock
>> period have to remains at 10ns(1usec/100).
>> 



Article: 125709
Subject: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: Petrov_101@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:26:54 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Has anyone implemented a circuit similar to the one below?

                                            VCC
                                             +
                                             |
                             .---------------o
                             |               |
                             |               |
                             |              .-.
                             |              | |
                             |              | |  weak pullup
                             |              '-'
                             |               |
                             |               |
                             |         .-----o
                             |         |     |        -----
                             |       |\|     |       |     |
                             --------| >-----|-------| PIN |
                                     |/      |       |     |
                                             |        -----
                                             |
                                             |       floating
                                             |          or
                                             |         GND
                                     /|      |
   To Internal Fpga Logic <---------< |-------
                                     \|
(created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)


When the input pin is floating, the weak pullup causes the output
buffer to drive Vcc out, negating any extraneous noise that may exist
on the external line.

When the input pin is driven to ground, the buffer momentarily tries
driving Vcc to ground but stops once the tristate is disabled.

I've always just used a weak pullup on the input (no tristate buffer
at all) but another engineer in our group says this is a good way to
protect input pins from noise on undriven inputs.  I'm a little
concerned about the brief period of time when the tristate buffer is
driving ground but he assures me that the fpga can handle it.

Do you agree?


Article: 125710
Subject: Re: ISE ignores LOC constraints for BUFGMUX clock buffers
From: noreply.larthe@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:11:06 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
As one might expect, I was on a wild goose chase. Please ignore the
above post, I had two clock buffers in the block, one called
vin_clk_buf_inst and one called vin_clk2_buf_inst. I placed the
constraints on vin_clk_buf_inst, that I didn't use and that got
optimized away in MAP so I missed that vin_clk2_buf_inst was left
without any LOC constraint.

I still can't see why ISE could not figure this topology out by
itself. But I guess that is why there are still a need for
engineers...

Regards,
/Lars


Article: 125711
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:25:08 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Petrov,

Why are you trying to do this?

What is it supposed to protect the FPGA from?

Austin

Article: 125712
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:42:24 +1300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Matthew Hicks wrote:
> Sounds like a homework restriction to me.
> 

Perhaps this is a task for a 5ns delay line then ?
The tutor may not have restricted those ;)

-jg


Article: 125713
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:50:29 +1300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Petrov_101@hotmail.com wrote:

> Has anyone implemented a circuit similar to the one below?
> 
>                                             VCC
>                                              +
>                                              |
>                              .---------------o
>                              |               |
>                              |               |
>                              |              .-.
>                              |              | |
>                              |              | |  weak pullup
>                              |              '-'
>                              |               |
>                              |               |
>                              |         .-----o
>                              |         |     |        -----
>                              |       |\|     |       |     |
>                              --------| >-----|-------| PIN |
>                                      |/      |       |     |
>                                              |        -----
>                                              |
>                                              |       floating
>                                              |          or
>                                              |         GND
>                                      /|      |
>    To Internal Fpga Logic <---------< |-------
>                                      \|
> (created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)
> 
> 
> When the input pin is floating, the weak pullup causes the output
> buffer to drive Vcc out, negating any extraneous noise that may exist
> on the external line.
> 
> When the input pin is driven to ground, the buffer momentarily tries
> driving Vcc to ground but stops once the tristate is disabled.
> 
> I've always just used a weak pullup on the input (no tristate buffer
> at all) but another engineer in our group says this is a good way to
> protect input pins from noise on undriven inputs.

Wow - How much noise is he used to dealing with ?

>  I'm a little
> concerned about the brief period of time when the tristate buffer is
> driving ground but he assures me that the fpga can handle it.

Also be worried about if the contention can get past the logic threshold.

> 
> Do you agree?

Yes, "the fpga can handle it" - but you have wider issues.
Can the device driving the fPGA handle it.
You would need to spec the lowest drive option on the FPGA,
and the best drive on the external device.
What if the designer of the external device is thinking exactly the same
as you :)

The 80C51 has a port structure similar, but they use Weak PFET and 
Strong NFET, so they know they will not get stuck in no-mans land with
part variations.

-jg




Article: 125714
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: Petrov_101@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:50:30 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 1, 2:25 pm, austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Petrov,
>
> Why are you trying to do this?
>
> What is it supposed to protect the FPGA from?
>
> Austin

I'm not convinced I should be trying this, that's the problem.  I've
always just enabled a weak pullup resistor on the input of a floating
pin.  My coworker is trying to convince me that this approach offers
better noise immunity when nothing is connected to the input pin.

The thing is, this input feeds a two-stage synchronizer... I would
think that alone would eliminate most noise to the synchronous logic
that follows.



Article: 125715
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: Petrov_101@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:52:32 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 1, 2:50 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
> Petrov_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Has anyone implemented a circuit similar to the one below?
>
> >                                             VCC
> >                                              +
> >                                              |
> >                              .---------------o
> >                              |               |
> >                              |               |
> >                              |              .-.
> >                              |              | |
> >                              |              | |  weak pullup
> >                              |              '-'
> >                              |               |
> >                              |               |
> >                              |         .-----o
> >                              |         |     |        -----
> >                              |       |\|     |       |     |
> >                              --------| >-----|-------| PIN |
> >                                      |/      |       |     |
> >                                              |        -----
> >                                              |
> >                                              |       floating
> >                                              |          or
> >                                              |         GND
> >                                      /|      |
> >    To Internal Fpga Logic <---------< |-------
> >                                      \|
> > (created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05www.tech-chat.de)
>
> > When the input pin is floating, the weak pullup causes the output
> > buffer to drive Vcc out, negating any extraneous noise that may exist
> > on the external line.
>
> > When the input pin is driven to ground, the buffer momentarily tries
> > driving Vcc to ground but stops once the tristate is disabled.
>
> > I've always just used a weak pullup on the input (no tristate buffer
> > at all) but another engineer in our group says this is a good way to
> > protect input pins from noise on undriven inputs.
>
> Wow - How much noise is he used to dealing with ?
>
> >  I'm a little
> > concerned about the brief period of time when the tristate buffer is
> > driving ground but he assures me that the fpga can handle it.
>
> Also be worried about if the contention can get past the logic threshold.
>
>
>
> > Do you agree?
>
> Yes, "the fpga can handle it" - but you have wider issues.
> Can the device driving the fPGA handle it.
> You would need to spec the lowest drive option on the FPGA,
> and the best drive on the external device.
> What if the designer of the external device is thinking exactly the same
> as you :)
>
> The 80C51 has a port structure similar, but they use Weak PFET and
> Strong NFET, so they know they will not get stuck in no-mans land with
> part variations.
>
> -jg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My coworker did suggest setting the drive to the lowest setting.  I
assume he's done this on past designs... I've just never seen it
before.


Article: 125716
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: Dave Pollum <vze24h5m@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:55:38 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 1, 1:50 pm, Petrov_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2:25 pm, austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> > Petrov,
>
> > Why are you trying to do this?
>
> > What is it supposed to protect the FPGA from?
>
> > Austin
>
> I'm not convinced I should be trying this, that's the problem.  I've
> always just enabled a weak pullup resistor on the input of a floating
> pin.  My coworker is trying to convince me that this approach offers
> better noise immunity when nothing is connected to the input pin.
>
> The thing is, this input feeds a two-stage synchronizer... I would
> think that alone would eliminate most noise to the synchronous logic
> that follows.

So are you saying that the input to your synchronizer would be
floating???
-Dave Pollum


Article: 125717
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: Petrov_101@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:01:09 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 1, 2:55 pm, Dave Pollum <vze24...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:50 pm, Petrov_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 2:25 pm, austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> > > Petrov,
>
> > > Why are you trying to do this?
>
> > > What is it supposed to protect the FPGA from?
>
> > > Austin
>
> > I'm not convinced I should be trying this, that's the problem.  I've
> > always just enabled a weak pullup resistor on the input of a floating
> > pin.  My coworker is trying to convince me that this approach offers
> > better noise immunity when nothing is connected to the input pin.
>
> > The thing is, this input feeds a two-stage synchronizer... I would
> > think that alone would eliminate most noise to the synchronous logic
> > that follows.
>
> So are you saying that the input to your synchronizer would be
> floating???
> -Dave Pollum- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No... it would still have the weak pullup enabled.


Article: 125718
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: "MM" <mbmsv@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:19:57 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
What are you sampling? Where do the samples go?

If you store your samples in some sort of a memory buffer, just add another 
buffer of the same size and write to it on falling edge.


/Mikhail 



Article: 125719
Subject: fpga based designs
From: fazulu deen <fazulu.vlsi@gmail.com>
Date: 1 Nov 2007 12:42:50 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Dear all,

Is it possible to implement power management unit(idle and active) in
FPGA?

pls give suggestions to implement clock generation unit in FPGA....

regards,
fazal


Article: 125720
Subject: Xilinx's System Generator versus Mathworks' Link for Modelsim
From: brianwfarmer@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:48:38 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am mainly looking to make my ModelSim test bench simulation
creations easier/faster. How does Xilinx's System Generator versus
Mathworks' Link for Modelsim compare for that?

With System Generator, I usppose it is possible to use Black Box for
creating Simulink test benches?


Article: 125721
Subject: Re: Another way to handle floating inputs.
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:56:42 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Petrov,

I can see no reason to do what your co-worker is suggesting, unless
there are IOs very near this input, and those IOs are switching with
large, and strong, currents (like LVCMOS 24 mA FAST, or PCI bus).

The above assumes that this input is only weakly driven.  If there is a
strong driver to this input, then the only concern is if there is so
much cross-talk or bounce that a driven signal to this pin is upset
(requires many tens of mA of coupling, or volts of bounce!).

If there are nearby switching, and the concern is crosstalk or ground
bounce, then the real solution is to do the simulations, and either use
the right part (like the V4 or V5 with the SpaseChevron(tm) package
which minimizes crosstalk and bounce by a factor of 7.5 over other
solutions), or ground the pins on either side of the input (which is
another way to limit the crosstalk and bounce on the sensitive pin).

Your friend's idea may not harm the output (it will not), but it won't
really do what you want, either (deal with crosstalk or bounce).

Austin

Article: 125722
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: "Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:17:29 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:472a1dc0$1@clear.net.nz...
> Matthew Hicks wrote:
>> Sounds like a homework restriction to me.
>>
>
> Perhaps this is a task for a 5ns delay line then ?
> The tutor may not have restricted those ;)
>
> -jg
>
Hi Jim,
I think we may need to be more creative than that. I suggest accelerating 
the tutor to about 0.866 times the speed of light while carrying out the 
FPGA sampling. From his point of view, the sampling will then be at ~200MHz.
Or maybe give him a barometer?
HTH., Syms. 



Article: 125723
Subject: Re: can i use dual edge or two clocks?
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:35:26 +1300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Symon wrote:

> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message 
> news:472a1dc0$1@clear.net.nz...
> 
>>Matthew Hicks wrote:
>>
>>>Sounds like a homework restriction to me.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps this is a task for a 5ns delay line then ?
>>The tutor may not have restricted those ;)
>>
>>-jg
>>
> 
> Hi Jim,
> I think we may need to be more creative than that. I suggest accelerating 
> the tutor to about 0.866 times the speed of light while carrying out the 
> FPGA sampling. From his point of view, the sampling will then be at ~200MHz.
> Or maybe give him a barometer?
> HTH., Syms. 

and that gives me another idea -[just in case the tutor was smart enough 
to say no active components], the OP could use appx 1m of wire as a 
delay line. He'd need to measure and trim it to whatever precision was 
needed, but my rusty collection is ~200m/us (after velocity factor 
correction)
- an "A" student would make a vernier screw sliding contact, allowing
fine adjustments of the 5ns delay.

-jg






Article: 125724
Subject: Re: fpga based designs
From: "John_H" <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:07:00 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"fazulu deen" <fazulu.vlsi@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1193934339.923442.65740@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all,
>
> Is it possible to implement power management unit(idle and active) in
> FPGA?
>
> pls give suggestions to implement clock generation unit in FPGA....
>
> regards,
> fazal

Is it possible to ask the question in a way that we can answer?

Are you trying to control the FPGA from the FPGA?   Control a procesor from 
the FPGA?  Control a nuclear power pland from the FPGA?  What kind of clock 
generation are you looking for?

Please think about the kind of answer you want and ask the question in a way 
that's obvious what you're driving toward.

Please.

- John_H 





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