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 155775

Article: 155775
Subject: Re: FPGA temperature measurement
From: "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:11 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Neato!

Say, how's the voltage coefficient on that, with respect to Vcore I 
suppose?  Would be good for calculating how much ripple it can tolerate.

Tim

-- 
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

"John Larkin" <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message 
news:s9fv199t3h9qtmbjrcmnkfe4dlqrv60tlm@4ax.com...
>
>
> We're experimenting with heat sinking an Altera Cyclone 3 FPGA. To
> measure actual die temperature, we built a 19-stage ring oscillator,
> followed by a divide-by-16 ripple counter, and brought that out.
>
> The heat source is the FPGA itself: we just clocked every available
> flop on the chip at 250 MHz. We stuck a thinfilm thermocouple on the
> top of the BGA package, and here's what we got:
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Thermal/R2_Temp_Cal.jpg
>
>
> We can now use that curve (line, actually!) to evaluate various heat
> sinking options, for both this chip and the entire board.
>
> The equivalent prop delay per CLB seems to be about 350 ps. The prop
> delay slope is about 0.1% per degree C.
>
>
> -- 
>
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
>
> jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
> http://www.highlandtechnology.com
>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom laser drivers and controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
> VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro   acquisition and simulation 



Article: 155776
Subject: Re: FPGA temperature measurement
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:14:59 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:11 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net>
wrote:

>Neato!
>
>Say, how's the voltage coefficient on that, with respect to Vcore I 
>suppose?  Would be good for calculating how much ripple it can tolerate.
>
>Tim

Vcore comes from an LM1117 with the ADJ pin grounded, so it's not really easy to
twiddle. I might if I'm ever feeling energetic.



-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

Article: 155777
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 03:14:18 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 8/29/2013 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
>>
>> I think you mean Lattice offers a part in the QFN32.  I only found the
>> XO2-256.  A selection guide that isn't even a year old says they offer
>> an iCE40 part in this package, but it doesn't show up in the data sheet
>> from 2013.  I guess the product line is still a little schizo.  They
>> haven't finished cleaning house and any part or package could be next.
>
> The part code for this is ICE40LP384-SG32
> Showing on price lists, but still 0 in the stock column.
> Mouser says 100 due on 9/30/2013

Just goes to show, you have to keep up on the data sheets.  They just 
released a new one last week, 8/22/2013.  This one includes the 32 pin 
QFN.  Still, it is the poor step child of the family with no memory at 
all other than the FFs.  Actually, I looked back through my history of 
data sheets and I must have had a brain cramp, they all show the QFN32.

I have been looking at these parts for some time and I never realized 
they don't include distributed RAM using the LUTs.  This part was not 
designed by Lattice, so I guess this may still be covered by patent. 
Lattice has a license on many Xilinx owned patents because they bought 
the Orca line from Lucent who had gotten all sorts of licensing from 
Xilinx in a weak moment.  Not that this has hurt Xilinx much, but it is 
so out of character for them.  I'll never understand why they licensed 
their products to Lucent.  Maybe some huge customer required a second 
source for the 3000 and 4000 series.  Or maybe it was just a huge wad of 
cash Lucent waved under their noses.  Likely we'll never know.

The point is I'm not nearly as enamored with the iCE40 parts as I was a 
year ago.  They dropped the 600 LUT member of their family and replaced 
it with this 384 LUT member.  At the same time they raised the quiescent 
current spec for the 1k part from 40 uA to 100 uAs.  The entire iCE65 
product line was dropped (which was even lower static current).  They 
just can't seem to pick a direction and stick with it.


>> In fact, that is an option, to add an MCU for
>> most of the I/O and processing, then use something like the XO2-256 in a
>> QFN32 to do the high speed stuff.  I'm just not sure I can fit the
>> design in 256 LUTs.  Maybe the QFN32 is small enough I can use two?  5x5mm!
>
> Try it and see. I found the XO2-256 seems to pack full quite well, and the tools are ok to use, so you can find out quite quickly.
>   I did a series of capture counters in XO2-256, and once it worked, I increased the the width to fill more of the part.
>   IIRC it got into the 90%+ with now surprises.
>
>   I've been meaning to compare the ICE40LP384 with the XO2-256, as the iCE40 cell is more primitive, it may not fit more.

"Try it" is not so simple.  The existing design is all logic.  To "try 
it" requires repeating the design with a dichotomy of slow functions in 
software, fast functions in hardware and interfaces which will allow it 
all to function as a whole.  It's not a huge project, but some of the 
functions (like a buffer size controlled FLL) might be a bit tricky to 
get right in software and may need to remain in gateware.  Without block 
RAM this is hard.  The beauty of doing it all in the FPGA is that the 
entire design can be run in one VHDL simulation.  If the processor were 
integrated into the FPGA, then we are back to a single simulation, schweet!

I'll more than likely go with one of the BGA packages, possibly the 
BGA256 because of the large ball spacing.  This gives fairly relaxed 
design rules to the PCB.  That then opens up the possibilities to a wide 
range of very capable parts.  We'll see...

-- 

Rick

Article: 155778
Subject: Re: Actel Designer Warning: CMP201: Net drives no load
From: alb <alessandro.basili@cern.ch>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:31:34 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Chris,

On 29/08/2013 02:29, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:34:46 AM UTC-7, alb wrote:
>> Hi everyone, I have several ports of my design that are not driving
>> anything and left 'open' on purpose, using the 'open' keyword in my
>> component instantiation in vhdl. Now I receive loads of 'Warning:
>> CMP201...' from Designer because of this. Is there a way not to be
>> annoyed by these warnings with the possibility to miss an important
>> one?

[]
> OK I just reread this and noticed you just want a way to silence
> these warnings if I am reading correctly... 

yes, you are reading correctly. Unfortunately warnings are not born all
equal and a design may have several of them, some can be ignored and
some should not. I simply would like to get rid of the ones I do not
care about.

nope I do not know how to
> silence specific warnings with the Microsemi Designer.  You probably
> have to pull the text into python and do it there if you really need
> to.  I quickly looked through the literature I have on Actel and the
> only related thing I saw was to limit the total number of warnings
> shown.  The default is 10,000 but you can change it with the tcl
> command "-pdc_eco_max_warnings value" where value is the max number
> of warnings.  This is not going to fix your issue though.

IMO having a maximum number of warning is extremely risky. You may fall
in the situation where you may miss important ones.
On top of it I consider warnings an indication that something is not
going ok and I can live with a warning if and only if I know exactly why
is there. But I do not want to keep trace of zillions of warnings which
are meaningless.

Svenn suggested to use the 'unused' attribute in SmartGen, but SmartGen
is a just a macro generator and you would have to instantiate the
component in your vhdl anyhow and it is typically assigned to 'open'
(vhdl keyword). But this will flag a stupid warning in Designer.



Article: 155779
Subject: Re: Actel Designer Warning: CMP201: Net drives no load
From: Chris <catalsma@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Another way to clear these warnings is to make a mux'ed set of signals goin=
g to unused pins that you never select using an outside trigger.  For examp=
le for ten signals that are giving you unconnected warnings and assuming yo=
u have some spare IO make a test mux that is high impedance in the default =
setting and selects these unused signals in other settings that never actua=
lly get selected.  You just need to fool the synthesis tool by making the s=
elector an outside signal.  I have done this with a mux selector coming fro=
m a mmi from a processor and it works.  You can probably do a -no prune dir=
ective to save the mux too.  Kind of a pain but it would fix the problem if=
 you have the spare IO.

Article: 155780
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: Brian Davis <brimdavis@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:

> I have been looking at these parts for some time and I never 
> realized they don't include distributed RAM using the LUTs.  

Also of note, the ICE40 Block RAM's two ports consist of
one read-only port, and one write-only port; vs. the two
independent read+write ports of many other FPGA families.

> Lattice has a license on many Xilinx owned patents because 
> they bought the Orca line from Lucent who had gotten all 
> sorts of licensing from Xilinx in a weak moment. 
<snip>
> I'll never understand why they licensed their products to Lucent. 

 I'd reckon AT&T/Lucent had a large semiconductor patent 
portfolio with which to apply strategic "leverage" for a 
favorable cross-licensing agreement.

> If the processor were integrated into the FPGA, then we 
> are back to a single simulation, schweet! 

As a yardstick, a system build for my homebrew RISC,
including 4 Kbyte BRAM, UART and I/O, fits snugly into 
one of the 1280 LUT4 XO2 devices:

:   Number of logic LUT4s:      890
:   Number of distributed RAM:   66 (132 LUT4s)
:   Number of ripple logic:     110 (220 LUT4s)
:   Number of shift registers:    0
:   Total number of LUT4s:     1242
:
:   Number of block RAMs:  4 out of 7 (57%)

 The core proper (32 bit datapath, 16 bit instructions)
is currently ~800 LUT4 in its' default configuration.
[ I miss TBUF's when working on processor datapaths.]

I don't have the XO2 design checked in, but the similar
XP2 version is in the following code repository, under 
trunk/hdl/systems/evb_lattice_xp2_brevia :

 http://code.google.com/p/yard-1/

The above is still very much a work-in-progress, but 
far enough along to use for small assembly projects 
( note that interrupts are currently broken ).

-Brian

Article: 155781
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 01:25:18 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 9/2/2013 9:56 PM, Brian Davis wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> I have been looking at these parts for some time and I never
>> realized they don't include distributed RAM using the LUTs.
>
> Also of note, the ICE40 Block RAM's two ports consist of
> one read-only port, and one write-only port; vs. the two
> independent read+write ports of many other FPGA families.

The iCE family of products have a number of shortcomings compared to the 
large parts sold elsewhere, but for a reason, the iCE lines are very, 
very low power.  You can't do that if you have a lot of "fat" in the 
hardware.  So they cut to the bone.  This is not the only area where the 
parts are a little short.  The question is how much does it matter?  For 
a long time I've heard how brand X or A or whatever is better because of 
this feature or that feature.  So the iCE line has few of these fancy 
features, how well do designs work in them?


>> Lattice has a license on many Xilinx owned patents because
>> they bought the Orca line from Lucent who had gotten all
>> sorts of licensing from Xilinx in a weak moment.
> <snip>
>> I'll never understand why they licensed their products to Lucent.
>
>   I'd reckon AT&T/Lucent had a large semiconductor patent
> portfolio with which to apply strategic "leverage" for a
> favorable cross-licensing agreement.

Possible, but I don't think so.  Any number of folks could have had 
semiconductor patents and no one else got anything like this.  I would 
speculate that Xilinx needed a second source for some huge customer or 
maybe they were at a critical point in the company's growth and just 
needed a bunch of cash (as opposed to cache).  Who knows?


>> If the processor were integrated into the FPGA, then we
>> are back to a single simulation, schweet!
>
> As a yardstick, a system build for my homebrew RISC,
> including 4 Kbyte BRAM, UART and I/O, fits snugly into
> one of the 1280 LUT4 XO2 devices:
>
> :   Number of logic LUT4s:      890
> :   Number of distributed RAM:   66 (132 LUT4s)
> :   Number of ripple logic:     110 (220 LUT4s)
> :   Number of shift registers:    0
> :   Total number of LUT4s:     1242
> :
> :   Number of block RAMs:  4 out of 7 (57%)
>
>   The core proper (32 bit datapath, 16 bit instructions)
> is currently ~800 LUT4 in its' default configuration.
> [ I miss TBUF's when working on processor datapaths.]
>
> I don't have the XO2 design checked in, but the similar
> XP2 version is in the following code repository, under
> trunk/hdl/systems/evb_lattice_xp2_brevia :
>
>   http://code.google.com/p/yard-1/
>
> The above is still very much a work-in-progress, but
> far enough along to use for small assembly projects
> ( note that interrupts are currently broken ).

The trick to datapaths in CPU designs is to minimize the number of 
inputs onto a "bus" which is implemented as multiplexers.  Minimizing 
inputs gains speed and minimizes logic.  When possible put the muxes 
inside some RAM on the chip to good use.  I got sidetracked on my last 
iteration of a CPU design which was going to use a block RAM as the 
"register file" and stack in one.  Since then I've read about some other 
designs which use similar ideas although not identical.

Why did you roll your own RISC design when each FPGA maker has their 
own?  The Lattice version is even open source.

-- 

Rick

Article: 155782
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: Brian Davis <brimdavis@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:
>
>>> I'll never understand why they licensed their products to Lucent.
>>
>>   I'd reckon AT&T/Lucent had a large semiconductor patent
>> portfolio with which to apply strategic "leverage" for a
>> favorable cross-licensing agreement.
>
> Possible, but I don't think so.  Any number of folks could
> have had semiconductor patents and no one else got anything 
> like this. I would speculate that Xilinx needed a second source
>

 There was definitely a second source in the XC3000 days,
first from MMI (bought by AMD), later AT&T; but I don't 
remember there being anyone second sourcing the XC4000

 IIRC, as Xilinx introduced the XC4000, AT&T went their 
own way in the ORCA, with similar features (distributed RAM, 
carry chains), but using the Neocad software.

 My speculation is that at this juncture, AT&T leveraged
rights to the Xilinx FPGA patents.

 Back in 1995, the AT&T press release responding to the 
Neocad acquisition was re-posted here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.arch.fpga/Oa92_X3iDao/w63G0Z4dlCcJ

and stated:
"
" When AT&T Microelectronics decided not to second source 
" the Xilinx 4000 family of FPGAs, we accelerated the 
" introduction of the ORCA family.
"

-----------------

> The trick to datapaths in CPU designs is to minimize 
> the number of inputs onto a "bus" which is implemented 
> as multiplexers.  

Yes, that's why I miss the TBUF's :)

In the XC4000/Virtex days, the same 32 bit core fit into 
300-400 LUT4's, and a good number of TBUF's.

 The growth to ~800 LUT4 is split between the TBUF 
replacement muxes and new instruction set features.


> Why did you roll your own RISC design when each FPGA 
> maker has their own?

 When the YARD core blinked it's first LED in 1999, 
there wasn't much in the way of free vendor RISC IP.

 Being a perpetually-unfinished spare-time project, 
I never got enough loose ends tidied up enough to 
make the sources available until recently.

>
> The Lattice version is even open source. 
>
At the initial announcement, yes; but when I looked 
a couple years ago, the Lattice Mico source files 
had been lawyered up with a "Lattice Devices Only" 
clause, see the comments on this thread:

http://latticeblogs.typepad.com/frontier/2006/08/open_source.html

-Brian

Article: 155783
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:35:19 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 9/3/2013 6:27 PM, Brian Davis wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>>
>>>> I'll never understand why they licensed their products to Lucent.
>>>
>>>    I'd reckon AT&T/Lucent had a large semiconductor patent
>>> portfolio with which to apply strategic "leverage" for a
>>> favorable cross-licensing agreement.
>>
>> Possible, but I don't think so.  Any number of folks could
>> have had semiconductor patents and no one else got anything
>> like this. I would speculate that Xilinx needed a second source
>>
>
>   There was definitely a second source in the XC3000 days,
> first from MMI (bought by AMD), later AT&T; but I don't
> remember there being anyone second sourcing the XC4000
>
>   IIRC, as Xilinx introduced the XC4000, AT&T went their
> own way in the ORCA, with similar features (distributed RAM,
> carry chains), but using the Neocad software.
>
>   My speculation is that at this juncture, AT&T leveraged
> rights to the Xilinx FPGA patents.
>
>   Back in 1995, the AT&T press release responding to the
> Neocad acquisition was re-posted here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.arch.fpga/Oa92_X3iDao/w63G0Z4dlCcJ
>
> and stated:
> "
> " When AT&T Microelectronics decided not to second source
> " the Xilinx 4000 family of FPGAs, we accelerated the
> " introduction of the ORCA family.
> "

Yes, that is what we are discussing.  Why did *Xilinx* give out the 
family jewels to Lucent?  We know it happened, the question is *why*?


> -----------------
>
>> The trick to datapaths in CPU designs is to minimize
>> the number of inputs onto a "bus" which is implemented
>> as multiplexers.
>
> Yes, that's why I miss the TBUF's :)
>
> In the XC4000/Virtex days, the same 32 bit core fit into
> 300-400 LUT4's, and a good number of TBUF's.
>
>   The growth to ~800 LUT4 is split between the TBUF
> replacement muxes and new instruction set features.

My understanding is that TBUFs may have been a good idea when LUT delays 
were 5 nS and routing was another 5 to 10 between LUTs, but as they made 
the devices more dense and faster they found the TBUFs just didn't scale 
in the same way, in fact the speed got worse!  The capacitance being 
driven didn't go down much and the TBUFs needed to scale which means 
they had less drive.  So they would have actually gotten slower.  No, 
they are gone because TBUFs just aren't your friend when you want to 
make a dense, fast chip.


>> Why did you roll your own RISC design when each FPGA
>> maker has their own?
>
>   When the YARD core blinked it's first LED in 1999,
> there wasn't much in the way of free vendor RISC IP.
>
>   Being a perpetually-unfinished spare-time project,
> I never got enough loose ends tidied up enough to
> make the sources available until recently.

Ok, that makes sense.  I rolled my first CPU around 2002 and, like you, 
it may have been used, but still is not finished.


>> The Lattice version is even open source.
>>
> At the initial announcement, yes; but when I looked
> a couple years ago, the Lattice Mico source files
> had been lawyered up with a "Lattice Devices Only"
> clause, see the comments on this thread:
>
> http://latticeblogs.typepad.com/frontier/2006/08/open_source.html

Oh, that is a horse of a different color.  So the Lattice CPU designs 
are out!  No big loss.  The 8 bitter doesn't have a C compiler (not that 
I care) and good CPU designs are a dime a dozen... I guess, depending on 
your definition of "good".

-- 

Rick

Article: 155784
Subject: Re: Actel Designer Warning: CMP201: Net drives no load
From: Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:17:16 +0300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
HT-Lab <hans64@htminuslab.com> writes:

> Quartus used to connect unused pins to ground, not sure if this is
> still the case. 

It seems to be the input tri-stated with weak pull-up now, in Quartus
13.0. I think I've used a Quartus fairly recently though where it's
still output driving ground...

Article: 155785
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: GaborSzakacs <gabor@alacron.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:55:36 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:
[snip]
> My understanding is that TBUFs may have been a good idea when LUT delays 
> were 5 nS and routing was another 5 to 10 between LUTs, but as they made 
> the devices more dense and faster they found the TBUFs just didn't scale 
> in the same way, in fact the speed got worse!  The capacitance being 
> driven didn't go down much and the TBUFs needed to scale which means 
> they had less drive.  So they would have actually gotten slower.  No, 
> they are gone because TBUFs just aren't your friend when you want to 
> make a dense, fast chip.
> 

I think TBUFs went away along with "long lines" due to capacitive delay 
as you noted.  Modern FPGA's use buffered routing, and tristates don't
match up with that sort of routing network since the buffered routes
become unidirectional.  The silicon for line drivers is now much faster
than routing prop delays, making the buffered network faster than a
single point driving all that line capacitance.  So the new parts have
drivers in every switch box instead of just pass FETs.  I think the
original Virtex line was the first to use buffered routing, part of
the Dyna-Chip aquisition by Xilinx.  They still had long lines and
TBUFs, but that went away on Virtex 2.

-- 
Gabor

Article: 155786
Subject: Re: Actel Designer Warning: CMP201: Net drives no load
From: Chris <catalsma@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 07:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

HT-Lab <han...@htminuslab.com> writes:=20

>> Quartus used to connect unused pins to ground, not sure if this is=20
>> still the case.=20

>It seems to be the input tri-stated with weak pull-up now, in Quartus=20
>13.0. I think I've used a Quartus fairly recently  where it's=20
still output driving ground...=20

Not true...Quartus allows you to specify unused pins as:=20

As input tri-stated=97 The pins are reserved as tri-state input pins.
As output driving ground=97 The pins are reserved as output pins and drive =
the ground signal.
As output driving an unspecified signal=97 The pins are reserved as output =
pins and drive any signal.
As input tri-stated with bus-hold circuitry=97 The pins are reserved as tri=
-state input pins with bus-hold circuitry.
As input tri-stated with weak pull-up=97 The pins are reserved as tri-state=
 input pins with weak pull-up resistors.

http://quartushelp.altera.com/11.1/mergedProjects/comp/comp/comp_tab_dp_unu=
sed_pins.htm

Article: 155787
Subject: Re: Actel Designer Warning: CMP201: Net drives no load
From: Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:50:15 +0300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Chris <catalsma@gmail.com> writes:

> HT-Lab <han...@htminuslab.com> writes: 
>
>>> Quartus used to connect unused pins to ground, not sure if this is 
>>> still the case. 
>
>>It seems to be the input tri-stated with weak pull-up now, in Quartus
>>13.0. I think I've used a Quartus fairly recently where it's still
>>output driving ground...
>
> Not true...Quartus allows you to specify unused pins as: 

I don't understand. What part did you feel was not true? I merely
pointed out the default has been changed fairly recently. Oh, I guess
the default being implicit rather than explicit confused you?

Article: 155788
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:30:51 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "
> 
> Yes, that is what we are discussing.  Why did *Xilinx* give out the 
> family jewels to Lucent?  We know it happened, the question is *why*?

(snip)
>> Yes, that's why I miss the TBUF's :)

>> In the XC4000/Virtex days, the same 32 bit core fit into
>> 300-400 LUT4's, and a good number of TBUF's.

>>   The growth to ~800 LUT4 is split between the TBUF
>> replacement muxes and new instruction set features.
 
> My understanding is that TBUFs may have been a good idea when LUT delays 
> were 5 nS and routing was another 5 to 10 between LUTs, but as they made 
> the devices more dense and faster they found the TBUFs just didn't scale 
> in the same way, in fact the speed got worse!  The capacitance being 
> driven didn't go down much and the TBUFs needed to scale which means 
> they had less drive.  So they would have actually gotten slower.  No, 
> they are gone because TBUFs just aren't your friend when you want to 
> make a dense, fast chip.

That is probably enough, but it is actually worse than that.

At about 0.8 micron, the wiring has to use a distributed RC model.

Above, you can treat it as driving a capacitor with a current source.
All points are, close enough, the same voltage, and the only thing
that matters is what that voltage is. (LC delay is pretty low.)

Below 0.8 micron, and besides the fact that the lines are getting
longer, the resistance is also significant. It is then modeled as
series resistors and capacitors to ground, all the way down the line.
(As well as I remember, the inductance is less singificant that
resistance, but I haven't thought about it that closely for
a while now.)

-- glen

Article: 155789
Subject: Re: Actel Designer Warning: CMP201: Net drives no load
From: Chris <catalsma@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:50:15 AM UTC-7, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Chris writes: > HT-Lab <han...@htminuslab.com> writes: > >>> Quartus used=
 to connect unused pins to ground, not sure if this is >>> still the case. =
> >>It seems to be the input tri-stated with weak pull-up now, in Quartus >=
>13.0. I think I've used a Quartus fairly recently where it's still >>outpu=
t driving ground... > > Not true...Quartus allows you to specify unused pin=
s as: I don't understand. What part did you feel was not true? I merely poi=
nted out the default has been changed fairly recently. Oh, I guess the defa=
ult being implicit rather than explicit confused you?

Sorry if my comment offended you, that was not my intention.  The post you =
wrote left me with the impression that the Quartus tools would only either =
connect unused pins to ground or tri-state them.  That is not true which is=
 why I flagged it.  I went back and looked at HT-Lab's original post you cu=
t/pasted and saw that he mentions that he starts out his Quartus runs defin=
ing what the unused pins do- you lost that context by not copying it.  Afte=
r going back and reading that post your comment makes more sense now.  Agai=
n, it wasn't meant to offend you.

By the way, I do remember a version of Quartus, 5.X IIRC, that had a defaul=
t setting of tieing unused pins to ground.  It caused some spectacular resu=
lts on a board I was working on a decade or so ago.  Like HT-Lab I learned =
my lesson on that one.


Article: 155790
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: Brian Davis <brimdavis@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Gabor wrote:
> I think TBUFs went away along with "long lines" due to capacitive delay 

I appreciate the rationale.
Yet still I miss their functionality for processor designs.
[ "Lament of the TBUF" would make an excellent dirge title ]

> Modern FPGA's use buffered routing, and tristates don't match up with that 

I think I once read that the last generation or few of TBUF's were actually implemented with dedicated muxes/wired OR's, or something similar.

I wish that had been continued on a reduced scale, TBUF's every 4 or 8 columns, matching the carry chain pitch, spanning some horizontal fraction of a clock region.

-Brian

Article: 155791
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 00:40:10 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Brian Davis <brimdavis@aol.com> wrote:
> Gabor wrote:
(snip)
>> Modern FPGA's use buffered routing, and tristates don't 
>> match up with that 
 
> I think I once read that the last generation or few of 
> TBUF's were actually implemented with dedicated muxes/wired 
> OR's, or something similar.

As far as I know, they are still implemented by the synthesis
tools as either OR or AND logic. I don't know any reason to remove
that ability, as it doesn't depend on the hardware. Then again, it
isn't hard to write the logic directly.

-- glen

Article: 155792
Subject: Altera EP3CLS70U484C8N
From: =?UTF-8?B?QWRhbSBHw7Nyc2tp?= <gorskiamalpa@wpkropkapl>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:23:13 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Does anyone know where I can buy EP3CLS70U484C8N from the shelf ?
I'm lookin for only 1 pcs.

Best regards

Adam

Article: 155793
Subject: Re: Altera EP3CLS70U484C8N
From: Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:37:37 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 05/09/13 13:23, Adam Górski wrote:

> Does anyone know where I can buy EP3CLS70U484C8N from the shelf ?
> I'm lookin for only 1 pcs.

http://octopart.com/partsearch#search/requestData&q=EP3CLS70U484C8N

Article: 155794
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:34:13 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <l08jta$9m8$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
glen herrmannsfeldt  <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Brian Davis <brimdavis@aol.com> wrote:
>> Gabor wrote:
>(snip)
>>> Modern FPGA's use buffered routing, and tristates don't 
>>> match up with that 
> 
>> I think I once read that the last generation or few of 
>> TBUF's were actually implemented with dedicated muxes/wired 
>> OR's, or something similar.
>
>As far as I know, they are still implemented by the synthesis
>tools as either OR or AND logic. I don't know any reason to remove
>that ability, as it doesn't depend on the hardware. Then again, it
>isn't hard to write the logic directly.

We do this now in verilog - declare our read data bus (and similar signals) as
"wor" nets.  Then you can tie them all together as needed.  Saves you the
hassle of actually creating/managing individual return data, and muxxing it
all.

The individual modules must take care to drive 0's on the read_data when not
in use.  Then you're really creating multi-source signals (like past bus 
structures), but relying on the "wor" to resolve the net.   

Works in Xilinx XST and Synplicity.  Don't know about others.  Don't know if 
this trick would work in VHDL.

--Mark



Article: 155795
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 20:38:29 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Mark Curry <gtwrek@sonic.net> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>>As far as I know, they are still implemented by the synthesis
>>tools as either OR or AND logic. I don't know any reason to remove
>>that ability, as it doesn't depend on the hardware. Then again, it
>>isn't hard to write the logic directly.
 
> We do this now in verilog - declare our read data bus 
> (and similar signals) as "wor" nets.  Then you can tie them 
> all together as needed.  Saves you the hassle of actually 
> creating/managing individual return data, and muxxing it all.
 
> The individual modules must take care to drive 0's on the 
> read_data when not in use.  Then you're really creating 
> multi-source signals (like past bus structures), but 
> relying on the "wor" to resolve the net.   

I think you can also do it with traditional tri-state gates,
but pretty much the same as AND with the enable, and then onto
the WOR line.
 
> Works in Xilinx XST and Synplicity.  Don't know about others.  
> Don't know if this trick would work in VHDL.

I can usually read VHDL but don't claim to write it.

-- glen

Article: 155796
Subject: Re: Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
From: jonesandy@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The standard data type (std_logic) is tri-statable in VHDL, so that would b=
e the preferred choice, rather than WAND or WOR. It does come in handy in t=
hat a single bidirectional port in RTL can represent both input and output =
wires, and part of the mux, at the gate level.

Tri-state bidirectional ports allow distributed address decoding in the RTL=
 (give a module the address and a generic to tell it what addresses to resp=
ond to), even though at the gate level it will all get optimized together a=
t the muxes.

Some synthesis tools can even "register" tri-state values to allow you to s=
implify pipelining in the RTL. Synthesis takes care of the details of separ=
ating out the tri-state enable from the data, and registering both appropri=
ately.

Andy

Article: 155797
Subject: Re: Xilinx Platform Cable USB protocol specifications and/or
From: Luis Alberto Guanuco <guanucoluis@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
El mi=E9rcoles, 17 de mayo de 2006 05:06:47 UTC-3, Uwe Bonnes escribi=F3:
> Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@skynet.be> wrote:
> ...
> > As I can't modify iMPACT to get rid of the Jungo dependency, I went the
> > other way and tried to write a simple command line software to drive th=
e
> > cable. Unfortunately, the USB protocol seems to be classified top secre=
t,
> > and reverse engineering the EZUSB firmware didn't give me enough
> > information. That's why I asked for more information on here.
>=20
> I have adapted so xc3stools can talk to XC3S via the FT2232 on USB. If yo=
u
> are interested, talk to me.=20

Hi Uwe Bonnes,
I am working with a JTAG-USB programmer based in FT2232D. The interface is =
the OOCDLink-s[0] board.
Can you give me any information about how you adapted a FPGA(Spartan 3) wit=
h FT2232 on USB? Thanks very much in advance.

Regards,

Luis

[0] http://www.xo2link.de/wp/?page_id=3D15

>=20
> Otherwise, I understand your concerns about WinDriver. It's the first thi=
ng
> that gives you trouble when you come back to ISE after some time. As one
> probaly upgraded the kernel in the meantime, you first have to hunt for a
> fitting Windriver. And that for a task that could be done with on board
> means (parallel port access with /dev/parport and usb access vin
> /proc/bus/usb). As a hint for the Xilinx developpers: Libusb exists for
> Win32 too.
>=20
> --=20
> Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
>=20
> Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
> --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------


Article: 155798
Subject: Re: Xilinx Platform Cable USB protocol specifications and/or open-source firmware replacement
From: Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 12:01:06 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Luis Alberto Guanuco <guanucoluis@gmail.com> wrote:
> El miércoles, 17 de mayo de 2006 05:06:47 UTC-3, Uwe Bonnes escribió:
> > Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@skynet.be> wrote:
> > ...
> > > As I can't modify iMPACT to get rid of the Jungo dependency, I went the
> > > other way and tried to write a simple command line software to drive the
> > > cable. Unfortunately, the USB protocol seems to be classified top
> > > secret, and reverse engineering the EZUSB firmware didn't give me enough
> > > information. That's why I asked for more information on here.
> > 
> > I have adapted so xc3stools can talk to XC3S via the FT2232 on USB. If you
> > are interested, talk to me. 

> Hi Uwe Bonnes,
> I am working with a JTAG-USB programmer based in FT2232D. The interface
> is the OOCDLink-s[0] board.  Can you give me any information about how
> you adapted a FPGA(Spartan 3) with FT2232 on USB? Thanks very much i
> advance.

Look at the code for xc3sprog on the sourceforge SVN repository. Discuss
specific problems on the xc3sprog mailing list.

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

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

Article: 155799
Subject: Re: FPGA temperature measurement
From: mroberds@att.net
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:52:02 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Followups set to s.e.d.

In sci.electronics.design John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> We're experimenting with heat sinking an Altera Cyclone 3 FPGA.

Did you try different kinds of heat sink grease?  Apparently toothpaste
and Vegemite work pretty well: http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

Matt Roberds




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