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
2019JanFebMar2019

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 53750

Article: 53750
Subject: Re: Using FPGAs as coprocessors in a PC
From: tom@arithlogic.com (Tom Hawkins)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 06:23:50 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
fortizzz@hotmail.com (Fernando) wrote in message news:<b650f553.0303201444.5b2a8089@posting.google.com>...
> tom@arithlogic.com (Tom Hawkins) wrote in message news:<cf474e53.0303192012.6267c920@posting.google.com>...
>  DSP.
> > 
> > A lot of people new to DSP on FPGAs at first tend to believe they need
> > floating point precision.  In our development process we usually hand
> > off a C math model early on to let our clients experiment with various
> > levels of fixed-point precision.  Often this convinces them that fixed
> > point works just as well, and sometimes even better, than floating
> > point.  Also, don't forget Cordics for fixed-point sines and cosines. 
> > They may be a better alternative than consuming memory for lookup
> > tables.
> 
> 
> I disagree with what you said. Floating-point units are coming along nicely,
> and the features in the new fpgas (BRAM, multipliers) give a huge boost to
> fp peformance.  Cordic is (in my opinion) not the way to go if you want high
> performance, becase it requires a lot more cycles than LUT-derived methods.
> You can even add (floating-point) linear interpolation to decrease the
> memory footprint, and the latency will be still be lower than cordic,
> keeping the compatibility and range of the IEEE-754 format.
> 
> However, I would like to hear the opinion of the experts, 
> 
> Fernando

The problem with floating point isn't the arithmetic, but the need for
variable shifting.  Multiply requires a variable shift after the
mantissa multiplication to renormalize the result.  Add and subtract
operations are even worse because they need a barrel shifter to align
the binary point in addition to the shifter in post arithmetic
normalization.

A variable shift is a fundamental limitation.  Whether you implement
it as a barrel shifter or as a pipelined check-and-shift operation,
you still have the standard speed vs. area tradeoff.

For trigonometric functions, ROM lookup is the clear choice if
precision requirements are low enough.  But as precision requirements
get higher, cordics become more attractive.  They are fairly
inexpensive too; just a bunch of adders with shifting absorbed by the
signal routing.  And if the design has a unidirectional dataflow, the
cordic can be fully elaborated and micro pipelined.

-Tom


--
Tom Hawkins
tom@arithlogic.com

Arithlogic -- FPGA Consulting -- http://www.arithlogic.com/

Translating Data Intensive Algorithms to Digital Logic

Article: 53751
Subject: Re: fpga implementation problems
From: Robert Myers <rjmyers@raytheon.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:10:15 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi;

I've run into this situation -- the synthesis tool used generating
a design you didn't expect, as well as timing issues not found with
functional simulation.  (I've been working with the older XC4000XLA
family parts as well as XCV300 and XCV1000E).  

In addition to what Vishker suggested, if your synthesis tool allows
looking at the technology generated schematics and/or RTL level 
schematics, I'd take a look at them too.  Sometimes, due to the way
items are coded, the synthesis tools can create circuits that don't
exactly match what the designer originally intended...

-bob

Vishker wrote:
> 
> Try running simulation for post synthesis and post place&route
> results. There is a switch in ISE which outputs post place&route
> netlist in verilog/vhdl. I am sure you ll find somthing similar in
> Synthesis tools also. May be the tools are messing up the logic.
> 
> -Vs
> 
> ninjak@gmx.de (zerang shah) wrote in message news:<4d6c559c.0303182011.46e6e561@posting.google.com>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am working on a fairly large project on a Xilinx XCV1000, and I am
> > using ISE 5.1i for synthesis. I've tested my design in simulation and
> > it behaves as it is supposed to, but when I program my FPGA, it
> > behaves weirdly. I'm sure that everything is wired correctly and I can
> > get simple VHDL programs to synthesize correctly. I'm certain that the
> > issue isn't timing, I've slowed the clock down to molassas speed. I've
> > spent many hours trying to debug this, and I've had no luck. I was
> > wondering: Does anyone here have some suggestions?? This is really
> > frustrating...
> >
> > Thanks for the help.

Article: 53752
Subject: Re: Using FPGAs as coprocessors in a PC
From: "Jan Gray" <jsgray@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:10:52 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"roy hansen" <royhansen@removethis_norway.online.no> wrote
> If so, what is the typical speed increase I can hope for
> compared to a state-of-the-art 1 CPU PC (i.e. P4 3GHz).

Some links tangential to this question:

On FPGAs as PC Coprocessors (1996):
http://www.fpgacpu.org/usenet/fpgas_as_pc_coprocessors.html

"One of the "way out speculation" questions asked at FCCM 96 (IEEE
Symposium on FPGAs for Custom Computing Machines) was "when, if ever,
will an FPGA coprocessor ship on every PC motherboard?"

Ignoring the daunting language and interface standards issues, and just
looking at current hardware approaches to FPGA "coprocessors", the
answer must be "not any time soon". ..."


philosophical musing -- P4 vs. FPGA MPSoC (Oct'02):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fpga-cpu/message/1411


Jan Gray, Gray Research LLC



Article: 53753
Subject: schematics/layouts for basic PCB circuit w/ an FPGA?
From: Buddy Smith <nullset@dookie.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:12:29 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I'm looking for schematics or layouts that show what i need minimally to 
be able to use an FPGA.

Specifically, a xilinx spartan II or IIE.  I'm looking for something I 
can build on (need to add some of my own stuff to it, etc).

I searched xilinx site, but didn't find anything of use.  perhaps i'm 
missing something?

thanks,

--buddy


Article: 53754
Subject: Re: FPGA FFT Questions
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:18:06 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
The FFT is complex.  A real only FFT zero's the Q input,
which in turn can reduce the amount of processing.  If the
input is real only, you can also 'fold' the input and
process it using a complex FFT kernel half the size of the
FFT and then unfold the result, or you can process two real
FFTs using one complex FFT operation.  So the advantage of
doing a real FFT less operations are are required for a
given size.  The complex FFT is the more general case.

The FFT inputs and outputs are generally in cartesian form.
Even a real-only FFT has a complex output.  In some
applications, you are only interested in magnitude, in which
case the FFT output needs to be transformed from cartesian
to polar form.  If log magnitude is required, then a log
stage is also needed.

Bob wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> Some questions for the experts.
>
> 1..What is the benefits of a complex fft rather than
> a non-complex fft? What are the benefits and in
> for what applications would each be used?
>
> 2...Is the fft output from an asic or fpga normally in
> logarithmic or non-logarithmic form?
>
> Thanks for any info
>
> Bob Carter

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin
Franklin, 1759



Article: 53755
Subject: troubleshooting programming of spartan2e
From: Theron Hicks <hicksthe@egr.msu.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:04:32 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,
    I have a Spartan2e that is not programming consistently.  That is
sometimes it goes and sometimes it does not.  When it does not the pins
are as follows.

Done = '0'
init_not = '1'
din='1'
cclk=still running

mode is serial master.  Prom is spartan XC17S50A series.

Is init_not supposed to stay low during configure?  Any observations as
to what might be happening?

Also, is there a clear simple timing diagram available somewhere that
shows exactly what these 4 pins do during configuration at power up?  I
seem to recall seeing one, but I cannot seem to find it.

Thanks,
Theron


Article: 53756
Subject: Re: programmer adapter for Xilinx XC9572
From: "Neeraj Varma" <neeraj@cg-coreel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:34:34 +0530
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Petter - you are right, it would save time if you accomplish both
programming and testing after the CPLD is mounted on the board, using the
JTAG.

--Neeraj


"Petter Gustad" <newsmailcomp4@gustad.com> wrote in message
news:m3y939t5ts.fsf@scimul.dolphinics.no...
> "Neeraj Varma" <neeraj@cg-coreel.com> writes:
>
> > Hi Klaus - I think if Mauro wants to accomplish mass CPLD programming, a
> > hardware programmer like the Xilinx HW-130 or a 3rd party programmer
like
> > the one from ALL-07 is more suitable than JTAG cable programming.
However,
> > adapters for particular packages and devices can be very expensive...
>
> Are these much faster than programming using JTAG? Assuming you're not
> using a slow serial or parallel cable (e.g. a JTAG Technologies BV
> DataBlaster, Xilinx MultiLinx USB, etc.)
>
> The cards have to be tested after the CPLD's have been mounted anyway.
> Then why not program the PLD and test the card in the same step? Of
> course you would use a less fragile connector and more capable
> software.
>
> Petter
> --
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Petter Gustad         8'h2B | ~8'h2B        http://www.gustad.com/petter



Article: 53757
Subject: need vhdl sequential divider
From: tom curran <tom_curran@memecdesign_dot_com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:14:56 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello,

I am in need of a VHDL module of a n x m generic sequential divider.
Does anyone have one or can tell me where to find one?

Many thanks in advance!

--Tom


---
Tom Curran
tom_curran@memecdesign_dot_com

Article: 53758
Subject: Re: EPXA1 Development Kit Getting Started
From: "Thomas Siebert" <siebert.Thomas@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:29:36 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

I had similiar issues with my NIOS Installation and compiling sources
under Quartus. In my case this was caused by old references to directories
of former installations of the cygnus tools. You may find those false
directories
in the path variable of your systems folder.

regards  Thomas

"Franz Hollerer" <nospam@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns93459A6561A9Ehollererdecomsyscom@213.129.232.14...
> Hi,
>
> I try to compile the hello example described in the
> EPXA1 Development Kit Getting Started User Guide using
> GNUPro.
>
> If I call 'make debug' from the command line it works,
> but if I use Quartus II v2.1 I get some non-informative error message:
>
> > Design Debug: Software build was unsucessful. 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
> Can someone give me a hint what's going wrong?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Franz Hollerer



Article: 53759
Subject: Re: Using FPGAs as coprocessors in a PC
From: "James Srinivasan" <James_Srinivasan@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:43:30 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Fernando wrote:
> tom@arithlogic.com (Tom Hawkins) wrote in message
>  news:<cf474e53.0303192012.6267c920@posting.google.com>... DSP.
>>
>> A lot of people new to DSP on FPGAs at first tend to believe they
>> need floating point precision.  In our development process we
>> usually hand off a C math model early on to let our clients
>> experiment with various levels of fixed-point precision.  Often this
>> convinces them that fixed point works just as well, and sometimes
>> even better, than floating point.  Also, don't forget Cordics for
>> fixed-point sines and cosines. They may be a better alternative than
>> consuming memory for lookup tables.
> I disagree with what you said. Floating-point units are coming along
> nicely, and the features in the new fpgas (BRAM, multipliers) give a
> huge boost to fp peformance.
> However, I would like to hear the opinion of the experts,

Certainly not an expert, but here's my £0.02. As an undergraduate, I worked
on a FPGA based hardware accelerator for ray tracing (see
http://zeus.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~jrs53/dissertation.pdf ). This used a pretty
large Altera FPGA (20k1000) and floating point arithmetic for ease of
integration with the host PC. With a very naive implementation of the
arithmetic modules, I just about made the 33 MHz of the PCI bus. Note that
this was with a very loose interpretation of IEEE 754! Even with this (then)
gigantic FPGA, to get all the required modules for just one ray-object
intersection calculator unit required almost half the device, so this kinda
limited my ability to look at increasing parallelism.

So what am I saying? I think if I did the project again, I'd go for fixed
point. The intricacies of IEEE 754 mean that getting something that produces
as accurate results you'd expect from a dedicated FPU is probably more
effort than it's worth. Now clearly this depends on your application, but
you probably shouldn't discard fixed point out of hand.

James

p.s. the finished project did end up being between 3 and 40 times faster
than the fastest PC I could find!

James Srinivasan
PhD Student
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory



Article: 53760
Subject: Re: troubleshooting programming of spartan2e
From: hmurray@suespammers.org (Hal Murray)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:27:30 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>    I have a Spartan2e that is not programming consistently.  That is
>sometimes it goes and sometimes it does not.  When it does not the pins
>are as follows.

First thing I would look for is glitches on the clock line.
Second would be power.

>Also, is there a clear simple timing diagram available somewhere that
>shows exactly what these 4 pins do during configuration at power up?  I
>seem to recall seeing one, but I cannot seem to find it.

If it works sometimes, you should be able to capture your own
timing diagram.

There might be one in the data sheet.

-- 
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.


Article: 53761
Subject: Re: schematics/layouts for basic PCB circuit w/ an FPGA?
From: Spam Hater <spam_hater_7@email.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:18:28 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Just buy one from Tony.  His are expandable, very expandable.

The last thing you want is to be debugging some download weirdness
instead of your design.

www.burched.com

SH


On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:12:29 +0000 (UTC), Buddy Smith
<nullset@dookie.net> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm looking for schematics or layouts that show what i need minimally to 
>be able to use an FPGA.
>
>Specifically, a xilinx spartan II or IIE.  I'm looking for something I 
>can build on (need to add some of my own stuff to it, etc).
>
>I searched xilinx site, but didn't find anything of use.  perhaps i'm 
>missing something?
>
>thanks,
>
>--buddy


Article: 53762
Subject: Re: source code for crc
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:44:37 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
There is an on line VHDL generator for parallel CRCs at
http://www.easics.com/webtools/crctool  I don't know off hand if the license
permits commercial use however.


Benoit wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I need to calculate and verify a CRC in frames,  at more than  4 Gbps in a
> FPGA.
> The common CRC implementation is based on a linear feedback shift register
> architecture which can be used to process 1 bit per clock cycle.
> Easy but slow tyically only for low rates.
>
> To meet the requirements of CRC calculation for gigabit networks, a solution
> is
> to calculate CRC32 in several steps using "Galois Method".. .
>
> So I'm looking for a free VHDL Source code using this method in FPGA.
> Can you help me please ?.
>
> Thanx,
>     Benoit.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759



Article: 53763
Subject: Re: Using FPGAs as coprocessors in a PC
From: Goran Bilski <Goran.Bilski@Xilinx.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:53:12 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

An IEEE-754 single precision takes around 500 LUTs to implement and will take have a latency of 5 clocks at 100
MHz.
A 32-bit fixed point addition consumes 32 LUTs and have a latency of 1 clock at 250 MHz.

So the factor operations/LUT is the following.
For IEEE-754:     (100_000_000/5) / 500 =         40_000 operations/LUT
For Fixed point:  (250_000_000/1)/32      =  7_812_500 operations/LUT

The difference is 195x.

What would you implement?

Göran Bilski

Fernando wrote:

> tom@arithlogic.com (Tom Hawkins) wrote in message news:<cf474e53.0303192012.6267c920@posting.google.com>...
>  DSP.
> >
> > A lot of people new to DSP on FPGAs at first tend to believe they need
> > floating point precision.  In our development process we usually hand
> > off a C math model early on to let our clients experiment with various
> > levels of fixed-point precision.  Often this convinces them that fixed
> > point works just as well, and sometimes even better, than floating
> > point.  Also, don't forget Cordics for fixed-point sines and cosines.
> > They may be a better alternative than consuming memory for lookup
> > tables.
>
> I disagree with what you said. Floating-point units are coming along nicely,
> and the features in the new fpgas (BRAM, multipliers) give a huge boost to
> fp peformance.  Cordic is (in my opinion) not the way to go if you want high
> performance, becase it requires a lot more cycles than LUT-derived methods.
> You can even add (floating-point) linear interpolation to decrease the
> memory footprint, and the latency will be still be lower than cordic,
> keeping the compatibility and range of the IEEE-754 format.
>
> However, I would like to hear the opinion of the experts,
>
> Fernando


Article: 53764
Subject: Leonardo Spectrum: Synthesis without optimization
From: "Eduardo Wenzel Brião" <briao@inf.pucrs.br>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:53:47 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi 

I need to synthesis a HDL Design, but some components are removed and optimized when Leonardo Spectrum are running. How do I proceed (attributes in VHDL or Leonardo commands) to
running Leonardo Spectrum without optimization? 

Eduardo Wenzel Brião 
Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul State - PUCRS 
Porto Alegre city 
Brazil 



Article: 53765
Subject: Xpower problems - can't load vcd
From: "David" <gretzteam@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:43:05 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,
I'm using Xilinx ISE webpack 5.1i with modelsim XE starter and I'm trying to
use Xpower. I first synthesise my design and do the place and route process.
Then I click on my testbench .vhd file and run the 'post place and route
simulation '. I chose the option to 'automatically generate vcd file'.
Modelsim starts and the simulation begins. However, it takes forever to
simulatea small amount of time. I think this is due because my design
exceeds the Modelsim starter maximum gate count. Anyway, after a day or so,
I have a small vcd file (100k).

I then run the xpower tool from the ISE post process window and load my vcd
file. Then I get about one million messages saying that every nodes in my
circuit 'has not had its activity set'. Am I doing something wrong? Could it
be because my .vdc file is too small?

Thanks
David



Article: 53766
Subject: Re: Integrating an VHDL component in a project in Handel-C --- it works!!!!
From: gerardo_sr@yahoo.com (Gerardo Sosa)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 17:48:16 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you very much Alan, it works!!!! I'm really happy because I was
trying two weeks doing that, I was probing many things and nothing
works. I was very disappointed with my self and nobody can help me.
Really I apreciate so much your tips.

Thanks for all

Regards

Gerardo

Article: 53767
Subject: Re: FPGA FFT Questions
From: "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 02:35:03 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Ray Andraka" <ray@andraka.com> wrote in message
news:3E7B2D8A.3B5106D0@andraka.com...
> The FFT is complex.  A real only FFT zero's the Q input,
> which in turn can reduce the amount of processing.  If the
> input is real only, you can also 'fold' the input and
> process it using a complex FFT kernel half the size of the
> FFT and then unfold the result, or you can process two real
> FFTs using one complex FFT operation.  So the advantage of
> doing a real FFT less operations are are required for a
> given size.  The complex FFT is the more general case.

FFT is usually done in floating point, though that isn't required.   We
would need to know more about the real goal to answer the question.   If the
goal is to speed up a program that uses an FFT subroutine then it would need
to be done in a similar data representation.  Both floating point addition
and multiplication are hard to do fast in FPGA's, and division is even
worse.

--glen



Article: 53768
Subject: Re: Using FPGAs as coprocessors in a PC
From: "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 02:43:15 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Tom Hawkins" <tom@arithlogic.com> wrote in message
news:cf474e53.0303210623.384c8880@posting.google.com...
(snip) wrote:

> > > A lot of people new to DSP on FPGAs at first tend to believe they need
> > > floating point precision.  In our development process we usually hand
> > > off a C math model early on to let our clients experiment with various
> > > levels of fixed-point precision.  Often this convinces them that fixed
> > > point works just as well, and sometimes even better, than floating
> > > point.  Also, don't forget Cordics for fixed-point sines and cosines.
> > > They may be a better alternative than consuming memory for lookup
> > > tables.

I do agree that floating point is overused.

> > I disagree with what you said. Floating-point units are coming along
nicely,
> > and the features in the new fpgas (BRAM, multipliers) give a huge boost
to
> > fp peformance.  Cordic is (in my opinion) not the way to go if you want
high
> > performance, becase it requires a lot more cycles than LUT-derived
methods.
> > You can even add (floating-point) linear interpolation to decrease the
> > memory footprint, and the latency will be still be lower than cordic,
> > keeping the compatibility and range of the IEEE-754 format.
> >
> > However, I would like to hear the opinion of the experts,

> The problem with floating point isn't the arithmetic, but the need for
> variable shifting.  Multiply requires a variable shift after the
> mantissa multiplication to renormalize the result.  Add and subtract
> operations are even worse because they need a barrel shifter to align
> the binary point in addition to the shifter in post arithmetic
> normalization.

I have recommended using base 16 floating point, as IBM used in S/360 and
S/370.  That greatly reduces the shift requirements.  It is a little harder
to do the error analysis in numerical algorithms, but that might not be so
much of a problem in this case.

> A variable shift is a fundamental limitation.  Whether you implement
> it as a barrel shifter or as a pipelined check-and-shift operation,
> you still have the standard speed vs. area tradeoff.





Article: 53769
Subject: Re: FPGA FFT Questions
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 03:01:04 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
That may be true for software implementations of the FFT, but not necessarily
for hardware. Depending on the size of the FFT, floating point may not buy
anything.   For smaller FFT's it is much more economical to work with wider
fixed point to get the needed dynamic range than it is to do floating point.
For larger FFT's, the FFT is generally accomplished using small FFTs combined
using the mixed radix algorithm.  In these cases, it often makes sense to do the
small FFTs in fixed point and then normalize and adjust the exponent between
passes.  Often a block floating point scheme is sufficient, in which case the
common part of the exponent is stripped off before denormalizing the data before
each path.  That common part of the exponent is then used to scale the final
result.

Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> FFT is usually done in floating point, though that isn't required.   We
> would need to know more about the real goal to answer the question.   If the
> goal is to speed up a program that uses an FFT subroutine then it would need
> to be done in a similar data representation.  Both floating point addition
> and multiplication are hard to do fast in FPGA's, and division is even
> worse.
>
> --glen

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759



Article: 53770
Subject: Re: troubleshooting programming of spartan2e
From: "Theron Hicks (Terry)" <hicksthe@egr.msu.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:15:47 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Hal Murray wrote:

> >    I have a Spartan2e that is not programming consistently.  That is
> >sometimes it goes and sometimes it does not.  When it does not the pins
> >are as follows.
>
> First thing I would look for is glitches on the clock line.
> Second would be power.
>
> >Also, is there a clear simple timing diagram available somewhere that
> >shows exactly what these 4 pins do during configuration at power up?  I
> >seem to recall seeing one, but I cannot seem to find it.
>
> If it works sometimes, you should be able to capture your own
> timing diagram.
>
> There might be one in the data sheet.
>
> --
> The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
> other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
> commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
> These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.

As it turns out, the problem is most likely in the power supply.  The system has
multiple boards, each with one FPGA.  I was trying to power them up in a daisy
chain fashion.  The daisy chained power enable signal is sometimes glitching high
at the wrong time (too early) and thus trying to boot the FPGA.  I am trying to
add a stronger pull down to eliminate the problem.  It seems to help but I have
to add it to all the boards and see if it totally solves the problem.

Thanks for the input,
Theron Hicks


Article: 53771
Subject: how do implement the algorithm in verilog?
From: chen.songwei@mail.zte.com.cn (Apollo)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 20:38:38 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
1>(1-0.001953125)
2>(1-0.001953125)^6
3>(1-0.001953125)^1/2

Article: 53772
Subject: Altera FLEX10K100E voltage?
From: patilshridhar@indiatimes.com (Shridhar Patil)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 23:22:11 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hi everybody,

please can anybody tell me whether Altera FLEX10K100E is only a 3.0V device?
i am bit confused as somewhere i have read that it's a multivoltage device.

will it work on 5.0V? 

regards,
shridhar.

Article: 53773
Subject: how to implement the bidir in Altera AHDL?
From: "Jian Ju" <01901790r@polyu.edu.hk>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:32:08 +0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi, all

I defined a bidir port d[7..0] to send commands and receive data in Maxplus
II. However, it does not work, the help messages tell me that I should use
tri to feed the bidir. I added tri (buffer[7..0] : tri) before d[] with
buffer[].oe=vcc and d[]=buffer[].out, but problems are still exist.

Any suggestions? Thank you.

Jian



Article: 53774
Subject: Xilinx WebPack 4.2 not compiling code that compiled on 3.3
From: "kryten_droid" <kryten_droid@ntlworld.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:10:27 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all.

I recently had to replace a dead BurchED B5 board.

This had a XC2S200 chip, the new one has XC2S300E.

The WP3.3 did not support it so I downloaded WP4.2 because WP5.2 will not
run on my Win98 system.

I installed in a separate directory, to retain both versions.

However, WP 4.2 is not compiling some code that compiled on 3.3.

Are they unable to co-exist in the same PC at the same time?

In one file, it won't let me take just one bit from a sub-component's
multi-bit output.
I can get round this by connecting it to an intermediate multi-bit signal,
then using just the bit required. It works, only a bit more long winded.

In some other files, it says a signal is assigned but not used, even though
it explicitly _is_ connected to a component later in the file.

The syntax checker and hierarchy checker report no problems.

Thanks in advance, K.








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
2019JanFebMar2019

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