LOGIN   :::   RECOVER PASS   :::   GET ACCOUNT    
Browse
  • Projects
  • Code (CVS)
  • Forums
  • News
  • Articles
  • Polls
  •  
    OpenCores
  • FAQ
  • CVS HowTo
  • Mission
  • Media
  • Tools
  • Sponsors
  • Mirrors
  • Logos
  • Contact us
  •  
    Tools
  • Search
      
  • Download Cores (CVSGet)
  •  
    More
  • Wishbone
  • Perlilog
  • EDA tools
  • OpenTech CD
  •  
    Navigation: All forums > Cores > Message List > Message Post

    Message

    Reply | Reply all
    Date Prev | Date Next | Thread Prev | Thread Next Date Index | Thread Index

    From: John Sheahan <jrsheahan@o...>
    Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:41:17 +1100
    Subject: Re: [oc] Real newbie questions
    Top

    On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
    > > a flow from schematic to vhdl to fpga would make little sense.
    > 
    > Well it makes sense to "Schematic people"... I look at VHDL and although being 
    > a programmer in every language from assembly to Java, VHDL is obscure or 
    > should I say "hard to get my head around".
    
    verilog is cleaner and more concise for me. But this is a religious issue.
    Yes - RTL is different to schematic. It takes some head rearrangement.
    But its time well spent.  
    Compare a 32 bit adder in schematic and rtl and tell me which is more
    obvious.     Or a state machine. Than change the adder to 48 bits..
    I suspect schematic adherents for digital design are now few and far 
    between - particularly in those doing any regular not-tiny design.
    The which-language wars are very much ongoing though :)
    
    
    
    
    Also consider the simulation testbench. Once you are used to using the
    same language for the TB as for the code - you won't want to go back
    to schematics and a separate sim language.
    Actually thats _almost_ the same language. You use a very different
    style in the TB.  That does not have to synthesize efficiently.
    
    > 
    > > In a schematic - you have to instantiate paricular devies - chosen
    > > from a library.  What library did you use? thats the device you have
    > > targetted.    Perhaps there are several sized members availave.
    > 
    > I have several choice. For Altera and Xilinx there are libraries for different 
    > families, such as Spartan II(E), but there is also a more "generic" CUPL 
    > library, which is a smaller subset (which does fine for me).
    
    I have no idea how CUPL has changed - but it was pretty limited 15
    years ago. And seems to hve become much less common.
    
    Reusing design modules is nice. I generally don't know what I will
    reuse.   And over time the family changes.  I have plenty of old
    xilinx 3000 - family schematics that are completely obselete.
    Its not the logic thats old - its the format.
    
    
    > 
    > > ypu my be able to get a structural gate vhdl netlist out - thats
    > > exuivilant to disassembling compiled code. May be useful for debug
    > > - but not very useful to port to a new architecture.
    > >
    > > Write VHDL or Verilog RTL with any decent editor (with support for the
    > > language) Synthesize with the free (beer) tools from Xilinx or Altera.
    > > I don't think schematic capture for fpga is of much relevance any more.
    > 
    > I will make it a shot. I will also try the synthesize tools and see how they 
    > react to the VHDL/CUPL netlist (and half a dozen FPGA related formats) that 
    > Protel outputs.
    > 
    
    if its structural (ie connect this gate to that flop - there is nothing
    for the synthesis tool to do. You have _chosen_ the gate.
    RTL can be targetted.  It may work - post a fragment of the CUPL vhdl output.
    Its possible for you and/or the tools to produce either.  
    GAte level coding probably should only happen now to wring the last gate
    or ps out of a specific technology. And even then its often hard to 
    justify.
    
    
    > > Those tools will also allow you to fit the design into any of the
    > > ranges of parts they make. 192 bits of fifo is tiny - will go into
    > > most any fpga and some  cpld's. (unless you are doing horrible
    > > clocking)
    > 
    > "Clocking"? Well, the building blocks are Serial-to-Parallel and 
    > Parallel-to-Serial shifters. Separate async input and output clocks. (Input 
    > is dictated by the A/D converter at a continous 1Mbps stream, while the 
    > output is to CPU over SPI Master at 2-5Mbps, when buffer is filled.)
    
    A fifo - particularly  fall-thru fifo can have very odd clocking.
    The more clocks the more issues you will have in a bunch of areas.
    And the harder the STA is .  Sometimes you have to do more than one
    clock, but its usually better to avoid that in any single module.
    
    sounds like an application for block ram in a xilinx or altera.
    
    
    
    > 
    > Anyway. Thanks for the advice. I'll get some books on the subject as well.
    > A search on freashmeat.net for "VHDL Editor" only reveals ChipVault for 
    > organization management, and "j" for syntax highlighting (The Kate editor in 
    > Linux KDE 3.0 has VHDL and Verilog highlighting).
    > I'll do more extensive searches, but are there any better tools (beyond syntax 
    > highlighting) available??
    
    I use xemacs (or just emacs) with syntax highlighting, punctuation aware
    indenting and especially auto filling in of port lists and
    instantiations.  But then emacs is also in the religion category...
    
    
    
    

    ReferenceAuthor
    [oc] Real newbie questionsNiclas Hedhman
    Re: [oc] Real newbie questionsJohn Sheahan
    Re: [oc] Real newbie questionsNiclas Hedhman

    Follow upAuthor
    Re: [oc] Real newbie questionsJoachim

     
    Copyright (c) 1999 OPENCORES.ORG. All rights reserved.