<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">OK, so I decided to try to implement
the clocking as Walter suggested, i.e. with a DCM that generates
both 25MHz and 75MHz clocks.<br>
The write-enable signal is generated by using a 50 MHz output from
the DCM.<br>
<br>
The code looks like this:<br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">DCM
#(.CLKFX_MULTIPLY(3), .CLKFX_DIVIDE(2), .CLKDV_DIVIDE(2),
.CLKIN_PERIOD(20.000))<br>
dcm(.CLKIN(CLK50M), .CLKFB(clk2x), .RST(1'b0), .PSEN(1'b0),<br>
.PSINCDEC(1'b0), .PSCLK(1'b0), .DSSEN(1'b0), .CLKFX(pclk),
.CLKDV(clk), .CLK0(clk2x));<br>
<br>
always @(negedge clk2x)<br>
wr_enable <= wr & ~wr_enable;<br>
<br>
assign SRwe = ~wr_enable;<br>
</font><br>
The DCM in VID.v is removed and replaced with an input clock
pclk. <br>
<br>
All the changes to make the design full synchronous has been
backed out. The latest code is available at the Pepino github
repository: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Saanlima/Pepino/tree/master/Projects/RISC5Verilog_Pepino">https://github.com/Saanlima/Pepino/tree/master/Projects/RISC5Verilog_Pepino</a><br>
<br>
As before, any comments or critique are welcome.<br>
<br>
Magnus<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/19/2016 6:33 AM, Magnus Karlsson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C727AF.5020201@saanlima.com" type="cite">In
all fairness, since I have generated and tested code for one way
to solve the problem, can you then give us your code proposal for
generating the SRAM write signal, with 25MHz and 75MHz generated
by a DCM? The write signal must be asserted after all other SRAM
control signals are valid, and be de-asserted before any of the
control signals go invalid, and last for at least 5 nS. The SRAM
control signals are generated by the 25MHz clock and last for one
clock cycle.
<br>
<br>
I will be more than happy to try it out on a board and report the
result.
<br>
<br>
Magnus
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/19/2016 4:57 AM, Walter Gallegos wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Have a solid and coherent clock
distribution is basic for FPGA design, my proposition was keep
both 25MHZ and 75MHZ, generated by DCM.
<br>
<br>
Run all in 75 MHZ is unnecessary; also, clock enable approach
add unnecessary complexity to the design. Make a design
synchronous don't necessary means use the same clock for all the
design.
<br>
<br>
Continue using 25MHZ for the core and peripherals, the only
concern is the CDC (clock domain crossing). As both clock was
generated by the same DCM is minor problem; correspondent rising
edges are aligned by design in DCMs; metastability is not an
issue. Using DCMs and constraining input clock (50MHZ) the
constraints propagation rules constraint both clocks, 25MHZ and
75MHZ. If no methodology errors all design are constrained from
first to last register element in the chain. Beware of
combinational logic in outside this elements.
<br>
<br>
In my opinion, taking care of CDC keep both clock is the
appropriate solution.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,
<br>
Walter
<br>
<br>
El 2016-02-18 a las 19:58, Magnus Karlsson escribió:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So I have been thinking about this some
more and decided to modify/update the design to remove all the
concerns raised by Walter and Wojtek.
<br>
<br>
Just to recap, Walter's concern is that the clocks are
generated using flip-flops and use logic fabric interconnect
instead of dedicated clocking elements and pathways, and that
all clocks should be generated by a DCM module instead (DCM =
Digital Clock Manager). Wojtek's concern is that there are
unspecified timing relations between the 25MHz and the 75MHz
clock domains.
<br>
<br>
Both concerns are valid and in my opinion the correct way to
fix both issues is to make the design completely synchronous.
This means that all clocked elements in the design (like
flip-flops, memories etc.) should be clocked with a single
clock signal, which in this case is the 75MHz clock. The CPU
and I/O subsystem, which before was clocked by a separate
25MHz clock, are now also clocked by the 75MHz clock but are
only enabled to be clocked on every third clock cycle. This
means that all "always @ (posedge clk)" statements have been
changed to include "If (enable) ...", where "enable" is a
signal that is true on every third clock cycle. The
asynchronous SRAM interface is also changed so that the write
signal is asserted on the middle-third clock phase of the
three clock CPU cycle.
<br>
<br>
While the Verilog changes to do this are very straight
forward, one complication here is that the Xilinx ISE tool
used to create the bit file for the FPGA do not understand
that the CPU and I/O subsystem are only clocked on every third
clock and will basically try to make the CPU run at 75MHz, and
will fail since this is too fast the FPGA. The solution to
this problem is to tell the tool that all clock paths in the
CPU and I/O subsystem can actually take three clocks to
complete (this is called multi-cycle paths). With the
multi-cycle paths added to the .ucf file the design compiles
with no timing violations
<br>
<br>
With those changes the 75MHz clock is now generated by a DCM
and the unspecified timing relations that Wojtek brought up
are now gone since everything is clocked with a single
clock. The modified design have been tested on Pepino and
seems to run fine.
<br>
<br>
The complete ISE project with those changes are available at
the Pepino GitHub repository:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Saanlima/Pepino/tree/master/Projects/RISC5Verilog_Pepino">https://github.com/Saanlima/Pepino/tree/master/Projects/RISC5Verilog_Pepino</a><br>
<br>
Any comments or critique are welcome.
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
Magnus
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/17/2016 2:16 PM, Walter Gallegos wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Magnus,
<br>
<br>
You are welcome to continue with FPGA specific topics by
private e-mail if you want.
<br>
<br>
Regards
<br>
Walter
<br>
<br>
El 2016-02-17 a las 18:30, Magnus Karlsson escribió:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Walter,
<br>
<br>
Since this is really Paul's design, I guess it would be
more appropriate to discuss it with him, I was just trying
to explain why it looks like it does.
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
Magnus
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/17/2016 1:15 PM, Walter Gallegos wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Magnus,
<br>
<br>
Some of messages was delayed; so, I continue from here
to not overload the list.
<br>
<br>
If I understand you correctly, you justify a
uncontrolled delay because they simplify the SRAM
handling.
<br>
Sorry, is as using the old circuit with an and/inverted
to generate a pulse. If you need a delayed signal you
should use the DCM 90°, 180° or 270° clock outputs and
keep all under control, I think don't need a state
machine in this case.
<br>
<br>
About ISE warnings, be careful, non warning do not means
good methodology.
<br>
<br>
About XILINX docs; really, I don't remember. Doing
training, first as Xilinx ATP and now as independent
consultant, I touch this problem in my trainings. Have
an uncontrolled delay in clock is a big door to random
problems. FPGA design must be synchronous all times; no
exceptions.
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Walter
<br>
<br>
<br>
El 2016-02-17 a las 14:41, Magnus Karlsson escribió:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Walter,
<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the "pure" way of doing this is
as you stated, with a DCM to directly generate both
clk and pclk. So how come Paul didn't do that? It's
not like he doesn't know how to use the DCM, after all
the current code generates pclk from clk using a DCM,
and there would probably be less code to do it like
you suggest. No, the reason for this is very subtle
and is easy to miss if you just take a quick look at
the code, and it has to the asynchronous SRAM
interface.
<br>
<br>
One of the most critical aspects of using SRAM is to
control the write signal - ideally the write signal
should be asserted after all other control signals
(like address, data, byte-enable, read, oe) are valid,
and should be de-asserted well before any of the other
control signals go invalid, to avoid spurious writes.
However, this is not that easy to do in a synchronous
system where all signals change at the clock edge.
The most common way to do this is to have a state
machine that is clocked at say 4x the CPU clock so
that you can divided the SRAM access cycle into
several phases and assert the write signal on some of
those phases.
<br>
<br>
However, this is not the way Paul choose to do it,
instead he choose to do a less "pure" clock generation
by generating clk from a flip-flop rather than from a
DCM. By doing so, he actually generates an early
version of the clock signal called clk that is leading
the global clock signal clk_BUFG by the delay of the
BUFG buffer. Since this early version of the clock
signal is generated like any other logic signal, he
could use this signal to gate the write signal to the
SRAM such that write signal will be de-asserted well
before the other control signals (clocked by clk_BUFG)
will change, and thus avoiding the need to have a
state machine controlling the write signal. The price
for this is that the clock signal is now generated in
a less "pure" way, but still a valid way as long as
you know what you are doing. The BUFG clock driver can
be driven from a PLL, a DCM or from the logic fabric.
The first two are speed optimized paths going directly
from the PLL or DCM to the BUFG and can be clock at
much higher clock rate, while the logic fabric path is
limited by the maximum clock rate of the logic fabric.
However, at the clock rate we use (25 MHz) this is not
an issue. When you do this there are no warnings
generated by ISE that this is not a good idea, and I
have not read anywhere in the Xilinx clocking resource
guide that you should avoid doing this. Basically, the
BUFG clock driver is designed to do this, the tool
will allow you to do it and at the clock rate we use
it has no performance implications. As I see it, this
is another place where the goal of simplification has
driven the implementation of the system at the expense
of a slightly less "pure" clock generation.
<br>
<br>
Just my 2c
<br>
<br>
Magnus
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
-- <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Oberon@lists.inf.ethz.ch">Oberon@lists.inf.ethz.ch</a> mailing list for ETH Oberon and
related systems
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon">https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
--
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Oberon@lists.inf.ethz.ch">Oberon@lists.inf.ethz.ch</a> mailing list for ETH Oberon and related
systems
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon">https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>