• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JColvin

  1. JColvin

    Zybo cable drivers

    Hi jacobfeder, Thanks for sharing what you found out! I wouldn't be too embarrassed about it; we've all done it. I usually wonder why my project isn't working only to finally notice that I'm not connected to the pins that I told Vivado that I was using. Thanks, JColvin
  2. Hi @shashi, I don't really know much about HLS, but I did a quick search and it looks like it has something to do with Variable Bound Loops as per this Xilinx forum thread and this Xilinx Answer Record. I don't know what Variable Bound Loops are, but I found the user guide for Vivado 2016.2 HLS (which it looks like you're using) that talks about them on page 314 here, which looks like the analog for what the Xilinx employee referred their customer to. Thanks, JColvin
  3. Hello @cvtabc, You'll have to take this response with a grain of salt considering that we as Digilent are one of those re-sellers that you mentioned, but I'll see if I can give you a helpful response here on the Forum having set aside my webteam hat. All major versions of Vivado that I presume you would be looking into (WebPACK, Design, and System Editions) all support the Vivado Logic Analyzer and various debug IPs such as the Intergrated Logic Analyzer, which as I understand it is Vivado's successor to Chipscope from Xilinx ISE. Considering that Xilinx has not stated any plans to continue to working on ISE and will be primarily focusing on supporting Vivado, I wouldn't be too anxious to get a Chipscope license (although the link you provided to Digikey didn't indicate anything about Chipscope). Similarly, Vivado has its own version of a simulator like ISIM, which all major versions of Vivado include. I don't know what the differences of the simulator, if any, are between the various editions of Vivado. None of us at Digilent have experience with EPICS so we can't speak towards that. However these newer editions of Vivado (2016.1 onward if I'm not mistaken) support HLS (High-Level Synthesis) to allow for C/C++ development in the Vivado environment, although I do not personally know how robust it is, but I suspect it does fairly well for what it is and that Xilinx will support it since it was recently implemented. The SDSoC license would probably be good in this case since it's likely a lot more optimized for writing C/C++ code for an SoC, such as the Zynq chip present on the Zedboard. In terms of IP cores, that is something that the Design Edition Voucher would be good for since it will give you (from my understanding) it will let you generate bitstreams for some of Xilinx's more complex IPs cores such as TEMAC. The TEMAC core isn't included with the Vivado Design edition though (from my understanding) so it would need to be evaluated or licensed separately. Lite ethernet versions from Xilinx do exist though that don't require the Design Edition of Vivado, but are more limited in functionality (although I can't personally speak towards how they are limited/in what way they are different). Those of us here are Digilent aren't familiar with EtherCAT so we can't speak towards that. From your initial description, I presume this work would be lab related as opposed to classroom based teaching material, so I imagine this is less of a "learning/teaching" as opposed to an "implementing" situation, so that'll affect your decision. I guess the thing with vouchers of any kind is that they are node locked (so they only are applied to one system/computer) and are only valid for one year. During that year you can upgrade to newer versions of that particular edition that Xilinx releases at no additional charge, but be unable to do so after that year without re-purchasing access to the edition. After that year is up, you will be able to use whatever edition is installed on that machine more or less indefinitely without restrictions. In the end, it sounds like you'll end up wanting some sort of Vivado edition with good C/C++ support. However, Digilent (I can't speak for Avnet or Xilinx) won't be able to offer a ton of help integrating 3rd party systems into your solution since we don't actively support them. So to me it sounds like you'll either want the SDSoC voucher or the Design Edition voucher, although I don't know what additional IPs the Design Edition enables nor do I know a whole lot about SDSoC and what it offers/is capable of. Good luck! JColvin
  4. Hi @rappysaha, We're not fully certain about the differences between those two licenses as those of us here on the Forum are not Xilinx employees. I believe that the two licenses that you are referring to are the same license (I didn't see a "voucher" on the second license that you linked to though), so you would need to contact Xilinx in order to get a full and accurate description between specific licenses. Thank you, JColvin
  5. Hello, I have confirmed that the speed grade is indeed -7 and have updated the Resource Center to reflect this. The full FPGA part wasn't listed on the Resource Center (I didn't update it since I couldn't figure out an easy way to make it visually look good without having to break that one section into three different lines), but it is XC2C256-7TQ144C. The "-7" indicates the speed grade, and the "C" at the end indicates that it is a commercial grade part. I'll work on getting the other FPGA pages updated as I notice them. Thanks for helping bring this to light. JColvin
  6. Hello, I talked with our senior engineer for our microcontroller boards and they do not know anything about the SEGGER J-Link, so no, we as Digilent will not have any information on how to debug chipKIT boards with that particular debugger, at least in the foreseeable future. I was informed that JP3 and JP4 are JTAG/Trace ports for Imagination Technologies, but we don't really have any information beyond that. It looks like Imagination Technologies has a document from January of last year that talks about using JP3 on the WiFire though. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Thanks, JColvin
  7. Hello, We're in the process of getting the Resource Center updated; I'm confirming if the -7 rating is accurate. Thanks, JColvin
  8. Hi Henry, I'm not the most familiar with the original Analog Discovery, but from my understanding the factory settings should be good to go. You can go through a calibration yourself though on the initial WaveForms page in case some offset has occurred in your hardware. An engineer more experienced with the Analog Discovery commonly checks this sub section of the Forum and will be able to provide more advice/correct what I've said if needbe. Thanks, JColvin
  9. Hello Muhammad Tufail, I know the Basys 2 is currently in a limited supply (at least as per our website), I would recommend contacting the Digilent sales team by emailing sales @ digilentinc .com for the most accurate information in terms of price and timing. I know we have a distributor based in Pakistan (http://www.rastek.pk/index.php), but it doesn't look like they carry the Basys 2. Thanks, JColvin
  10. Hello @Simon, I have moved your question to a more appropriate location on this Forum so that the appropriate applications engineer will be able to see your question sooner. Thanks, JColvin
  11. Hi @[email protected], Thank you for the feedback; this is a slightly different take than what the various higher ups were thinking the purpose of the chat channel would be (to get a faster turn around time for responses). While this is similar, it has a distinctively different flavor(?) than just getting a faster turnaround time, since I think that is an expectation associated with chat channels. The other concern that was brought up was the fact that we as Digilent would not be able to guarantee that we always have somebody available to talk to in the chat, even just during the weekdays, so there's hesitation of representing a channel that we couldn't give proper support to. I wasn't aware of the recording portions; that'll be a nice thing to show that the thought process of working through a problem will still be available. I'll definitely bring up the idea of that the chat better supports faster communication for a project so customers aren't waiting multiple weeks, but I think at this point Digilent will still stick with the Forum since there are also a number of examples where communication goes quickly between Forum posts; to be sure it's not as fast as the chat, but if it takes both parties a half day or full day to respond to the other (due to having other daily life tasks or whatever might be the case), I suspect it won't be considered as a dire need. That being said, I don't think there will be any complaint if a community chat channel was created (not that we could do anything to stop it anyway). I'll continue to look into this though and do some data collection here on the Forum to get some numbers since that'll be a valuable metric in the end. Again, thank you for the feedback, JColvin
  12. As a side note, I think it would be good if we created some sort of chat channel, if only because IPS (the company that provides this forum software) will retire their chat feature on May 1 of 2017 (as per their update here). More googling showed that other people had promoted IRC chats on the IPS forums with the CEO of IPS present on that thread (link), but evidently that didn't come to anything. As for the Digilent side of things, there isn't really anything we can do to prevent them from removing the current chat that exists. I'll look into the other options to see if they have some of the things that various higher ups at Digilent would want, but the biggest thing is that right now it is wished that the Digilent Forum is our primary means of support since it is a feasible way of helping customers while keeping a growing "database" of existing solutions that people can find on their own, since having extensive documentation on our Wiki on how to approach every problem isn't feasible (yay engineering!). That and I imagine Digilent would want their own branded version considering that we are a company and all, as opposed to a group of people, although as the Forum is a group of people we'll see how that can change things. I'll bring it up in a meeting later this week to get some initial thoughts on this. Thanks, JColvin
  13. JColvin


    Hello usha_tiwari, Digilent does not sell the NI ELVIS, so we aren't able to offer proper support or guidance for using it. I would recommend posting your question in the National Instruments Forums instead. It looks like they have a forum specific to the ELVIS board here. I'm sorry I could not be of more help. Thanks, JColvin
  14. Hi Cristobal, I don't recall getting the Pmod AD5 working nicely; if I get the opportunity I'll try to take a look at it again, but I'm not certain when that will be. I think some of the changes I made were to the github code, but I don't recall at the moment. Thanks, JColvin
  15. Hello, This is just some friendly feedback on my part since I realize the software is still in beta, but I was taking a look at WFL again and noticed that I'm not seeing the labels for the Analyzer channel that Dharsan made reference to. Are those live or hopefully in a build that'll be pushed live soon? Also, (at least for me) it looks like the main viewing screen doesn't update with the waveform I've set from the waveform generator after hitting the "run" button. It doesn't update the screen until I hit the "stop" button while running (or by hitting the "single" button for just a lone acquisition). It also looks like that while running (presuming the waveforms are shown on the screen) I can have an analyzer line disappear from the screen, but not reappear. The waveforms (or at least the OSC1 and Waveform generator) also don't look like they disappear from the screen while the simulated OpenScope is set to run mode, even if I click their little power buttons. I'm not sure why the analyzers do that, but it seems like the others aren't updating maybe because once the run mode is activated it collects all of the current settings and sticks with it? It's a little weird since I'm not seeing the screen update until I hit the stop button (as I mentioned earlier). But I can make changes to the AWG while it's in run mode and see those changes when I hit stop, so that doesn't help my collect all of the current settings theory...hmmm. Mostly I figured I would mention this just in case a second pair of eyes was needed to help spot some of these things. Thanks, JColvin
  16. Sorry about that; Digilent is closed on the weekends so the appropriate people on the Kickstarter project (not me) probably didn't get the opportunity to collaborate in the midst of our other daily tasks. That and I think Digilent is in the awkward position of trying a Kickstarter for the very first time for our first open source scope, but having it be way more successful than we anticipated. I would like to think that a logical choice for a stretch goal would be to "upgrade" each backer level with something that is either the same across all of them or somehow appropriately tiered, but that isn't useless (which we all agree on in this thread), reasonably expected to come over time (software improvements), or drastically change shipping times (hardware changes). Perhaps the last one could be done if the change and timing "was right", but I don't have any idea what that might be. But those are all my random thoughts as somebody not in on the project, but interested in it and wanting to see it succeed. I'll see if I can come up with some fun (hopefully not too cheesy) things that could be done that make sense.
  17. Hi Tuan, I don't know the answers to most of your questions, but I do know that you can find the Base System Design for the Zybo on it's Resource Center on our Wiki; it's in the box on the right hand side underneath "Design Resources". Thanks, JColvin
  18. Yeah, I was a little bummed myself when I learned that is was decided to not release an intermediate solution to address this problem in the mean time. AFAIK, the mid-February timeframe should still be accurate though.
  19. Hi jmw, Very cool, thanks for sharing! Presuming you don't mind, I have put links to these projects and this thread on the Pmod OLED and Arty Resource Centers under Additional Resources and Example Projects, respectively. Thanks, JColvin
  20. Hi @HansV, I don't personally have the ability (or expertise) to implement the changes you suggested, but I do have a couple of questions simply because I'm curious. What do you mean by "have the relevant colors in the text that do disappear in the label option"? Do mean something like the 'black text on a black background' type of effect or something else entirely? And just to confirm your last point, you would like the images/labels to be layered so that when they are inserted, they go behind the existing trace? Or at least be able to place them on the screen and then re-run a data aquisition and have the new traces draw over the label/picture? Thanks, JColvin
  21. FWIW, it looks like both of the links are working now; I had also noticed that the Thingiverse link wasn't working yesterday. I'm not part of the OpenScope project here at Digilent, but I wouldn't be surprised if those files also found their way onto GitHub. There might be a delay in terms of pushing it to public view to help ensure that only the appropriate Kickstarter backers have early access, but again, I can't confirm or deny that. I think @LariSan will probably be able to get us a more formal answer early next week. Thanks, JColvin
  22. Hi Dharsan, Could you also increase the trace width (i.e. make it bold) when a particular waveform (analyzer or oscilloscope or otherwise) is selected? Thanks, JColvin
  23. I'm a little confused as to what you're wanting as well if a label isn't what you're looking for. As far as I can tell, you want some sort of highlighting effect around which analyzer pin you have selected to appear in the lower right hand corner (as indicated by my poorly drawn red box) and (what I would personally like) a label to appear when you click on the corresponding arrow with some information (shown by my poor hand writing in red). I took the screenshot from your video.
  24. Hello, I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but I'm not understanding some of your math. If I wanted a sampling frequency to fit 100 samples in a single division that was representing 1 ms, wouldn't that be 100 kHz (1 kHz is one sample per millisecond, so a 100 kHz is a hundred samples per millisecond)? I would think that 192 kHz gets you 192 data points per division (based on a 1 ms/div scale). So then, if I had a time base of 100 ms/div, I would need (working off of needing 192 points per division) a sampling frequency of 1920 Hz, theoretically requiring (with a buffer size of 3840) 2 seconds to get all of the data, plus some extra time to process it and display it on the screen. I'm not sure why I'm not seeing the all of the 100 ms/div sections filled with data though. I got some screen captures of the 100 ms/div running and then a zoomed in section of the stopped data that was being run at the 100 ms/div timebase. It looks like in the zoomed in version shows 200 total maxes and mins, implying a sampling rate of 2 kHz, which is fairly close to the expected 1.92 kHz (and probably would work out to be that if I could get the exact distances right, but I don't know how to nicely manipulate WFL into doing that). Going off of the 1920 samples per second and a buffer size of 3840 (since I have a 1920 by 1080 screen), I should expect to see 2 seconds worth of data plotted, correct? But I only see 0.7772 seconds of data plotted on the running screen (based on the largest magnitude of milliseconds I could get the tooltip to show) rather than 2 seconds worth of data and I can't seem to get the panning to show me any more data than what's shown on the screen...