• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


zygot last won the day on April 20

zygot had the most liked content!


About zygot

  • Rank
    Prolific Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

4690 profile views
  1. @Boris_S I've written about this so much that I've been avoiding responding to posts such as yours any more. I decided to add my 2 cents to your thread because your experience is very similar to mine. For my older 2 CMOD-A35T boards I've never had an issue configuring the CMOD-A35T but do have USB disconnect issues with Vivado Hardware Manager if I try to use the ILA for some time. I have a drawer full of cables and none of them make a difference. I find the board useful if I use an external TTL USB UART attached to 2 IO pins. You obviously can't do that if you can't even configure the FPGA device. Digilent is set on blaming the problem on cables... yet they don't sell the board with any or guarantee operation with any known vendors cable even after a few years of complaints. You are correct that this is the only FPGA board that Digilent ( or anyone else that I know of ) makes with this problem; and Digilent has made a lot of boards with roughly the same programming interface over the past 5 years or so. My personal suspicion is that the particular FTDI device used on this board ( the newer cheaper ones have fewer power and ground pins), pcb layout decisions, and possibly the way that whatever makes their interface proprietary is different for this board is causing the issue but I can't prove that and frankly it's not worth my time to try. Neither you nor I can make Digilent take any particular action with regard to these boards but it is clearly not doing anything positive for their reputation ( I sometimes wonder if they even care about reputation ). Since they are cheap, if I were the vendor, I'd re-spin the board, test the JTAG interface exhaustively, and sell the modules with a mated cable. I suspect that the board needs a different stackup and less component density and a JTAG re-design. Making customers eat the cost of a poor design just isn't good business if you want to engender good will. There have been customers that support Digilent's claim that a different USB cable makes the problems disappear but, as you and I know, not all of us customers can verify this. I happen to think that if a customer can't use a new board with known design problems a more liberal replacement policy should be in order... the vendor can figure out what's going on working with the returns. It's problematic that the same board and cut & paste copies of newer versions are being sold without a fix. Perhaps Digilent doesn't think that the cost merits testing product but for their customers the cost is signifiant, especially when the board is unusable. I know what I do when a vendor has a habit of not treating me well... I use a different vendor. The Terasic DE0 Nano is about the same cost but comes with a USB cable and has more IO pins in a slightly larger form factor but is still quite usable for attaching to a custom board that I design. It doesn't use an Artix device but for what these embeddable modules are good at has served me quite well. I've designed a few dozen boards that have integrated either the 2 CMOD-A735T or the DE0-Nano as a component over the past couple of years. If Digilent were willing to replace your board, given the known issues, then I'd try that for the modest cost of shipping but if not I certainly wouldn't throw more money at a different one hoping for a different outcome. There are a few vendors offering similar modules but I only have experience with the two that I've mentioned. Trenz makes a few similar FPGA boards but I've never used any so I can't offer any opinions about them.
  2. Let me offer a suggestion to all newbies, regardless of how smart you are, before trying to do FPGA development. Read all of the user guides for the FPGA device resources that you are likely to be using. These will include the SelectIO, Clocking, CLB , and memory guides at a minimum. [edit] also read the AC switching part of the device data sheet. Like it or not what you are doing in FPGA development is digital design and you need to have a sense of how design decisions affect timing. Read the Vivado user guides for design entry, constraints, simulation, timing closure, and debugging. Understand that even though various Zynq devices are based on certain FPGA families the documentation tends to be unique for these devices. You will be overwhelmed with all of the 'basic' information. Spend a week or so running though all of the basic documentation, spending more time on specific topics each read-through. The object isn't to memorize or understand everything but to get a general feel for how Xilinx presents its information. You can also learn stuff that you will miss in specific IP documentation by using the simulation, but only if you are careful to read all of the simulator messages. This is complicated stuff and the tools, even when they behave as described in the reference material is even more complicated. The purpose of doing this is to get a general feel for how the devices work and specific use limitations and how the tools work. It will take a year or so before you start becoming competent at it if you are a normal human.
  3. @askhunter Tip if you want to notify someone that you are responding to a post type @and the first few letters of their username. A selection of usernames will appear in a popup window to choose from. If you just type @ and the whole name you won't get the desired result. I confess that I'm not an expert on using the features of this site but I did figure out this one. As to understanding all of the Xilinx documentation what yo are doing is correct. Speed-read though a document to get a general sense of what's being presented and don't worry about the things that you don't grasp. Just being familiar with what information is where will help with a specific question later. The DSP48E is a very complicated piece of hardware. You only understand how complicated by trying to instantiate it as a UNISIM component to implement a particular algorithm. I've done this and it take time. You understand by doing; one step at a time. In your case I'm assuming that you are starting with someone else's code and trying to modify it. This approach takes a difficult task and turns it into an extremely difficult task. [edit] Vivado uses the multipliers in a seamless way when you specify a multiply in your HDL code. It takes care of a lot of little details, such as that the multipliers are signed 18-bit. There are a LOT of options with the DSP48E blocks. Once you start making decisions for Vivado, by say, using the use_dsp attribute in your code you are taking on responsibility for more of those details... so you had better understand how the DSP48E blocks work. Trust me, even after you have figured out all of the necessary behaviors of the DSP48E blocks it doesn't get easier as you will have to contend with routing issues that might dramatically reduce your data rates. This is a general rule for using FPGA device resources. You can use the IP wizards to help construct a component that's useful for your needs or do it yourself in HDL code and assume the responsibility for getting all of the details and constraints right.
  4. @askhunter I suggest that you read UG479 to see what the DSP48E blocks do. Then read UG901 to see what the use_dsp attributes do. Reading the recipe doesn't always help improve the cooking but it never hurts. A long time ago having signed multipliers in hardware was a big deal for FPGA developers. For the past decade or so these have become integrated into more complicated and useful 'DSP' blocks. The DSP nomenclature is a holdover from the days, long before IEEE floating point hardware was available, when having a fast multiplier in hardware meant that you could do some fun stuff in a micro-controller that you couldn't do with software routines. These days the lines are blurry. Most FPGA devices have some really fast hardware features, block ram and DSP blocks ( depending on how they are used ) being the most useful for grinding out mathematical algorithms. By the way, the DSP blocks can be useful for more than multiply-add operations.
  5. @SGY What you will get is a pretty nice, somewhat elderly but very useful FPGA development hardware. You also get the Zedboard community and all of its postings. There are numerous tutorials written expressly for a version of this board. I highlighted 'a version' because you need to know that there were a few important hardware changes in the life of the board. Because it's older most of the tutorials were written for long gone versions of ISE or Vivado and might be difficult to follow as the Vivado user experience changes with every new version. As to RTL code you can find some but since this is a ZYNQ product the emphasis is on the ARM development. I've had the C version of the board for quite a while and still make use of it when I need a Zynq solution. The Zedboard contributions are at this time mostly old at this time so you will have to learn the whole Zynq development ecosystem. Once you've done a few PL designs it will get easier. Zygot's hint for the day is to let Vivado create a Zynq HDL toplevel source file in a project that you, not Vivado, manage. You can instantiate that into your own toplevel design with all of the PL magic that you can conjure up. You'll have to trust me that this is the far easier way to go if you want to do FPGA development with ARM support. Your opinion is more important (to you) than mine however...
  6. @Reggs Thanks for posting your question. My first suggestion is that you figure out how to use the testbench in Vivado. You can create a special Vivado project using just the UART_DEBUGGER,vhd and YASUTX.vhd source files. It doesn't matter what device you use. Just make sure to add the T_* testbench files as simulation sources after the project has been created. Both Vivado and ISE mark source files as implementation or simulation or both and it's important that VIvado knows which are which. All of this was easier in ISE. ( in a lot of ways Vivado is a really badly conceived software application ) In Vivado Simulation Settings you can select which of the testbenches you want to simulate. I strongly suggest that you get to know how to do simulation in Vivado or ISE ( simulation is actually easier in ISE ). None of the code uses a particular feature of any particular FPGA device so you could use the free version of ModelSim that comes with Quartus to run the simulations as well. If you really can't get the simulation running let's work on that first. Once you have the simulator working it will, by default, show you the toplevel (in this case the testbench) signals. You can then add any or all of the lower level code in the hierarchy to the simulation waveform viewer. Just understand that the more signal you show and the finer the time resolution the longer the simulation takes. For this code what takes time is the slow uart output. You did read the commentary at the top of the source files, right? You should be able to use a 50 MHz clk and get out a message at a 115200 baud rate. I've used this component often and with a few baud rates ( I haven't tested it exhaustively at lots of different baud rates ). The idea is to send a string of hex numbers in ascii form so that you can read the value of a register in your code at a particular event or time. This particular tool isn't meant to send text, only hex numbers in ascii format. The number of hex digits displayed in the terminal should match your DATA_CHARS assignment. Are you sure that the clock that drives the UART_DEBUGGER matches the generic CLK_RATE? From what you depict as your output it looks as though your problem is not with baud rates ( clearly there are recognizable characters being printed ) but in using the data_write_stb and busy signals. data_write_stb should not be asserted until after busy is de-asserted (low). The busy signal indicates that the YASUTX transmitter is in the process of sending a set of characters and not ready for another set. Make sure to strobe data_write_stb for only 1 'clk' clock period. In your code you will decide what conditions or event starts a message. It should be obvious that any baud rate is going to be pretty slow relative to whatever is going on in your design at 50 MHz so you need to make logic to select the instant where your data is captured and sent. By the way you can capture multiple data states in successive clocks by putting a fifo between your data and the UART_DEBUGGER; that way you can feed say, 1000, snapshots of your data to the fifo and let the UART_DEBUGGER read them at its own slow uart time frame. I have an example of this lying around somewhere around here... Oh, if you look at S3_PGMR_D.vhd in the S3_PROGRAMMER_R1.zip source in the S3 Starter Board Programmer project that I've posted here in the Project Vault you can see an example of using a FIFO with UART_DEBUGGER. You may wonder why you'd want to print out data faster than you can read it but if your use Putty as your terminal it can be set up to fork all incoming and outgoing text to a file so that you can read it later... how cool is that? Once you get the code simulated you will quickly figure out what's going on. Hopefully, you will be encouraged to start on creating your own debugging IP. You can, with a bit of skill and practice make better and more useful debugging tools than Vivado provides. [edit] Xilinx has a number of helpful guides to using the Vivado simulator in tutorial, reference manual or user guide formats. There's a lot of information about the devices and tools to digest but you don't have to understand everything in order to learn enough to do a specific thing. Being able to use the Documentation Navigator and material is key to success with FPGA development.
  7. Thanks @xc6lx45for forcing me to re-read the original post. Slow is such an objective assessment. Brewing beer is slow if you intend to start drinking now... Some things just take time. I hate waiting as much as anyone else so I just do something else while the tools are doing their job. Usually, I spend the time thinking about what needs to be done next or assessing what has already been designed. What I read into your post is focussed on 'I have to'. Perhaps this is the crux of the problem. Doing something enjoyable and intellectually challenging is a good antidote for being bored waiting. Simulation is not a way to speed up chores. When I have to do chores that I'd rather not do I've figured out ways to make the time less onerous. By the way; if you ever do this for a living for a company that does a significant amount of FPGA development your simulation will include the analysis and place and route steps. There is behavioral simulation for the logic and there is timing simulation that attempts to verify how your design bitstream will perform.
  8. I've got nothing against using an automated tool to do formal verification. For many environments it's a necessity. I'm going to suggest however that you learn how to use the 'classic' simulator tools first. This would be the one that comes with Vivado or ModelSim for Quartus. For those learning the nuances of logic design with an FPGA the old 'use your brain' approach has some advantages. I'll offer the analogy of flying a commercial airliner as an example. Flying a plane that 99% of the time is so automated that it doesn't need a pilot is easier than flying a single engine prop plane with a stick control. The reason why you need to have hundreds of hours of experience flying planes that are cruder than a 747 or fighter jet before you are allowed to fly one is for that other 1 percent of the flying experience. In the case of a plane you need to be able to know what to do, calmly and in a controlled manner, when flight conditions are beyond the capabilities of the automated systems; or heavens forbid when the automated systems are failing and doing something that imperils of the craft. In the case of logic simulation it is very instructive and important for development that you gain insight into all of the myriad issues and conditions in your design, and there are a lot of them. Trusting in a software approach to 'fix' your design flaws is not so instructive for the beginner. Few, if any, of the designs that you will do as a novice or for your Basys3 board will need formal verification. Training your mind to improve your design methodology and awareness is an essential part of skill development. Designing a test bench is not easy and that in itself is, similar to flying a Cessna at night in storm conditions, is part of progressing with your design skill. Once your are good enough to do FPGA development where formal verification is a requirement those tools will augment your mental preparation. It is unfortunate that this part of the trade dosn't have as many texts and examples to help those who have to learn it by themselves. Being able to use formal verification tools is nice but I'd never hire anyone do to commercial FPGA development who first didn't develop the basic skills, awareness, and testbench acumen using mental understanding and thought processes are that part of competent design. You won't get a gig as captain for a major airline based solely on hours of flight-sim experience. If Uber ever owns an airline I'll stop boarding planes for related though less obvious reasons.
  9. zygot

    AXI4 and Vivado ILA

    No, you should be able to use any of the PL input pins for your own logic or and ILA. You might have to create copies of output signals.
  10. So you already understand the 'prime directive' of FPGA design, that is ask "Why...", even if the question seems to be silly. Your question is basic but not silly. Welcome to digital logic design. You are correct that it takes time for data to change values. This is true for clocked data or combinatorial data. There are also delays for both clock and data signals to propagate along wires outside the FPGA device and from one area of the FPGA to another area. Sometimes the logic at the sink end of a signal will be clocked by the same edge as the source end... often it will be clocked by a later ( in time ) edge. If you have a wide clocked bus of signals it is possible for some of the signals to be clocked at different edges than the others.Sometimes it doesn't matter which edge but often it matters a lot. To further complicate matters your clock edges are not exactly one clock period apart due to jitter and drift. And then delays are temperature dependent. What's important for clocked logic are setup and hold times relative to the clock edge when logic clocks a signal. It doesn't matter if the signal was created by a clock or combinatorial logic. Things get really tricky when you have multiple clocks and want to pass information between these clock domains. If the clocks are unrelated ( that is one was not derived from the other and has a relatively fixed phase relationship ) things get even more tricky. You can read about AC switching characteristics for the FPGA on your board in the datasheet. Even if you don't understand all of the parameters this is good reading for all FPGA developers. You need to have a reasonable grasp of the fundamental concepts of digital design if you want to have success with and HDL. It is quite possible to have fun with only the most basic concepts in mind as you develop skill with your HDL but as your designs get more complicated your understanding of digital logic design will have to grow as well. There is no arriving at a destination, just asking questions and gaining knowledge and insight and hopefully skill.
  11. @bhclowers Feel free to let me know if I'm being unhelpful.... From your original post I think that your question is a bit more complicated than you let on. I have never used the Pynq though I did look at it carefully when it was introduced. My understanding of the Pynq1 concept is that it provides a sort of "walled garden" approach to using an FPGA; that is it promises a 'friendlier' user interface if you stick to the scripts, third-party software, and community support arena. I mention. this because a more general question that I think you are trying to ask is if an FPGA board can do what you want. If you implement everything in and HDL the answer is sure. I assume, but aren't sure from what I've read about Pynq is that it should be possible to use the board without the normal supporting software, that is as a regular FPGA board. I have no idea how difficult this would be. If you wer to use, say the ATLYS, with its parallel ADEPT USB 2.0 interface and audio codec, and wrote everything in VHDL or Verilog then it shoudl be straightforward. Not necessarily easy, but straightforward. You custom waveforms would be prototyped in OCTAVE and implemented in HDL. This approach requires you to do all of the heavy lifting but also gives you total control. If your sampling rates are fixed then things are a lot easier. As you have no doubt found out, the cost for convenience, is a significant probability that you can't to home plate.
  12. Using unconstrained arrays is generally a bad idea for synthesis. Even when you expect to constrain it later when using frame_type don't assume that your synthesis tool will close the loop. Refer to UG901 for Vivado VHDL support and coding guidelines. There are differences between synthesis tools from various vendors in how and the order of when code is evaluated.
  13. Look around this Digilent's site for information for clues on how to do what you want to do. There have been a few responses to related questions on the FPGA forum.
  14. They don't drive your uart do they? What is your uart connected to? Is the problem hardware or software or SDK related? A known good design that uses a uart will help confirm your assumptions or make you reassess your situation.
  15. @hello.parth Trying to make your own FPGA board by copying someone else's work without understanding why they made the decisions that they made is just silly. If you can't read datasheets and do the analysis yourself then you need to hire someone who can.