I'm attempting to implement a Time to Digital Converter (TDC) in System Verilog. So far I've attempted 2 different methods and not sure if either has been successful.
The First Method is based on the following diagram
'''
module TDC #(
parameter bits = 8
)(
input logic start,
input logic progate_stop,
input logic reset,
output logic [bits-1:0] comb_output
);
logic comb_one, comb_two, comb_three, comb_four, comb_five, comb_six, comb_seven, comb_eight;
logic pipo_one, pipo_two, pipo_three, pipo_four, pipo_five, pipo_six, pipo_seven, pipo_eight;
always_comb begin
comb_one = start;
comb_two = ~comb_one;
comb_three = ~comb_two;
comb_four = ~comb_three;
comb_five = ~comb_four;
comb_six = ~comb_five;
comb_seven = ~comb_six;
comb_eight = ~comb_seven;
end
always_ff#(progate_stop) begin
if (reset ) begin
pipo_one <= 1'b0;
pipo_two <= 1'b0;
pipo_three <= 1'b0;
pipo_four <= 1'b0;
pipo_five <= 1'b0;
pipo_six <= 1'b0;
pipo_seven <= 1'b0;
pipo_eight <= 1'b0;
end else begin
pipo_one <= comb_one;
pipo_two <= comb_two;
pipo_three <= comb_three;
pipo_four <= comb_four;
pipo_five <= comb_five;
pipo_six <= comb_six;
pipo_seven <= comb_seven;
pipo_eight <= comb_eight;
end
end
always_comb begin
comb_output[0] = pipo_one;
comb_output[1] = ~pipo_two;
comb_output[2] = pipo_three;
comb_output[3] = ~pipo_four;
comb_output[4] = pipo_five;
comb_output[5] = ~pipo_six;
comb_output[6] = pipo_seven;
comb_output[7] = ~pipo_eight;
end
endmodule
The second method is based on the following diagram:
module TDC (
output reg [7:0] out , // Output of the counter
input wire enable , // enable for counter
input wire clk , // clock Input
input wire reset, // reset Input
input logic start,
input logic stop
);
//-------------Code Starts Here-------
always_ff #(posedge clk) begin
if (reset) begin
out <= 8'b0 ;
end else begin
if (start && !stop) begin
out <= out+1;
end else begin
out <=out;
end
end
end
endmodule
Any advice on either of these would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you in advanc
a TDC is very dependant on the underlying technology that you are using. Although it is a "digital" block (in the sense that you use digital gates and flops to implement it), the reality is that in order to obtain accurate timings, you need to carefully lay out the gates and the flops, so typically you will need:
a) describe the circuit structurally, using the cells available in your ASIC library/FPGA
b) carefully lay out the elements so that TDC timing measurements are accurate.
In other words, writing behavioural RTL as you're doing is not going to achieve what you want, sorry.
Related
I have a conceptual question about FSM's and whether or not the following code is a true FSM. This is for my own curiosity and understanding about the subject. When I wrote this code, I was under the impression that this was an FSM, but now I am not so sure. According to a lot of reading I have done, a TRUE FSM should only consist of a sequential state transition block, followed by either one or two combination blocks to calculate the next state and the output logic.
My current code synthesizes and works on my Basys3 board, so I understand there may be an argument for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but it's been bugging me for a while now that I may have an incorrect understanding about how to write an FSM in HDL.
I have tried at least 4 or 5 different ways to rewrite my code using the format mentioned above, but I can't seem to get it without inferring latches, mainly due to the use of a counter, and the fact that pckd_bcd needs to remember its previous value.
Could somebody please explain to me either why this algorithm isn't fit for a true FSM, why it is fit for a true FSM and where my misunderstanding is, or how to rewrite this into the format mentioned above.
module double_dabble #
(
parameter NUM_BITS = 8
)
(
input wire i_clk,
input wire i_rst,
input wire [NUM_BITS-1:0] i_binary,
output wire [15:0] o_pckd_bcd
);
localparam s_IDLE = 3'b000;
localparam s_SHIFT = 3'b001;
localparam s_CHECK = 3'b010;
localparam s_ADD = 3'b011;
localparam s_DONE = 3'b100;
reg [2:0] state;
reg [NUM_BITS-1:0] bin;
reg [3:0] count;
reg [15:0] pckd_bcd;
reg [NUM_BITS-1:0] input_reg;
reg [15:0] output_reg;
assign o_pckd_bcd = output_reg;
always #(posedge i_clk)
begin
if(i_rst)
begin
state <= s_IDLE;
bin <= 0;
count <= 0;
pckd_bcd <= 0;
output_reg <= 0;
input_reg <= 0;
end
else
begin
input_reg <= i_binary;
state <= s_IDLE;
// FSM
case(state)
s_IDLE :
begin
state <= s_IDLE;
bin <= 0;
count <= 0;
pckd_bcd <= 0;
if (input_reg!=i_binary)
begin
bin <= i_binary;
state <= s_SHIFT;
end
end
s_SHIFT :
begin
state <= s_CHECK;
bin <= bin<<1;
count <= count+1;
pckd_bcd <= pckd_bcd<<1;
pckd_bcd[0] <= bin[NUM_BITS-1];
end
s_CHECK :
begin
state <= s_ADD;
if(count>=NUM_BITS)
state <= s_DONE;
end
s_ADD :
begin
state <= s_SHIFT;
pckd_bcd[15:12] <= add_three(pckd_bcd[15:12]);
pckd_bcd[11:8] <= add_three(pckd_bcd[11:8]);
pckd_bcd[7:4] <= add_three(pckd_bcd[7:4]);
pckd_bcd[3:0] <= add_three(pckd_bcd[3:0]);
end
s_DONE :
begin
state <= s_IDLE;
output_reg <= pckd_bcd;
end
endcase
end
end
function [3:0] add_three;
input [3:0] bcd;
if (bcd > 4)
add_three = bcd +3;
else
add_three = bcd;
endfunction
endmodule
In general, your code looks like it implements an FSM. You have evidence that the design is working as desired on your board.
The coding style you have chosen (one always block) is a valid Verilog approach. Another common FSM coding style involves two always blocks: one sequential and one combinational. See here for an example. It is not mandatory for an FSM to use two always blocks in Verilog.
One thing that I do notice in your code is that you are making multiple nonblocking assignments to the state signal at the same time. That is unusual.
For example, right before the case statement, you have:
state <= s_IDLE;
Then, in the IDLE case-item, you have the same code:
state <= s_IDLE;
I recommend trying to clean that up by adding a default to the case statement. A default is also a good coding practice when you have some undefined states, as in your FSM. You have only defined 5 of the 8 possible states (state is a 3-bit register).
Another example of multiple nonblocking assignments is:
s_CHECK :
begin
state <= s_ADD;
if(count>=NUM_BITS)
state <= s_DONE;
end
That would be better coded as:
s_CHECK :
begin
state <= (count>=NUM_BITS) ? s_DONE : s_ADD;
end
Following recommended coding practices yields more predictable simulation and synthesis results.
So I have my counter in verilog which is 4 bits and I want it to stay on max value, 1111, until I give it a signal to start counting from 0000 again.
Here's what I've been able to come up with so far:
module contadorAscMax
(
input iClk,
input iRst,
output oQ,
input iCE,
input iSignal,
output [3:0] orCnt
);
reg[3:0] rvCnt_d;
reg[3:0] rvCnt_q;
assign orCnt = rvCnt_q;
always #(posedge iClk or posedge iRst)
begin
if(iRst)
begin
rvCnt_q<=4'b0;
end
else
begin
if(iCE)
begin
rvCnt_q<=rvCnt_d;
end
else
begin
rvCnt_q<=rvCnt_q;
end
end
end
always #*
begin
rvCnt_d=rvCnt_q+4'b1;
if(rvCnt_d == 4'b1111)
begin
rvCnt_d = rvCnt_d;
end
else if(rvCnt_d == 4'b1111 & iSignal)
begin
rvCnt_d = 4'b0;
end
end
endmodule
But it just won't wait for the signal. I am very new to verilog so my code probable doesn't make much sense to a hardware guy, since I am a software engineer so sorry if there are some rookie mistakes here.
As for the testbench, here is what I have:
`timescale 1ns / 1ps
module vtfContMax;
// Inputs
reg iClk;
reg iRst;
reg iCE;
reg iSignal;
// Outputs
wire oQ;
wire [3:0] orCnt;
// Instantiate the Unit Under Test (UUT)
contadorAscMax uut (
.iClk(iClk),
.iRst(iRst),
.oQ(oQ),
.iCE(iCE),
.iSignal(iSignal),
.orCnt(orCnt)
);
initial begin
// Initialize Inputs
iClk = 1;
iRst = 1;
iCE = 1;
iSignal = 0;
// Wait 100 ns for global reset to finish
#10;
iRst = 0;
repeat(10)
begin
repeat(10)
begin
wait(iClk);
wait(!iClk);
end
end
$stop();
// Add stimulus here
end
always
begin
#5;
iClk = ~iClk;
#10
iSignal = ~iSignal;
end
endmodule
Thanks for any help :)
You have split the code in a register and combinatorial section. Although that is a good idea for complex logic, for a simple 4 bit counter it is a bit over the top.
For solving your problem you are close. The trick with code like this, is to make the definition using 'programming' language. Then the code flows from that.
I want to have a counter which goes from 1111 to 0000 when a signal is present, else I want it to count up.
This then leads to:
always #(clk or posedge reset)
begin
if (reset)
count <= 4'b1111;
else
begin
if (count==4'b1111 && start_signal)
count <= 4'b0000;
else
count <= count + 4'b0001
end
end
What you don't mention, but what I see from your code you also have an enable (iCE) and an unused output oQ. The total then becomes:
module contadorAscMax
(
input iClk,
input iRst,
// output oQ,
input iCE,
input iSignal,
output reg [3:0] orCnt
);
always #(iClk or posedge iRst)
begin
if (iRst)
orCnt <= 4'b0000; // or should that be 4'b1111
// Is this really what you want?
// It will start counting after a reset!
else
begin
if (iCE)
begin
if (orCnt==4'b1111 && iSignal)
orCnt <= 4'b0000;
else
orCnt <= orCnt+ 4'b0001;
end
end
end
endmodule
Some more remarks:
Your reset condition looks flawed to me but you have to solve that.
Give the counter enable signal a decent name: 'count_enable' not 'signal'.
Last: I would not use all the 'i's and 'o's. The 'o' signals from one module will be the 'i' of another. Thus you have to change the signal names somewhere. It is better to have a defined signal in your system. If only so you can find in the timing report or gates after synthesis.
I'm a begginer of Verilog. I read a several materials about recommended Verilog coding styles like this paper and stackoverflow's questions.
Now, I learned from them that "two always block style" is recommended; separate a code into two parts, one is a combinational block that modifies next, and the another is a sequential block that assigns it to state reg like this.
reg [1:0] state, next;
always #(posedge clk or negedge rst_n)
if (!rst_n)
state <= IDLE;
else
state <= next;
always #(state or go or ws) begin
next = 'bx;
rd = 1'b0;
ds = 1'b0;
case (state)
IDLE : if (go) next = READ;
else next = IDLE;
...
And here is my question. All example codes I found have only one pair of registers named state and next.
However, if there are multiple regs that preserve some kinds of state, how should I write codes in this state-and-next style?
Preparing next regs corresponding to each of them looks a little redundant because all regs will be doubled.
For instance, please look at an UART sender code of RS232c I wrote below.
It needed wait_count, state and send_buf as state regs. So, I wrote corresponding wait_count_next, state_next and send_buf_next as next for a combinational block. This looks a bit redundant and troublesome to me. Is there other proper way?
module uart_sender #(
parameter clock = 50_000_000,
parameter baudrate = 9600
) (
input clk,
input go,
input [7:0] data,
output tx,
output ready
);
parameter wait_time = clock / baudrate;
parameter send_ready = 10'b0000000000,
send_start = 10'b0000000001,
send_stop = 10'b1000000000;
reg [31:0] wait_count = wait_time,
wait_count_next = wait_time;
reg [9:0] state = send_ready,
state_next = send_ready;
reg [8:0] send_buf = 9'b111111111,
send_buf_next = 9'b111111111;
always #(posedge clk) begin
state <= state_next;
wait_count <= wait_count_next;
send_buf <= send_buf_next;
end
always #(*) begin
state_next = state;
wait_count_next = wait_count;
send_buf_next = send_buf;
case (state)
send_ready: begin
if (go == 1) begin
state_next = send_start;
wait_count_next = wait_time;
send_buf_next = {data, 1'b0};
end
end
default: begin
if (wait_count == 0) begin
if (state == send_stop)
state_next = send_ready;
else
state_next = {state[8:0], 1'b0};
wait_count_next = wait_time;
send_buf_next = {1'b1, send_buf[8:1]};
end
else begin
wait_count_next = wait_count - 1;
end
end
endcase
end
assign tx = send_buf[0];
assign ready = state == send_ready;
endmodule
I think you did a good job and correctly flopped the variables. The issue is that without flops you would have a loop. i.e. if you write something like the following, the simulation will loop and silicon will probably burn out:
always_comb wait_count = wait_count - 1;
So, you need to stage this by inserting a flop:
always_ff #(posedge clk)
wait_count <= wait_count - 1;
Or in your case you you used an intermediate wait_count_next which is a good style:
always_ff #(posedge clk)
wait_count_next <= wait_count;
always_comb
wait_count = wait_count_next;
You might or might not have an issue with the last assignments. Which version of the signals you want to assign to tx and ready? the flopped one or not?
And yes, you can split theses blocks in multiple blocks, but in this case there seems to be no need.
And yes, the other style would be write everything in a single flop always block. But this will reduce readability, will be more prone to your errors and might have synthesis issues.
Im just starting to learn how to code in Verilog. Can anyone help me figure out how to implement the following code in verilog using one-hot encoding
module Controller(b, x, clk, rst);
input b, clk, rst;
output x;
reg x;
parameter Off = 2'b00,
On1 = 2'b01,
On2 = 2'b10,
On3 = 2'b11;
reg [1:0] currentstate;
reg [1:0] nextstate;
//state register
always # (posedge rst or posedge clk)
begin
if(rst==1)
currentstate <= Off;
else
currentstate <= nextstate;
end
//combinational
always # (*)
begin
case (currentstate)
Off: begin
x <= 0;
if(b==0)
nextstate <= Off;
else
nextstate <= On1;
end
On1 : begin
x <= 1;
nextstate <= On2;
end
On2 : begin
x <= 1;
nextstate <= On3;
end
On3 : begin
x <= 1;
nextstate <= Off;
end
endcase
end
I tried changing the parameters to:
parameter Off = 4'b0001,
On1 = 4'b0010,
On2 = 4'b0100,
On3 = 4'b1000;
However, ive read that this is not a good implementations.
Some of the advantages of onehot encoding in FSMs are as follows:
Low switching activity. Since only single bit is switched at a time, the power consumption is less and it is less prone to glitches.
Simplified encoding. One can determine the state just by looking at the bit position of '1' in the current state variable.
The disadvantage of this technique is that it requires more number of flops. So, if one has a FSM with 10 different states, one needs 10 flops, while one needs only 4 flops when using decimal encoding.
Coming to your question, it is simple to change to onehot encoded FSM. One needs to implement a case statement based on the position of 1 in the currentstate variable. The code snippet can be implemented as follows:
parameter Off = 2'b00,
On1 = 2'b01,
On2 = 2'b10,
On3 = 2'b11;
//...
always # (*)
begin
nextstate = 4'b0000;
case (1'b1)
currentstate[Off] : begin
x = 0;
if(b==0)
nextstate[Off] = 1'b1;
else
nextstate[On1] = 1'b1;
end
currentstate[On1] : begin
x = 1;
nextstate[On2] = 1'b1;
end
//...
A simple example is available at this link and explanation is over here. Cummings paper is also a good source for more info.
EDIT: As #Greg pointed out, it was a copy-paste error. A combinational block must use blocking assignments.
I'm trying to get a triangle waveform, but my code doesn't work! I think the "if conditions" are organised wrong but I can't find the mistake My wave goes up like it should be and it falls down by 90° after achieving the top
module pila(clk,res,out2);
input clk,res;
output [0:7]out2;
reg [0:7]out2;
always #(posedge clk)
begin
if (res)
begin
if(out2<=8'b11111111)
out2=out2+1;
else if(out2>=8'b00000000)
out2=out2-1;
else out2=8'b00000000;
end
else out2=8'b00000000;
end
endmodule
module testbench;
reg clk,res;
wire [0:7]out2;
pila Sevo(clk,res,out2);
always #2 clk=~clk;
initial
begin
clk=0;res=0;
#2 res=1;
end
initial #5000 $finish;
endmodule
You need some signal to indicate which direction you are currently counting. Also use the non-blocking assignment operator <= rather than the blocking assignment operator =.
module pila(clk,res,out2);
input clk,res;
output [0:7]out2;
reg [0:7]out2 = 8'h00;
reg count_down = 1'b0;
always #(posedge clk)
begin
if (count_down == 1'b0)
begin
if (out2==8'b11111111) // check for top of count
begin
count_down <= 1'b1;
out2<=out2-1;
end
else
out2<=out2+1;
end
else
begin
if(out2==8'b00000000) // check for bottom of count
begin
count_down <= 1'b0;
out2<=out2+1;
end
else
out2<=out2-1;
end
end
endmodule
The if(out2<=8'b11111111) condition is always evaluating to true. This is because out2 range is 0 to 255. Try adding another flop to control the direction, for example downup where 1 means decrement and 0 means increment.
if (out2 == 8'h00) begin
downup <= 1'b0; // up
out2 <= 8'h01;
end
else if (out2 == 8'hFF) begin
downup <= 1'b1; // down
out2 <= 8'hFE;
end
else if (downup) begin // down
out2 <= out2 - 1;
end
else begin // up
out2 <= out2 + 1;
end
Other issues:
Use non-blocking assignment (<=) for synchronous logic.
Typically reset (and set) conditions are declared before synchronous logic assignment
Little-Endian ([7:0]) is more commonly used for packed arrays (previously known as vectors) then Big-Endian ([0:7]), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness
Working example: http://www.edaplayground.com/x/4_b