Writing verilog code from quite a few days and one question I have is 'Can we write generate block inside generate block'? I am writing an RTL something like this:
Where 'n' is a parameter.
reg [DATA_WIDTH:0] flops [n-1:0];
generate
if (n > 0) begin
always #(posedge clk) begin
if (en) begin
flops[0] <= mem[addr];
end
end
generate
genvar i;
for (i = 1; i <= n ; i = i + 1) begin
always #(posedge clk) begin
flops[i] <= flops[i-1];
end
end
endgenerate
always #(flops[n - 1])
douta = flops[n - 1];
else
always #(posedge clk) begin
if (en) begin
primary_output = mem[addr];
end
end
end
endgenerate
While compiling the above code, I am getting :
ERROR: syntax error near generate (VERI-1137)
Not sure why. Purpose of this RTL is to create an pipeline of 'n' flops at the output side of the design.
Lets say n is 2, then circuit should become :
flop1-> flop2-> primary output of design
flop1 and flop2 are newly created flops.
You are a long long way from where you should be.
Verilog is not a programming language; it is a hardware description language. You model hardware as a network of concurrent processes. Each process models a small bit of hardware such as a counter, a state machine, a shift-register, some combinational logic... In Verilog, each process is coded as an always block. So, one always statement never ever can appear inside another; that makes no sense.
Secondly, generate is quite a specialised statement. You use it when you want either a large number or a variable number of concurrent processes. That is not a common thing to need, so generate is not common, but is useful when required. You don't need a generate statement to implement a parameterisable shift-register. And, because an always block is a concurrent statement it sits inside a generate statement, not the other way round.
I don't know what your design intent is exactly, to I suspect this code does not do exactly what you want. However, it does implement a parameterisable shift-register of length n and width DATA_WIDTH+1 (did you really mean that?), enabled by the en input:
module N_FLOPS #(n = 2, DATA_WIDTH = 8) (input [DATA_WIDTH:0] dina, input clk, en, output [DATA_WIDTH:0] douta);
reg [DATA_WIDTH:0] flops [n-1:0];
always #(posedge clk)
if (en)
begin : SR
integer i;
flops[0] <= dina;
for (i = 1; i <= n ; i = i + 1)
flops[i] <= flops[i-1];
end
assign douta = flops[n-1];
endmodule
http://www.edaplayground.com/x/3kuY
You can see - no generate statements required. This code conforms to this template, which suffices for any sequential logic without an asynchronous reset:
always #(posedge CLOCK) // or negedge
begin
// do things that occur on the rising (or falling) edge of CLOCK
// stuff here gets synthesised to combinational logic on the D input
// of the resulting flip-flops
end
Related
now I know in Verilog, to make a sequential logic you would almost always have use the non-blocking assignment (<=) in an always block. But does this rule also apply to internal variables? If blocking assignments were to be used for internal variables in an always block would it make it comb or seq logic?
So, for example, I'm trying to code a sequential prescaler module. It's output will only be a positive pulse of one clk period duration. It'll have a parameter value that will be the prescaler (how many clock cycles to divide the clk) and a counter variable to keep track of it.
I have count's assignments to be blocking assignments but the output, q to be non-blocking. For simulation purposes, the code works; the output of q is just the way I want it to be. If I change the assignments to be non-blocking, the output of q only works correctly for the 1st cycle of the parameter length, and then stays 0 forever for some reason (this might be because of the way its coded but, I can't seem to think of another way to code it). So is the way the code is right now behaving as a combinational or sequential logic? And, is this an acceptable thing to do in the industry? And is this synthesizable?
```
module scan_rate2(q, clk, reset_bar);
//I/O's
input clk;
input reset_bar;
output reg q;
//internal constants/variables
parameter prescaler = 8;
integer count = prescaler;
always #(posedge clk) begin
if(reset_bar == 0)
q <= 1'b0;
else begin
if (count == 0) begin
q <= 1'b1;
count = prescaler;
end
else
q <= 1'b0;
end
count = count - 1;
end
endmodule
```
You should follow the industry practice which tells you to use non-blocking assignments for all outputs of the sequential logic. The only exclusion are temporary vars which are used to help in evaluation of complex expressions in sequential logic, provided that they are used only in a single block.
In you case using 'blocking' for the 'counter' will cause mismatch in synthesis behavior. Synthesis will create flops for both q and count. However, in your case with blocking assignment the count will be decremented immediately after it is being assigned the prescaled value, whether after synthesis, it will happen next cycle only.
So, you need a non-blocking. BTW initializing 'count' within declaration might work in fpga synthesis, but does not work in schematic synthesis, so it is better to initialize it differently. Unless I misinterpreted your intent, it should look like the following.
integer count;
always #(posedge clk) begin
if(reset_bar == 0) begin
q <= 1'b0;
counter <= prescaler - 1;
end
else begin
if (count == 0) begin
q <= 1'b1;
count <= prescaler -1;
end
else begin
q <= 1'b0;
count <= count - 1;
end
end
end
You do not need temp vars there, but you for the illustration it can be done as the following:
...
integer tmp;
always ...
else begin
q <= 1'b0;
tmp = count - 1; // you should use blocking here
count <= tmp; // but here you should still use NBA
end
I am trying to make a counter in verilog and I want to know how to split the sequential part from the combinational one.
I have this module, it works fine, but I don't know how to split it?
module counter4bits(
input clk_i,
input rst_n_i,
input enable_i,
input up_down_i,
output reg[3:0] val_o);
always#(posedge clk_i) begin
if (rst_n_i == 1)
val_o <= 0;
else if(enable_i == 1)
val_o <= val_o + 1;
end
endmodule
One way is to make always #(*) blocks for the combinational parts using blocking assignments (=), and make always #(posedge clk_i) blocks for the sequential parts using non-blocking assignments (<=) to simple reg.
The blocking assignment (=) in combinational gives faster simulation and predictable behavior even if explicit sensitivity lists line #(rst_n_i or enable_i or ...) are used instead of #(*). The non-blocking assignment (<=) in sequential logic gives the expected flip-flop behavior where the next value depends on the previous value.
The code will then look like:
module counter4bits(
... input/output with no change
reg [3:0] val_nxt; // Not flip-flop but used in always #(*) thus reg
always #(*) begin
if (rst_n_i == 1)
val_nxt = 0;
else if(enable_i == 1)
val_nxt = val_o + 1;
end
always #(posedge clk_i)
val_o <= val_nxt;
endmodule
Why do you want to split the combinational and sequential logic.
The code you have written is good style for the power optimization.
With your style of code the tool can understand the flip flop value will change on enable_i hence the tools are intelligent enough to put a clock gate for flop using enable_i which will reduce the power.
I'm learning verilog and I think there is something that I must not understand about always #* and always (#posedge clk, ...)
Here is a piece of code supposed to send bits via uart. It fails at synthesization.
The error is
" The logic for does not match a known FF or Latch template. The description style you are using to describe a register or latch is not supported in the current software release."
(and 3 other errors for , and )
If I change the always #(...) by always #*, things fail in the next step ("implement design") because things are not connected.
In the book that I have, they implement an fsmd with an always (posedge clk) for the state, and always #* for the other logic, but I don't understand why this doesn't work.
On another forum, I read that the error could come from too complicated conditions. But I have simplified things too (not code the code here but basically I removed the case(state) and the ifs to have single line assignments with ? : or binary conditions, but it didn't work either)
I have seen this error before in other pieces of code that I wrote but I didn't get to the bottom of it, so if you could help me understand the general problem (with this uart thing as a support for a concrete example), I would be very happy.
Thanks
Thomas
P.S : Im using xilinx spartan 3e starter kit and xilinx ise 14.4
module UART_out #(parameter [3:0] NUM_BITS = 8)
(
input wire baud_clk,
input wire send_tick,
input wire[NUM_BITS-1:0] data_in,
output wire tx,
output wire debug_done
);
localparam
IDLE = 0,
TRANSMIT = 1;
reg[NUM_BITS:0] bits_to_send;
reg state;
reg out_bit;
reg[4:0] cnt;
always #(posedge baud_clk, posedge send_tick)
begin
case (state)
IDLE:
if (send_tick)
begin
bits_to_send <= {data_in, 0};
state <= TRANSMIT;
cnt <= 0;
end
TRANSMIT:
begin
if (cnt < NUM_BITS)
cnt <= cnt + 1;
else
state <= IDLE;
bits_to_send <= {1, bits_to_send[NUM_BITS:1]};
out_bit <= bits_to_send[0];
end
endcase
end
assign tx = (state == IDLE ? 1 : out_bit);
assign debug_done = (state == IDLE);
endmodule
The error:
The logic for does not match a known FF or Latch template. The description style you are using to describe a register or latch is not supported in the current software release.
Is referring to the fact that the synthesis tool does not have any hardware cells to use which match your description.
What hardware do you want from :
always #(posedge baud_clk, posedge send_tick)
This looks like you want a flip-flop with an enable signal. The enable signal (send_tick) should be 1 clock period wide. This is then used to select the path of logic on a clock edge. not as an alternative trigger.
I think that this is all you really need:
always #(posedge baud_clk) begin
case (state)
IDLE:
if (send_tick) begin
//...
end
//...
endcase
end
If send_tick is from another clock domain then you will need to do some clock domain crossing to turn it it to a clock wide pulse on the baud_clk.
You may be getting confused with blocks which have multiple triggers, they are normally a clk and reset. A negedge reset_n or posedge reset are often added for reset (initialisation) conditions.
If adding a reset :
always #(posedge baud_clk or negedge reset_n) begin
if (~reset_n) begin
//reset conditions
state <= IDLE;
//...
end
else begin
// Standard logic
end
end
You will notice that there is a very definite structure here, if reset else ... The synthesis tools recognise this as a flip-flop with an asynchronous reset. The data in the reset condition is also static, typically setting everything to zero.
I want to use if-else and for loop inside an always block. I don't want those if-else to be executed again and again, so I don't want to connect always with either posedge clkor negedge clk.
I want them to be executed only once. I not only want to simulate but I want to synthesize on to Spartan Board aswell.
always # (**what I should add here**)
begin
if(condition)
else
end
For simulations to execute some thing once you can use initial but this is not a synthesizable:
reg x;
initial begin
if(condition) begin
x = 1'b0 ;
end
else begin
x = 1'b1 ;
end
end
To answer the general question always #(**what I should add here**) Most modern verilog simulators will allow the use of * which will trigger the block (always begin to end) when any right hand side argument changes of any condition of selection logic.
always #* begin
if(condition)
x = y ;
else
x = ~y ;
end
older simulators would require you to list the variables you needed to trigger on, in a list. always #(condition, y)
If there is only 1 variable being selected an assign on a wire type might be better, but this can not be limited to being 'executed once', but would be a suitable choice from your question. Not sure about suitability for FPGA's though
wire [3:0] x ; //4 bit wire
//(condition) ? value if true : value if false ;
assign x = (condition) ? 4'b1010 : 4'b0100 ;
module oneShot(in, out, enable, reset);
input in;
input enable;
input reset;
output reg out;
reg once_only;
always # (posedge enable) begin
if (reset) begin
once_only <= 0;
end
else if (once_only == 0) begin
out <= calc_out; // or whatever processing you want
once_only <= 1;
end
end
always #(*) begin
// calculate ouput here always
calc_out = 1 + 7 +100+ in;
end
endmodule
You can't have those if statements calculate only once. It's hardware, it'll always calculate. But you can hold the output steady after it's been calculated once. You are still trying to write a software function and put it in to hardware rather than describe hardware which will solve your problem. I can't see that you'll get a decent design this way. Sure you'll be able to make some small pieces and synthesise them (eventually), but a full design??
I am trying to create a counter in verilog which counts how many clock cycles there have been and after ten million it will reset and start again.
I have created a twenty four bit adder module along with another module containing twenty four D Flip flops to store the count of the cycles outputted from the adder.
I then want to have a state machine which is in the count state until ten million cycles have passed then it goes to a reset state.
Does this sound right? The problem is I am not sure how to implement the state machine.
Can anyone point me to a website/book which could help me with this?
thanks
As Paul S already mentioned, there is no need for a state machine if you want your counter to keep counting after an overflow. You can do something like this (untested, might contain typos):
module overflow_counter (
clk,
reset,
enable,
ctr_out
);
// Port definitions
input clk, reset, enable;
output [23:0] ctr_out;
// Register definitions
reg [23:0] reg_ctr;
// Assignments
assign ctr_out = reg_ctr;
// Counter behaviour - Asynchronous active-high reset
initial reg_ctr <= 0;
always # (posedge clk or posedge reset)
begin
if (reset) reg_ctr <= 0;
else if (enable)
begin
if (reg_ctr == 10000000) reg_ctr <= 0;
else reg_ctr <= reg_ctr + 1;
end
end
endmodule
Of course, normally you'd use parameters so you don't have to make a custom module every time you want an overflowing counter. I'll leave that to you ;).
[Edit] And here are some documents to help you with FSM. I just searched Google for "verilog state machine":
EECS150: Finite State Machines in Verilog
Synthesizable Finite State Machine Design Techniques
I haven't read the first paper, so I can't comment on that. The 2nd one shows various styles of coding FSMs, among which the 3 always blocks style, which I highly recommend, because it's a lot easier to debug (state transitions and FSM output are neatly separated). The link seems to be down, so here is the cached Google result.
You don't need a state machine. You already have state in the counter. All you need to do is detect the value you want to wrap at and load 0 into your counter at that point
In pseudo-code:
if count == 10000000 then
nextCount = 0;
else
nextCount = count + 1;
...or...
nextCount = count + 1;
if count == 10000000 then
resetCount = 1;
State machines are not too tricky. Use localparam (with a width, don't forget the width, not shown here because it is just one bit) to define labels for your states. Then create two reg variables (state_reg, state_next). The _reg variable is your actual register. The _next variable is a "wire reg" (a wire that can be assigned to inside a combinational always block). The two things to remember are to do X_next = X_reg; in the combinational always block (and then the rest of the combinational logic) and X_reg <= X_next; in the sequential always block. You can get fancy for special cases but if you stick to these simple rules then things should just work. I try not to use instantiation for very simple things like adders since Verilog has great support for adders.
Since I work with FPGAs, I assign initial values to my registers and I don't use a reset signal. I'm not sure but for ASIC design I think it is the opposite.
localparam STATE_RESET = 1'b0, STATE_COUNT = 1'b1;
reg [23:0] cntr_reg = 24'd0, cntr_next;
reg state_reg = STATE_COUNT, state_next;
always #* begin
cntr_next = cntr_reg; // statement not required since we handle all cases
if (cntr_reg == 24'd10_000_000)
cntr_next = 24'd0;
else
cntr_next = cntr_reg + 24'd1;
state_next = state_reg; // statement required since we don't handle all cases
case (state_reg)
STATE_COUNT: if (cntr_reg == 24'd10_000_000) state_next = STATE_RESET;
endcase
end
always #(posedge clk) begin
cntr_reg <= cntr_next;
state_reg <= state_next;
end
I found this book to be very helpful. There is also a VHDL version of the book, so you can use both side-by-side as a Rosetta Stone to learn VHDL.