This code is supposed to increment a counter (outputting to LEDs) when one button is pushed and decrement it when the other one is pushed. It works OK with decrementing but on incrementing it changes LEDs to random configuration instead.
module LED_COUNTER( CLK_50M, LED, Positive, Negative );
input wire CLK_50M;
input wire Positive;
input wire Negative;
output reg[7:0] LED;
always#( posedge Positive or posedge Negative )
begin
if(Positive == 1)
LED <= LED + 1;
else
LED <= LED - 1;
end
endmodule
I am using this board: http://www.ebay.com/itm/111621868286. The pin assignment is:
The connections:
After swapping pin assignments for buttons the behavior stays the same.
As others have already pointed out, you should be clocking with the CLK_50M and you should de-bounce your inputs (some FPGAs do it for you automatically, check your manual).
The reason you see partial functionality is from the way the synthesizer interprets the RTL. If the sensitivity list is edge triggered and that signal is referenced in the body of the always block, then the synthesizer will think it is an asynchronous level sensitive signal. This is intend for asynchronous reset & set (sometimes named clear & preset). ASIC design typically use flops with asynchronous reset in most the design. FPGAs tend to have a limited number of flops with asynchronous set or rest, so check your manual and use sparingly.
With your code, Negative is the clock and Positive is treated as an active high asynchronous input.
Modify the code to a functional behavioral equivalent (in simulation) seen below, then Positive will be the clock and Negative will be the active high asynchronous input.
always#( posedge Positive or posedge Negative )
begin
if(Negative == 1)
LED <= LED - 1;
else
LED <= LED + 1;
end
There are several resource for learning Verilog available online (use your favorite search engine), and I have some resources posted on my profile though more aimed at SystemVerilog.
Here is some pseudo code to point you in the correct direction for your project:
always #(posedge CLK_50M)
begin
past_Positive <= Positive;
// ...
case({/* ... , */ past_Positive,Positive})
4'b0001 : LED <= LED + 1;
4'b0100 : LED <= LED - 1;
// ...
endcase
end
First, update the design to a synchronous design where state only changes at rising edge of the CLK_50M, like
always#( posedge CLK_50M)
begin
...
end
Then add de-bounce logic logic for the two switch inputs; see contact bounce. This can be done with a small module you write yourself; that is a good exercise.
Output from the contact de-bounce logic can then be used for change detection, to make a single cycle indication each time a contact is pressed, and this indication can then be used to update the counter.
You have no debounce circuitry or logic. A mechanical switch will physically bounce a lot, so your 50MHz clock is going to see many, many transitions on the input signal, leading to erratic behavior.
I forgot to mention that you're not even using that 50MHz clock in a synchronous design. Rather you're asynchronously looking for transitions.
You need a low-pass filter somewhere. Either implemented with analog components on the input signal, or as a counter in hardware.
Related
I am a Verilog newbie and I am trying to implement some very simple logic to generates a pulse of a precise width. I am using an ICE40 FPGA dev board and IceStudio. I have a CLK signal with a period of ~83ns (12Mhz), and I want to generate pulses with a period of ~1245ns, but different lengths (i.e. a high time of ~415ns and a low time of ~830ns, for example).
I figured that I could do so by making a rotating shift register of 15 bits long and then toggle my output HIGH the rising edge of the first bit, then toggle it LOW on the falling edge of the fifth bit. Here is the code I came up with:
reg [14:0] shifter;
reg OUT;
initial begin
shifter <= 15'b01;
end
always #(posedge CLK) begin
shifter <= shifter << 1;
shifter[0] <= shifter[14];
end
always #(posedge shifter[0]) begin
OUT <= 1;
end
always #(negedge shifter[4]) begin
OUT <= 0;
end
If I assign the individual bits of "shifter" to an output, I am able to verify on a scope that that shift register is working as expected; but despite this, the OUT remains LOW as if the "always" blocks were never triggering.
Every tutorial I found online that discusses the "always #(posegde)" or "always #(negegde)" blocks do it on some external signal like CLK or RESET. I am wondering I am committing some sort of rookie mistake by assuming it could also work on an internal register variable like "shifter".
Can anyone explain to me whether this is the case or not?
UPDATE: The following code does what I want, but still curious why my original implementation doesn't work:
reg [14:0] shifter;
reg OUT;
initial begin
shifter <= 15'b01;
end
always #(posedge CLK) begin
shifter <= shifter << 1;
shifter[0] <= shifter[14];
OUT <= shifter[0] | shifter[1] | shifter[2] | shifter[3] | shifter[4] | shifter[5];
end
When making a register out of NAND gates, a rising edge triggered flip-flop takes less area, so that is what most people use.
Synthesis tools do not allow you to make assignments to the same variable from different (always) processes.
It is possible to declare a sensitivity on the edge of a register signal, but this should be avoided in FPGA workflows. Most FPGAs use separate routing networks for clock signals and logic, so "bridging" a logic signal to a clock network is complex and will result in a suboptimal design with poor timing properties. In some cases, there may even be limits on the number of signals that can be bridged this way.
It is generally not possible to perform nonblocking assignments to a register from multiple separate edge-triggered always blocks. This implies a register with multiple clock inputs, which isn't a component which exists in most FPGAs or ASIC cell libraries.
Let's take the example code below:
always #(posedge clock)
begin
if (reset == 1)
begin
something <= 0
end
end
Now let's say reset changes from 0 to 1 at the same time there's a posedge for the clock. Will something <= 0 at that point? Or will that happen the next time there's a posedge for the clock (assuming reset stays at 1)?
It depends on exactly how reset is driven.
If reset and something are both triggered off the same clock, then something will go to 0 one clock cycle after reset goes to 1. For example:
always #(posedge clock)
begin
if (somethingelse)
begin
reset <= 1;
end
end
If reset is synchronous and based on clock, The simulatore will defiantly see reset on the next clock and not the current. Physical design has clock-to-Q, therefor a rise in reset will not be observed in the same clock that caused it. You may see reset at the same time as clock in waveform. reset <= 1'b1; make the assignment happen near the end of the scheduler (after all code has executed).
To not have to worry about this when looking at a waveform, some logic designers like to put a delay on the assignment creating an artificial clock-to-Q delay (ex reset <= #1 1'b1; and something <=#1 0;). Synthesis tools will ignore the delay, but some will give warnings. That warning can be avoided by using a macro.
`ifdef SYNTHESIS
`define Q /* blank */
`else
`define Q #1
`endif
...
reset <= `Q 1'b1;
...
something <=`Q 1'b1;
...
If reset is asynchronous and being use with synchronous reset, setup time requirements need to be respected. In simulation if clock and reset rise at the same time, it is up to your verilog scheduler to decide if reset will be the new value or old value. Usually it will take the left-hand side value (old value), which means the reset will be missed on the current clock. Physical design uncertainly as well with a meta-stability risk.
The code you have written infers a flip-flop with synchronous reset. This means it is assumed that the "reset" signal is synchronised to the "clock" domain before being used in this way. If the "reset" signal is not synchronised then you should modify the code to infer a flip-flop with asynchronous reset as below:
always#(posedge clock or posedge reset)
begin
if (reset)
something <= 0
else
something <= something_else
end
Coming back to your question and assuming the code you have written is what you want, the outcome depends on how the reset is driven. If it is synchronous then the simulator will see it in the next clock edge. If it is asynchronous then the simulator can assume anything, it can vary from simulator to simulator. Please note that in simulator everything is a sequence of events and there is no such thing as happening at the same time.
In the physical world, what you have coded will result in a flip-flop with reset signal being one of the inputs to the combo driving the input of this flop. Now if the reset is synchronous, you are guaranteed that there will be no setup or hold violation at this flop. Whether the flop will 'see' the reset in this clock or the next depends on the various delays of the synthesised circuit (Usually this is the main reason that the reset is always held for few clock cycles to make sure all the flops in your design sees the reset). If reset is asynchronous then the flop will go into a metastable state. You will never want this in your design.
Hope this clarifies.
The short answer is that either of your two outcomes (immediately, or next cycle) could happen. This is a standard race condition, and simulators are free to handle this any way they want; some will give one answer, and others will give the other one.
For the long answer, look up any introductory text on how VHDL delta cycles work. Verilog doesn't specify 'delta cycles', but any Verilog simulator will work in exactly the same way, with some (irrelevant) changes in the overall scheduling algorithm. In this case, the scheduler finds that it has two events on the queue in a specific delta - reset rising, and clock rising. This is what "at the same time" means. It chooses one in an unspecified way (it might be earlier in the text source, or later, for example), works through all changes associated with that edge, and then goes back and works through all changes associated with the other edge.
I've got an fpga design that utilizes synchronous resets (I prefer synchronous resets to asynchronous for reasons discussed elsewhere). I have four different clock domains in the design and I utilize a single button to generate my reset signal, which is of course totally asynchronous to everything (save my finger). I debounce the button signal in each of the four clock domains to generate synchronous resets for the four domains from a single source. My debounce module basically counts N clock cycles of the reset button being asserted. If more than N cycles have passed with reset asserted then I generate my reset signal (code for this module pasted below).
First question -- are there better ways of generating the reset(s) than this method?
Second (more interesting question): when I look at the timing reports (using xilinx tools) I see that consistently the limiting signals are all reset related. For example the limiting path is from the reset generator (debouncer) to some state machine's state register. The reset signals are very high fan out (they touch everything in their respective clock domains). I'm a little surprised though that my speed is limited by the reset. I'm finding that I'm limited to something like 8.5 nS where ~50% is routing and ~50% of that is logic. Any suggestions on how to do this a little better? How do you go about dealing with synchronous reset generation in fpga designs?
Here's the code for reset generation. Note that the signal reset signal is akin to the debounced output (e.g. when I instantiate the module the debounced output is the reset for that particular clock domain).
module button_debouncer(/*AUTOARG*/
// Outputs
debounced,
// Inputs
clk, button
);
/* Parameters */
parameter WIDTH = 1;
parameter NUM_CLKS_HIGH = 12000000;
parameter log2_NUM_CLKS = 24;
/* Inputs */
input clk;
input [WIDTH-1:0] button;
/* Outputs */
output [WIDTH-1:0] debounced;
/* Regs and Wires */
reg [WIDTH-1:0] b1, b2;
reg [log2_NUM_CLKS-1:0] counter;
/* Synched to clock domain */
always #(posedge clk) begin
b1 <= button;
b2 <= b1;
end
/* Debounce the button */
always #(posedge clk) begin
if(~b2)
counter <= 0;
else if(counter < {log2_NUM_CLKS{1'b1}})
counter <= counter + 1;
end
/* Assign the output */
//wire [WIDTH-1:0] debounced = counter > NUM_CLKS_HIGH;
reg [WIDTH-1:0] debounced;
always #(posedge clk) begin
debounced <= counter > NUM_CLKS_HIGH;
end
endmodule //button_debouncer
A very good way to improve timing scores while working with resets is to cap the max fanout. the tools will then buffer the signal so that there is not one lut trying to be routed and used to drive every register. This can be accomplished in this way:
(* max_fanout = <arbitrary_value> *)
wire reset;
so what we have here is a constraint used by the vivado synth tool (or if you are still using ISE, then that tool). Also, if should be noted that this only affects the next declaration of a net, so other nets (wires, regs, ext) declared before or after this are unaffected.
There is a good constraint user guide on xilinx's website. There are a few other ones that you may want to look into as well and they are: IBUF or BUFG.
You don't need four instances of the debouncer. Put in one debouncer off your main clock and then use three metastable filters to sync its output to the other three domains.
Also when you distribute your reset you should use what Cliff Cummings calls a "synchronous reset distribution tree". Check his website for some papers on that.
i just want to know the difference between this two statement
always #(posedge CLK)
begin
state <= next_state;
end
AND:
always #(CLK)
begin
case(CLK)
1'b1:
state <= next_state;
1'b0:
state <= state;
end
Is there a difference between both ?
Thanks
Not quite. posedge detects these transitions (from the LRM):
Table 43—Detecting posedge and negedge
To 0 1 x z
From
0 No edge posedge posedge posedge
1 negedge No edge negedge negedge
x negedge posedge No edge No edge
z negedge posedge No edge No edge
So, 0->x is a posedge, for example. Your second example only detects cases where CLK ends up as 1, so misses 0->x and 0->z.
The IEEE Std. 1364.1(E):2002 (IEC 624142(E):2005), the Verilog register transfer level synthesis standard, states in Sec. 5.1 that an always block without any posedge/negedge events in the sensitivity list is combinational logic. I.e. the signals in the event list are ignored and the block is synthesized as if an implicit expression list (#(*), #*) was used. The following example is given in the standard ("Example 4" on page 14):
always # (in)
if (ena)
out = in;
else
out = 1’b1;
// Supported, but simulation mismatch might occur.
// To assure the simulation will match the synthesized logic, add ena
// to the event list so the event list reads: always # (in or ena)
(the comment is also copied from the standard document)
I.e. for a synthesis tool your second block is effectively:
always #*
begin
case(CLK)
1'b1:
state <= next_state;
1'b0:
state <= state;
end
which is just a multiplexer with CLK as select input, next_state as active-1 input and the output (state) fed back as active-0 input. A smart synthesis tool might detect that this is identical to a d-type latch with CLK as enable-input and create a d-type latch instead of a combinational loop. Note that the synthesis tool is not required to detect this latch because the code explicitly assigns state in all branches (compare Sec. 5.3. of the standard).
Either way this is different from the d-type flip-flop your first code example would synthesize to. This is one of many cases where Verilog-code has different meaning in simulation and synthesis. Therefore it is important to (1) write synthesizeable Verilog code in a way that avoids this cases and (2) always run post-synthesis simulations of your design (even if you are also using formal verification!) to make sure you have successfully avoided this pitfalls.
Functionally, those two circuits describe the same behavior in verilog, so I think there should be no difference.
However you should generally use the first style, as that is the one that is standard for writing synthesizable code, and most understandable by anyone else reading your code. The latter style, while describing the correct behavior, may confuse some synthesizers that don't expect to see clocks that are both sensitive to positive and negative edge.
The two blocks are VERY different.
The top one gives you a flip-flop while the bottom one gives you a latch with a multiplexer with the CLK as the select signal.
The critical difference between the two blocks is that the top one is a synchronous block i.e. the posedge clk part while the bottom one is asynchronous with the CLK level, not edge.
A verilog simulator could do left-hand sampling of CLK, effectively making the the case(CLK) version the same as a negedge CLK flop. Otherwise the simulator will treat it like a posedge CLK flop. It really depends how it is handled in the scheduler of specific simulator (or how a particular synthesizer will process it).
The most common codding styles all use the first condition. It is explicitly clear to the synthesizer and anyone reading the code that state is intended to be a flip-flop with a positive edge clocking trigger.
There is also a simulation performance differences. The posedge CLK performances 2 CPU operations every clock period, while the case(CLK) will perform 6 CPU operations every clock period. Granted in this example the differences is insignificance, but in large designs the poor coding used everywhere will add up to hours of simulation time wasted.
I have a CPLD with a digital input representing a reset button. When the reset button is pressed, the signal goes high. What I need to do is have a register whose value tells if the button has ever been pressed. Basically a latch. When the button goes high, a latch register goes high and stays high forever.
I thought this would be straightforward, but I got a bunch of warnings when I tried to code it up. A little Googling showed "Don't make latches in HDL! Bad practice!", but I don't really see the alternative here.
Here's my attempt. clk_10m is a fast free-running clock, pwr_off_req is the button input.
reg pwr_off_req_latched = 0;
always # (clk_10m or pwr_off_req) begin
if (pwr_off_req == 1'b1)
pwr_off_req_latched <= 1'b1;
else
pwr_off_req_latched <= pwr_off_req_latched;
// I tried this to make sure it's always set to something
end
Can you assume that the pulse length of the button press is much longer than the clock frequency of your device? If it's a physical button I think that is a very safe assumption. In that case I think this would work perfectly fine:
always #(clk_10m)
pwr_off_req_latched <= power_off_req_latched | power_off_req;
Latches are not bad in HDL they just require some consideration, implied latches from forgetting to specify else clauses in combinatorial sections are bad because you do not end up with the hardware you expect, and can create timing problems.
If you are applying a reset you might need to specify a 'pragma' so that the synthesis tool correctly identifies it.
Also latches should use = not <=, when they are enabled they are combinatorial (open) and will not break feedback loops.
This is typical way to create a latch with an asynchronous reset:
//synopsys async_set_reset "rst_an"
always #* begin
if (~rst_an) begin
// Reset
x = 1'b0;
end
else if (latch_open) begin
//next datavalue
x = y ;
end
end
In your case you might want something like :
//synopsys async_set_reset "rst_an"
always #* begin
if (~rst_an) begin
pwr_off_req_latched = 1'b0;
end
else if ( pwr_off_req ) begin
pwr_off_req_latched = 1'b1 ;
end
end
Latches can create problems for timing analysis tools. They also don't map to certain (FPGA) architectures directly, so are much harder for the place-and-route tools. Hence the warnings.
However, what you are asking for is not a latch as I understand the digital logic sense - merely a flipflop which doesn't ever get reset.
So, it can be simplified to a simple d-type flipflop with the D input tied to 1 and the clk input connected to your pwr_off_req signal:
reg pwr_off_req_latched = 0;
always # (posedge pwr_off_req) begin
pwr_off_req_latched <= 1'b1;
end
You'll have no noise rejection on that at all - any positive going edge will latch the flipflop to 1.
If I were doing this, I would run the input into a double-flip-flop synchroniser and then count a few clock pulses of the synchronised signal to make sure it's not noise before setting the latched signal. Unless you are expecting real events shorter than a few clock pulses that'd the way to do it.
Aside:
A "latch" in the digital logic world usually means either
a circuit whose output holds whichever of the two inputs was last high (a Set/Reset or SR latch)
a circuit whose output holds the input value while a control signal is inactive, but follows the input when the control signal is low - a transparent latch
This is in comparison to a flipflop, whose output holds some aspect related to the input(s) when the control signal changes (usually) from low to high, and ignores the inputs except for a tiny time window around that rising edge. These are D-type, T-type and JK-type flipflops, depending on how the output behaves relative to the input.