I have some combinational logic f that depends on a register r like this:
reg r;
assign output = f(r); // f is a complicated function of r
Now, I want to change r and use output. I want something like:
always begin
r = r + 1;
if(output) begin
// do something
end
end
In simulation, I could add #100, for example, between r = r + 1 and if(output) to achieve what I want. However, #100 is not synthesizable. Will the hardware have some sort of delay inserted automatically? If not, how can I wait for the combinational logic to finish?
In the very general case, you could set up your logic to behave asynchronously with respect to r and output where they have a combinational loop between them (ie, output is the output of a combinational function of r and r is the output of a combinational function of output, forming a loop). However, this design is hard to deal with for a number of reasons and requires very detailed and specific timing and other properties (things like stable states and glitch prevention). If you want to learn more about how this might work, do some research on asynchronous design.
However, based on how you seem to want this circuit to behave, you really want to make a synchronous design. In this case, you probably want to register r and run the system off a clock. Such a design might look like this:
input clk; // We need an input clock to run the design
output reg out; // Lets not call it output as thats a keyword in verilog
reg [3:0] r; // I assume you want r to do more than just flip between 1 and 0, so you need to give it a few more bits of width
assign out = f(r); // figure out the output
// Heres your combinational function of out which does more stuff, not sure if it belongs here or in the parent module, but you'd need to give more info on what you do with out
always #* begin
if (out) begin
// Do your thing
end
end
// The register for r (which acts as a counter in your design)
always #(posedge clk) begin
r <= r + 4'd1;
end
Without more details on your design, I cant really determine if you need more done, but this kind of synchronous design, based of a clock signal which provides your delay, is what you probably should be using.
Related
I have some variables in an initial block
initial
begin
i = 32'b0;
j = 32'b1;
end
I want to initialize them with initial values like this every time I press a pushbutton
always #(posedge btn)
begin
i = 32'b0;
j = 32'b1;
end
Doing it like this gives the error "can't resolve multiple constant driver" and I know why it happens but, is there another way around??
It sounds like you are creating synthesizable code (based on your need to press a button). Initial blocks do not synthesize to logic, they are only used for simulation. Typically you use a reset signal to set initial values.
Also you generally want to keep the logic for any one signal in a single block, instead of separating it into separate blocks. (again, this is for synthesizeable code, for simulation this is not important)
Finally, You generally do not want to use outside async signals to clock some logic (unless you know what you are doing). You would instead code something like:
//---- detect rising edge of btn ----
reg btn_prev;
wire rising_edge_btn;
always #(posedge clk)
btn_prev <= btn;
assign rising_edge_btn = ~btn_prev & btn;
// ---- i and j logic --------------
always #(posedge clk) begin
if( rst || rising_edge_btn) begin
i <= 0;
j <= 1;
end
else
//some other logic here
end
end
the code above uses a synchronous reset signal "rst". You can also find designs with an asynchronous reset. It would be good practice to also synchronize your outside async btn signal with with 2 flip flops to avoid metastability.
I made a basic example on eda playground of the issue I got.
Let s say I have two clocks 1x and 2x. 2x is divided from 1x using flop divider.
I have two registers a and b. a is clocked on 1x, b is clocked in 2x.
b is sampling value of a.
When we have rising edge of 1x and 2x clocks, b is not taking the expected value of a but it s taking the next cycle value.
This is because of this clock divider scheme, if we make division using icgs and en it works fine.
But is there a way to make it work using this clock divider scheme with flops ?
EDA playground link : https://www.edaplayground.com/x/map#
module race_test;
logic clk1x = 0;
logic clk2x = 0;
always
#5ns clk1x = !clk1x;
int a, b;
always #(posedge clk1x) begin
a <= a+1;
clk2x <= !clk2x;
end
// Problem here is that b will sample postpone value of a
// clk2x is not triggering at the same time than clk1x but a bit later
// This can be workaround by putting blocking assignment for clock divider
always #(posedge clk2x) begin
b <= a;
end
initial begin
$dumpfile("test.vcd");
$dumpvars;
#1us
$stop;
end
endmodule
Digital clock dividers present problems with both simulation and physical timing.
Verilog's non-blocking assignment operator assumes that everyone reading and writing the same variables are synchronized to the same clock event. By using an NBA writing to clk2x, you have shifted the reading of a to another delta time*, and as you discovered, a has already been updated.
In real hardware, there are considerable propagation delays that usually avoid this situation. However, you are using the same D-flop to assign to clk2x, so there will be propagation delays there as well. You last always block now represents a clock domain crossing issue. So depending on the skews between the two clocks, you could still have a race condition.
One way of correcting this is using a clock generator module with an even higher frequency clock
always #2.5ns clk = !clk;
always #(posedge clk) begin
clk1x <= !clk1x;
if (clk1x == 1)
clk2x = !clk2x;
Of course you have solved this problem, but I think there is a better way.
The book says one can use blocking assignment to avoid race. But blocking assignemnt causes errors in synopsys lint check. So, one way to avoid race problem without lint error is to use dummy logic, like this
wire [31:0] a_logic;
wire dummy_sel;
assign dummy_sel = 1'b0;
assign a_logic = dummy_sel ? ~a : a;
always #(posedge clk2x) begin
b <= a_logic;
end
I'm new to Verilog, ISE, FPGAs. I'm trying to implement a simple design into an FPGA, but the entire design is being optimized away. It is basically an 2D array with some arbitrary values. Here is the code:
module top(
output reg out
);
integer i;
integer j;
reg [5:0] array [0:99][0:31];
initial begin
for(i=0;i<100;i=i+1) begin
for(j=0;j<32;j=j+1) begin
array[i][j] = j;
out = array[i][j];
end
end
end
endmodule
It passes XST Synthesis fine, but it fails MAP in the Implementation process. Two Errors are given:
ERROR:Map:116 - The design is empty. No processing will be done.
ERROR:Map:52 - Problem encountered processing RPMs.
The entire code is being optimized away in XST. Why? What am I doing wrong?
The reason your design is being synthesized away is because you have not described any logic in your module.
The only block in your design is an initial block which is typically not used in synthesis except in limited cases; the construct mainly used for testbenches in simulation (running the Verilog through ModelSim or another simluator).
What you want is to use always blocks or assign statements to describe logic for XST to synthesize into a netlist for the FPGA to emulate. As the module you provided has neither of these constructs, no netlist can be generated, thus nothing synthesized!
In your case, it is not entirely clear what logic you want to describe as the result of your module will always have out equal to 31. If you want out to cycle through the values 0 to 31, you'll need to add some sequential logic to implement that. Search around the net for some tutorials on digital design so you have the fundamentals down (combinational logic, gates, registers, etc). Then, think about what you want the design to do and map it to those components. Then, write the Verilog that describes that design.
EDIT IN LIGHT OF COMMENTS:
The reason you are get no LUT/FF usage on the report is because the FPGA doesn't need to use any resources (or none of those resources) to implement your module. As out is tied to constant 31, it will always have the value of 1, so the FPGA only needs to tie out to Vdd (NOTE that out is not 31 because it is only a 1-bit reg). The other array values are never used nor accesses, so the FPGA synthesized them away (ie, not output needs to know the value of array[0][1] as out is a constant and no other ports exist in the design). In order to preserve the array, you need only use it to drive some output somehow. Heres a basic example to show you:
module top( input [6:0] i_in, // Used to index the array like i
input [4:0] j_in, // Used to index the array like j
output reg [5:0] out // Note, out is now big enough to store all the bits in array
);
integer i;
integer j;
reg [5:0] array[0:99][0:31];
always #(*) begin
// Set up the array, not necessarily optimal, but it works
for (i = 0; i < 100; i = i + 1) begin
for (j = 0; j < 32; j = j + 1) begin
array[i][j] = j;
end
end
// Assign the output to value in the array at position i_in, j_in
out = array[i_in][j_in];
end
endmodule
If you connect the inputs i_in and j_in to switches or something and out to 6 LEDs, you should be able to index the array with the switches and get the output on the LEDs to confirm your design.
I Want to Design a Verilog code for Interfacing 16*2 LCD. As in LCD's to give "command" or "data" we have to give LCD's Enable pin a "High to low Pulse " pulse that means
**E=1;
Delay();//Must be 450ns wide delay
E=0;**
This the place where I confuse I means in Verilog for synthesis # are not allowed so how can I give delay here I attached my code below. It must be noted that I try give delay in my code but I think delay not work so please help me to get rid of this delay problem......
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////LCD Interfacing with Xilinx FPGA///////////////////////////////
////////////////////Important code for 16*2/1 LCDs/////////////////////////////////
//////////////////Coder-Shrikant Vaishnav(M.Tech VLSI)/////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
module lcd_fpgashri(output reg [7:0]data,output reg enb,output reg rs,output reg rw ,input CLK);
reg [15:0]hold;
reg [13:0]count=0;
//Code Starts from here like C's Main......
always#(posedge CLK)
begin
count=count+1; //For Delay
//For LCD Initialization
lcd_cmd(8'b00111000);
lcd_cmd(8'b00000001);
lcd_cmd(8'b00000110);
lcd_cmd(8'b00001100);
//This is a String "SHRI" that I want to display
lcd_data(8'b01010011);//S
lcd_data(8'b01001000);//H
lcd_data(8'b01010010);//R
lcd_data(8'b01001001);//I
end
//Task For Command
task lcd_cmd(input reg [7:0]value);
begin
data=value;
rs=1'b0;
rw=1'b0;
enb=1'b1; //sending high to low pulse
hold=count[13]; //This is the place where I try to design delay
enb=1'b0;
end
endtask
//Task for Data
task lcd_data(input reg [7:0]value1);
begin
data=value1;
rs=1'b1;
rw=1'b0;
enb=1'b1; //sending high to low pulse
hold=count[13]; //This is the place where I try to design delay
enb=1'b0;
end
endtask
endmodule
You seem to be stuck in a software programming mindset based on your code, you're going to have to change things around quite a bit if you want to actually describe a controller in HDL.
Unfortunately for you there is no way to just insert an arbitrary delay into a 'routine' like you have written there.
When you write a software program, it is perfectly reasonable to write a program like
doA();
doB();
doC();
Where each line executes one at a time in a sequential fashion. HDL does not work in this way. You need to not think in terms of tasks, and start thinking in terms of clocks and state machines.
Remember that when you have an always block, the entire block executes in parallel on every clock cycle. When you have a statement like this in an always block:
lcd_cmd(8'b00111000);
lcd_cmd(8'b00000001);
lcd_cmd(8'b00000110);
lcd_cmd(8'b00001100);
This does you no good, because all four of these execute simultaneously on positive edge of the clock, and not in a sequential fashion. What you need to do is to create a state machine, such that it advances and performs one action during a clock period.
If I were to try to replicate those four lcd_cmd's in a sequential manner, it might look something like this.
always #(posedge clk)
case(state_f)
`RESET: begin
state_f <= `INIT_STEP_1;
data = 8'b00111000;
end
`INIT_STEP_1: begin
state_f <= `INIT_STEP_2;
data = 8'b00000001;
end
`INIT_STEP_2: begin
state_f <= `INIT_STEP_3;
data = 8'b00000110;
end
`INIT_STEP_3: begin
state_f <= `INIT_STEP_4;
data =8'b00111000;
end
`INIT_STEP_4: begin
state_f <= ???; //go to some new state
data = 8'b00000110;
end
endcase
end
Now with this code you are advancing through four states in four clock cycles, so you can start to see how you might handle writing a sequence of events that advances on each clock cycle.
This answer doesn't get you all of the way, as there is no 'delay' in between these as you wanted. But you could imagine having a state machine where after setting the data you move into a DELAY state, where you could set a counter which counts down enough clock cycles you need to meet your timing requirements before moving into the next state.
The best way to introduce delay is to use a counter as Tim has mentioned.
Find out how many clock cycles you need to wait to obtain the required delay (here 450ns) w.r.t your clock period.
Lets take the number of clock cycles calculated is count. In that case the following piece of code can get you the required delay. You may however need to modify the logic for your purpose.
always # (posedge clk) begin
if (N == count) begin
N <= 0;
E = ~E;
end else begin
N <= N +1;
end
end
Be sure to initialize N and E to zero.
Check the clock frequency of your FPGA board and initialize a counter accordingly. For example, if you want a delay of 1 second on an FPGA board with 50MHz clock frequency, you will have to write a code for a counter that counts from 0 to 49999999. Use the terminalCLK as clk for your design. Delayed clock input will put a delay to your design. The psuedo code for that will be:
module counter(count,terminalCLK,clk)
parameter n = 26, N = 50000000;
input clk;
output reg [n-1:0] count;
output reg terminalCLK;
always#(posedge clk)
begin
count <= count + 1;
if (count <= N/2)
terminalCLK <= ~terminalCLk;
if (count == N)
terminalCLK <= ~terminalCLk;
end
I did a behavioral simulation of my code, and it works perfectly. The results are as predicted. When I synthesize my code and upload it to a spartan 3e FPGA and try to analyze using chipscope, the results are not even close to what I would have expected. What have I done incorrectly?
http://pastebin.com/XWMekL7r
Your problem is with lines 13-16, where you set initial values for state registers:
reg [OUTPUT_WIDTH-1:0] previousstate = 0;
reg [OUTPUT_WIDTH-1:0] presentstate = 1;
reg [6:0] fib_number_cnt = 1;
reg [OUTPUT_WIDTH-1:0] nextstate = 1;
This is an equivalent to writing an "initial" statement assigning these values, which isn't synthesizable -- there is no such thing as a default value in hardware. When you put your design inside an FPGA, all of these registers will take on random values.
Instead, you need to initialize these counters/states inside your always block, when reset is high.
always #(posedge clk or posedge reset)
if (reset) begin
previousstate <= 0;
presentstate <= 1;
... etc ...
end
Answer to the follow-up questions:
When you initialize code like that, nothing at all happens in hardware -- it gets completely ignored, just as if you've put in a $display statement. The synthesis tool skips over all simulation-only constructs, while usually giving you some kind of a warning about it (that really depends on the tool).
Now, blocking and non-blocking question requires a very long answer :). I will direct you to this paper from SNUG-2000 which is probably the best paper ever written on the subject. It answers your question, as well as many others on the topic. Afterward, you will understand why using blocking statements in sequential logic is considered bad practice, and why your code works fine with blocking statements anyway.
http://cs.haifa.ac.il/courses/verilog/cummings-nonblocking-snug99.pdf
More answers:
The usual "pattern" to creating logic like yours is to have two always blocks, one defining the logic, and one defining the flops. In the former, you use blocking statements to implement logic, and in the latter you latch in (or reset) the generated value. So, something like this:
wire some_input;
// Main logic (use blocking statements)
reg state, next_state;
always #*
if (reset) next_state = 1'b0;
else begin
// your state logic
if (state) next_state = some_input;
else next_state = 1'b0;
end
// Flops (use non-blocking)
always #(posedge clock)
if (reset) state <= 1'b0;
else state <= next_state;
Note that I'm using a synchronous reset, but you can use async if needed.
Lines 13-16 are correct. "reg [6:0] fib_number_cnt = 1;" is not the same as using "initial" statement. Read Xilinx synthesis guide for more detailed description of how to initialize the registers.