Here i have a shifter but as of rite now it only works for up to 3 bits. I've been looking and i can't find out how to make it work for up to 8 bits.
module shifter(a,b,out);
input [7:0] a, b;
output [7:0] out;
wire [7:0] out1, out2, out3;
mux_8b_2to1 first(a[7:0], {a[3:0],a[7:4]}, b[2], out1);
mux_8b_2to1 second(out1[7:0], {out1[5:0],out1[7:6]}, b[1], out2);
mux_8b_2to1 third(out2[7:0], {out2[6:0],out2[7]}, b[0], out);
endmodule
What you have is a Barrel Shifter. Two ways to make it more generic are make it a functional model (still synthesis-able) or structural model with a generate block. Both approaches follow IEEE Std 1364-2001 (aka Verilog-2001).
The functional generic approach for a barrel shifter only needs a down-shifter. The general function is out = {in,in} >> (WIDTH-shift) where leftover bits can be ignored. To protect for double-roll (i.e. shift > WIDTH ), use the mod operator on the shift (WIDTH-(shift%WIDTH)).
module barrel_shifter_functional #( parameter CTRL=3, parameter WIDTH=CTRL**2 )
( input wire [WIDTH-1:0] in,
input wire [ CTRL-1:0] shift,
output wire [WIDTH-1:0] out );
assign out = {2{in}} >> (WIDTH-(shift%WIDTH));
endmodule
The structural generic approach for a barrel shifter needs a generate block. The for loop in the generate block will unravel at compile time, not run time like a for loop like in an always block. To keep it generic also have have the 2-to-1 mux have a parametrized width. FYI, you can use the generate block with functional code too, for example comment out the mux_2to1 instantiation and uncomment the assign statement below it. Learn more about the generate block by reading IEEE Std 1800-2012 ยง 27. Generate constructs.
module barrel_shifter_structeral #( parameter CTRL=3, parameter WIDTH=CTRL**2 )
( input wire [WIDTH-1:0] in,
input wire [ CTRL-1:0] shift,
output wire [WIDTH-1:0] out );
wire [WIDTH-1:0] tmp [CTRL:0];
assign tmp[CTRL] = in;
assign out = tmp[0];
genvar i;
generate
for (i = 0; i < CTRL; i = i + 1) begin : mux
mux_2to1 #(.WIDTH(WIDTH)) g(
.in0(tmp[i+1]),
.in1({tmp[i+1][WIDTH-(2**i)-1:0],tmp[i+1][WIDTH-1:WIDTH-(2**i)]}),
.sel(shift[i]),
.out(tmp[i]) );
// assign tmp[i] = shift[i] ? {tmp[i+1][WIDTH-(2**i)-1:0],tmp[i+1][WIDTH-1:WIDTH-(2**i)]} : tmp[i+1];
end : mux
endgenerate
endmodule
module mux_2to1 #( parameter WIDTH=8 )
( input wire [WIDTH-1:0] in0, in1,
input wire sel,
output wire [WIDTH-1:0] out );
assign out = sel ? in1 : in0;
endmodule
Both examples are functionally equivalent and synthesize provided CTRL is less than or equal to the ceiling of log2(WIDTH). Synthesis will likely give different results. The generate method will exclusively use 2-to-1 muxes while the pure functional method will depend on the quality of the optimizer.
Working example # http://www.edaplayground.com/s/6/500
I've used the >> and << operators to generate a synthetizable design using ISEWebPack, as this:
module shifter(
input wire [7:0] a,
input wire [7:0] b,
input wire leftright, // 0=shift right, 1=shift left
output reg [7:0] out
);
always #* begin
if (leftright==0)
out = a>>b;
else
out = a<<b;
end
endmodule
This way, the symthesis tool will know that you want to implement a shifter and can use its own macros to best synthetize it:
Synthesizing Unit <shifter>.
Related source file is "shifter.v".
Found 8-bit shifter logical right for signal <out$shift0002> created at line 30.
Found 8-bit shifter logical left for signal <out$shift0003> created at line 32.
Related
I want to use SW[15] to switch between module A_7seg and B_7seg but it does not work. (2 modules work separately)
module mix(input CLOCK,input [15:0]SW,output reg [15:0] led,output [3:0] an,output reg[7:0] seg);
generate
case(SW[15])
1'b0:A_7seg (.CLOCK(CLOCK),.an(an),.seg(seg));
1'b1:B_7seg (.CLOCK(CLOCK),.SW(SW),.led(led),.an(an),.seg(seg));
endcase
endgenerate
endmodule
Since '2 modules work separately', the simple way is to use SW[15] to select between 2 modules' outputs.
module mix(
input CLOCK,
input [15:0] SW,
output reg [15:0] led,
output reg [3:0] an,
output reg [7:0] seg
);
wire [15:0] B_led;
wire [3:0] A_an, B_an;
wire [7:0] A_seg, B_seg;
// if not using 'generate' block, modules are instantiated at
// the top level, not in other 'if'/'case'/... structures.
// and name the 2 instantiations
A_7seg u_A_7seg (.CLOCK(CLOCK), .an(A_an), .seg(A_seg));
B_7seg u_B_7seg (.CLOCK(CLOCK), .SW(SW), .led(B_led), .an(B_an), .seg(B_seg));
// this extra circuit is needed to select between the two
always#(*)begin
if(SW[15])begin
led = B_led;
an = B_an;
seg = B_seg;
end
else begin
led = 16'h0; // <-- I assume the inactive value for 'led' is all-zero
an = A_an;
seg = A_seg;
end
end
endmodule
You may also want to use SW[15] to gate the inputs to the one that is not currently working to reduce power consumption.
You need to figure out the schematic before you understand how to write the code.
I'm making a Multicycle CPU in Verilog that consists of a Datapath and a Control. The outputs of the control (state machine) are registers, but the connections between the datapath are wires. If a wire signal is supposed to be (in psuedo-code): wire = OR(wire coming from a mux, reg output from control), how do I do this? Can you OR a wire with a reg in Verilog? If not is there a better way to implement this? Can the control signal outputs be registers in the control module, but wires in the top module?
Update with picture for clarification:
Yes, you can or a wire and a reg output in Verilog.
Yes, each sub-module's outputs, which are essentially wires, can be directly or indirectly internally connected to a reg within the sub-module.
I think that is a fine way to do it.
Now, you can even declare the outputs of a module to be "reg", but that is just semantic sugar over declaring the output and reg separately. I like the explicit way better (i.e. q1_o and q1_reg).
module Submod(input clk_i, intput d_i, output q1_o, output reg q2_o);
reg q1_reg;
always #(posedge clk_i) begin
q1_reg <= d_i;
q2_o <= ~d_i;
end
assign q1_o = q1_reg;
endmodule
module Main(input clk_i, input [3:0]ext_i, output [1:0]ext_o)
wire mux, x1, x2;
Submod Submod_inst(clk_i, ext_i[0], x1, x2);
assign ext_o[0] = x1;
assign mux = ext_i[1] ? ext_i[2] : ext_i[3];
assign ext_o[1] = mux | x2; /* something like this */
endmodule
I am working on a ripple carry adder using structural verilog, which is supposed to take in two random inputs and calculate accordingly.
The general rca I created calculated correctly, but for some reason I get weird outputs when I add a for loop and use the $random to generate.
Could someone kindly explain where I'm going wrong? Below is my code:
module full_adder(x,y,z,v,cout);
parameter delay = 1;
input x,y,z; //input a, b and c
output v,cout; //sum and carry out
xor #delay x1(w1,x,y);
xor #delay x2(v,w1,z);
and #delay a1(w2,z,y);
and #delay a2(w3,z,x);
and #delay a3(w4,x,y);
or #delay o1(cout, w2,w3,w4);
endmodule
module four_bit_adder(a,b,s,cout,cin);//four_bit_adder
input [15:0] a,b; //input a, b
input cin; //carry in
output [15:0] s; //output s
output cout; //carry out
wire [15:0] c;
full_adder fa1(a[0],b[0],cin,s[0],c0);
full_adder fa2(a[1],b[1],c0,s[1],c1);
.
.
.
full_adder fa16(a[15],b[15],c14,s[15],cout);
endmodule
module testAdder(a,b,s,cout,cin);
input [15:0] s;
input cout;
output [15:0] a,b;
output cin;
reg [15:0] a,b;
reg cin;
integer i;
integer seed1=4;
integer seed2=5;
initial begin
for(i=0; i<5000; i=i+1) begin
a = $random(seed1);
b = $random(seed2);
$monitor("a=%d, b=%d, cin=%d, s=%d, cout=%d",a,b,cin,s,cout);
$display("a=%d, b=%d, cin=%d, s=%d, cout=%d",a,b,cin,s,cout);
end
end
endmodule
Here are two lines from the output that I get:
a=38893, b=58591, cin=x, s= z, cout=z
a=55136, b=58098, cin=x, s= z, cout=z
This is a combinational circuit, so the output changes instantaneously as the input changes. But, here you are apply all the inputs at same timestamp which should not be done since the full_adder module provides 1-timestamp delay. This may not cause problems in this module, but may cause issues while modelling sequential logic. Add a minimum of #10 delay between inputs.
Also, $monitor executes on each change in the signal list, so no need to use it in for loop. Just initialize $monitor in initial condition.
cin is also not driven from the testbench. Default value of reg is 'x and that of wire is 'z. Here, cin is reg, so the default value is displayed, that is 'x
One more thing, you must instantiate the design in your testbench. And connect respective ports. The outputs from testbench act as inputs to your design and vice-versa. This is just like you instantiate full_adder module in four_bit_adder module in design.
Consider testadder as top level module and instantiate design in it. No need of declaring ports as input and output in this module. Declare the design input ports as reg or wire(example: reg [15:0] a when a is design input port) and output ports as wire (example: wire [15:0] sum when sum is design input port).
Referring to your question:
The general rca I created calculated correctly, but for some reason I get weird outputs when I add a for loop and use the $random to generate.
Instead of using $random, use $urandom_range() to generate random numbers in some range. Using SystemVerilog constraints constructs can also help. Refer this link.
Using $urandom_range shall eliminate use of seed1 and seed2, it shall generate random values with some random machine seed.
Following is the module testadder with some of the changes required:
module testAdder();
wire [15:0] s;
wire cout;
// output [15:0] a,b;
// output cin;
reg [15:0] a,b;
reg cin;
integer i;
integer seed1=4;
integer seed2=5;
// Instantiate design here
four_bit_adder fa(a,b,s,cout,cin);
initial begin
// Monitor here, only single time
$monitor("a=%d, b=%d, cin=%d, s=%d, cout=%d",a,b,cin,s,cout);
for(i=0; i<5000; i=i+1) begin
// Drive inputs with some delays.
#10;
// URANDOM_RANGE for input generation in a range
a = $urandom_range(0,15);
b = $urandom_range(0,15);
// a = $random(seed1);
// b = $random(seed2);
// Drive cin randomly.
cin = $random;
$display("a=%d, b=%d, cin=%d, s=%d, cout=%d",a,b,cin,s,cout);
end
end
endmodule
For more information, have a look at sample testbench at this link.
My design needs multiple multiplexers, all of them have two inputs and most are 32 bits wide. I started with designing the 32 bit, 2:1 multiplexer.
Now I need a 5 bit, 2:1 multiplexer and I want to reuse my 32 bit design. Connecting the inputs is easy (see code below), but I struggle to connect the output.
This is my code:
reg [4:0] a, b; // Inputs to the multiplexer.
reg select; // Select multiplexer output.
wire [4:0] result; // Output of the multiplexer.
multiplex32_2 mul({27'h0, a}, {27'h0, b}, select, result);
When I run the code through iverilog, I get a warning that says that the multiplexer expects a 32 bit output, but the connected bus is only 5 bit wide. The simulation shows the expected results, but I want to get rid of the warning.
Is there a way to tell iverilog to ignore the 27 unused bits of the multiplexer output or do I have to connect a 32 bit wide bus to the output of the multiplexer?
I don't know of a #pragma or something like that (similar to #pragma argsused from C) that can be used in Verilog.
Xilinx ISE, for example, has a feature called "message filtering", which allows the designer to silence specific warning messages. You find them once, select them, choose to ignore, and subsequent synthesis won't trigger those warnings.
Maybe you can design your multiplexer in a way you don't need to "waste" connections (not actually wasted though, as the synthesizer will prune unused connections from the netlist). A more elegant solution would be to use a parametrized module, and instantiate it with the required width. Something like this:
module mux #(parameter WIDTH=32) (
input wire [WIDTH-1:0] a,
input wire [WIDTH-1:0] b,
input wire sel,
output wire [WIDTH-1:0] o
);
assign o = (sel==1'b0)? a : b;
endmodule
This module has been tested with this simple test bench, which shows you how to instantiate a module with params:
module tb;
reg [31:0] a1,b1;
reg sel;
wire [31:0] o1;
reg [4:0] a2,b2;
wire [4:0] o2;
mux #(32) mux32 (a1,b1,sel,o1);
mux #(5) mux5 (a2,b2,sel,o2);
// Best way to instantiate them:
// mux #(.WIDTH(32)) mux32 (.a(a1),.b(b1),.sel(sel),o(o1));
// mux #(.WIDTH(5)) mux5 (.a(a2),.b(b2),.sel(sel),.o(o2));
initial begin
$dumpfile ("dump.vcd");
$dumpvars (1, tb);
a1 = 32'h01234567;
b1 = 32'h89ABCDEF;
a2 = 5'b11111;
b2 = 5'b00000;
repeat (4) begin
sel = 1'b0;
#10;
sel = 1'b1;
#10;
end
end
endmodule
You can test it yourself using this Eda Playground link:
http://www.edaplayground.com/x/Pkz
I think the problem relates to the output of the multiplexer which is still 5 bits wide. You can solve it by doing something like this:
reg [4:0] a, b; // Inputs to the multiplexer.
reg select; // Select multiplexer output.
wire [31:0] temp;
wire [4:0] result; // Output of the multiplexer.
multiplex32_2 mul({27'h0, a}, {27'h0, b}, select, temp);
assign result = temp[4:0];
This can be easily tested in http://www.edaplayground.com/ using the code below:
( I have re-used #mcleod_ideafix's code)
// Code your testbench here
// or browse Examples
module mux #(parameter WIDTH=32) (
input wire [WIDTH-1:0] a,
input wire [WIDTH-1:0] b,
input wire sel,
output wire [WIDTH-1:0] o
);
assign o = (sel==1'b0)? a : b;
endmodule
module tb;
reg [31:0] a,b;
wire [31:0] o;
wire [4:0] r;
reg sel;
initial begin
$dumpfile("dump.vcd"); $dumpvars;
a = 10; b = 20; sel = 1;
end
mux MM(a,b,sel,o);
assign r = o[4:0];
endmodule
Let me know if you are still getting a warning.
I'm trying to use two switches to select the frequency I want to blink the led's at. My verilog code is as follows:
`timescale 1ns / 1ps
module clk_divider(
input clk,
input rst,
input [1:0] sw,
output led
);
reg n;
always#(sw[0],sw[1])
n = (27 - sw);
wire [n-1:0] din;
wire [n-1:0] clkdiv;
dff dff_inst0 (
.clk(clk),
.rst(rst),
.D(din[0]),
.Q(clkdiv[0])
);
genvar i;
generate
for (i = 1; i < n; i=i+1)
begin : dff_gen_label
dff dff_inst (
.clk(clkdiv[i-1]),
.rst(rst),
.D(din[i]),
.Q(clkdiv[i])
);
end
endgenerate;
assign din = ~clkdiv;
assign led = clkdiv[n-1];
endmodule
When I check for syntax, it says that "n is not constant." How can I avoid this error? To me, it seems that it should work. Any help would be appreciated!!!
With respect to wire [n-1:0] din; and wire [n-1:0] clkdiv;, you cannot have the width of a bus dependent on the value of an input.
A bus width is defined at synthesis time, it is the number of wires that exist in the physical device. Wires cannot appear or disappear based on the state of a module input or register.
You need to define these wires as having a fixed width, not a dynamic width. Maybe in some cases not all the wires will be used, but you must still define the bus as the maximum width that you will ever need. Similarly in the generate loop, you cannot change the number of flip-flops that are instantiated based on the value of n. You must instantiate as many flip flops as you will ever need, and then enable/disable some as needed.
Also you will hit this separate issue later, but your register n is only a single bit, so it cannot store any number other than 0 or 1. Make the register larger if you intend to hold greater values.