I am trying to generate random single bits and this is simple as long as you want a normal randomization:
wire R;
assign R = $random % 2;
What I am looking for is a sort of weighted probability like:
wire R;
assign R = 60%(0) || 40%(1);
Forgive me if it is not conform to standard Verilog code, it is just to give an idea of what I want.
Can anyone help me out?
Thank you
The SystemVerilog solution has a distribution method within randomize called dist. Weights are assigned by value_or_range := weight or value_or_range :/ distributed_weight. This exert from the IEEE Std 1800-2012 § 18.5.4 page 476 gives a clear example:
When weights are applied to ranges, they can be applied to each value in the range, or they can be applied to the range as a whole. For example:
x dist { [100:102] := 1, 200 := 2, 300 := 5}
means x is equal to 100, 101, 102, 200, or 300 with a weighted ratio of 1-1-1-2-5, and
x dist { [100:102] :/ 1, 200 := 2, 300 := 5}
means x is equal to one of 100, 101, 102, 200, or 300 with a weighted ratio of
1/3-1/3-1/3-2-5.
dist is used in randomization so it needs to be mare of a randomize() with (or a class constraint). randomize returns a success bit, therefore it should be in called within an assert, void'(), or the RHS of an assignment.
In your we can set the weight of 0 to 6 and the weight of 1 to 4, creating a total weight of 10 with a 60/40 distribution. Example:
reg R;
initial begin
assert( randomize(R) with { R dist { 0 := 6, 1 := 4 }; } );
end
From more about dist see IEEE Std 1800-2012 § 18.5.4 "Distribution".
Create a random integer then based on Value return 1 or 0; NB you may want to seed your random number, for repeatability use the same seed. This way when a test fails it can be debugged.
$urandom works a little different to $random it doe not update the seed value so should only be seeded the first time it is called in a thread (always block). It is also thread safe, each always block works independently.
initial begin
$urandom(seed);
$urandom;
$urandom;
end
integer temp;
reg r ;
always # ... begin
temp = $urandom; //Range: +2_147_483_647 -2_147_483_648
// weighting; 0 would be 50:50
// real weighting is (0.1 + 0.5), 0.5 inherent from positive number.
r = (temp > (2_147_483_647*0.1);
end
NB: the random functions are not synthesizable and should only be used for testbenches. if you want a random number for synthesis check out this Question
For Verilog you can always so something like:
integer R;
R = ($dist_uniform(0,100) < 60) : $dist_uniform(0,5) : $dist_uniform(6,10)
and this in SystemVerilog would be the same as:
std::randomize(R) with {R dist {[0:5] :/60, [6:10] :/ 40} ;};
You could also do this procedural code:
randcase
60: R = 1;
40: R = 0;
endcase
Following Code Will Generate Random Variable as Per Your Requirement :
program top;
class Packet;
rand reg R;
constraint percentage {R dist {1:=60,0:=40};};
function void display;
$display("Random Reg : %0d",this.R);
endfunction
endclass
Packet P;
initial
begin
P = new;
repeat(10)
begin
P.randomize();
P.display;
end
end
endprogram
It seems not so hard at verilog.
reg [7:0] R;
reg rand_bit;
R = $random();
if (R < 76)
rand_bit = 1'b0;
else
rand_bit = 1'b1;
Here I assume that $random is pretty uniform. I think it should work :)
Something like:
wire R;
if ($random[7:0]>(40*255/100))
assign R = 1'b0;
else
assign R = 1'b1;
I'm assuming that the algorithm that $random uses produces numbers that are equally random whatever bits you take from it.
Related
I'm looking for a clean way to declare Verilog/SystemVerilog types with a parameterised bit width. This is what I've got so far and was wondering if there is a better way to do it. I've looked through the system functions in the LRM 1800-2009 and -2017. The closest I could find is $bits, but I would like something like $minbits. Have I overlooked something?
In VHDL, it's done by simply specifying the range:
signal counter: integer range 0 to MAX_COUNT;
...and the compiler will calculate the minimum bit width to hold that range.
For the parameter values of 20 ns and 125 ms, the counter should be 23 bits with MAX_COUNT being 6,250,000.
module Debounce
#(
parameter CLOCK_PERIOD_ns = 20, // nanoseconds.
parameter DEBOUNCE_PERIOD_ms = 125 // milliseconds.
)
. . .
function int MinBitWidth([1023:0] value);
begin
for (MinBitWidth = 0; value > 0; MinBitWidth = MinBitWidth + 1)
begin
value = value >> 1;
end
end
endfunction
localparam MAX_COUNT_32BITS = DEBOUNCE_PERIOD_ms * 1_000_000 / CLOCK_PERIOD_ns; // Default type of 32-bits.
localparam COUNTER_BITS = MinBitWidth(MAX_COUNT_32BITS); // Calculate actual bit width needed.
typedef logic [COUNTER_BITS - 1 : 0] TCounter;
localparam TCounter MAX_COUNT = MAX_COUNT_32BITS; // Assign to a type of the actual bit width (truncation warning from Quartus).
localparam TCounter ONE = 1;
TCounter counter;
. . .
always #(posedge clock)
begin
. . .
if (counter == MAX_COUNT_32BITS - 1) // Synthesises a 32-bit comparer no matter how many bits are needed with unused bits tied to ground.
. . .
if (counter == MAX_COUNT - ONE) // Synthesises a 23-bit comparer as expected.
. . .
counter <= counter + 1; // Synthesises a 23-bit counter as expected.
. . .
counter <= counter + ONE; // Synthesises a 23-bit counter as expected.
Incorrect Algorithm
I considered $clog2 which is the correct way to obtain an address bus width from a RAM depth parameter. However, this is not the same as the minimum bit width of a value. Let me explain...
Consider a value of 4 which is 100 base-2 (3 bits wide).
The $clog2 algorithm calculates a value of 2, which is incorrect. It should be 3. The reason for this miscalculation is because $clog2 subtracts 1 from the value before it starts to compute the number of bits, i.e. 4 becomes 3, then it calculates the minimum bit width of the value 3, giving 2 bits. While this is mathematically correct for the ceiling of log base-2, it is not the bit width of the original value.
Here is the clogb2 algorithm from the LRM:
function integer clogb2;
input [31:0] value;
begin
value = value - 1; // GOTCHA!
for (clogb2 = 0; value > 0; clogb2 = clogb2 + 1) begin
value = value >> 1;
end
end
endfunction
Correct Algorithm
The correct algorithm is to calculate the minimum bit width of the original value, which is the algorithm given by #jonathan-mayer in his first answer before he edited it.
Here is the correct algorithm as a function:
function integer MinBitWidth;
input [1023:0] value;
begin
for (MinBitWidth = 0; value > 0; MinBitWidth = MinBitWidth + 1)
begin
value = value >> 1;
end
end
endfunction
Just do +1 to get correct values for powers of 2.
$clog2(MAX_COUNT_32BITS + 1);
$clog2 from IEEE Std 1800-2017, section 20.8.1 Integer math functions:
The system function $clog2 shall return the ceiling of the log base 2
of the argument (the log rounded up to an integer value).
module tb;
parameter CLOCK_PERIOD_ns = 20; // nanoseconds.
parameter DEBOUNCE_PERIOD_ms = 125; // milliseconds.
localparam MAX_COUNT_32BITS = DEBOUNCE_PERIOD_ms * 1_000_000 / CLOCK_PERIOD_ns; // Default type of 32-bits.
localparam COUNTER_BITS = $clog2(MAX_COUNT_32BITS); // Calculate actual bit width needed.
initial begin
$display("MAX_COUNT_32BITS = %0d, COUNTER_BITS = %0d", MAX_COUNT_32BITS, COUNTER_BITS);
end
endmodule
Outputs:
MAX_COUNT_32BITS = 6250000, COUNTER_BITS = 23
When I do addition or subtraction in Verilog, some compilers emit warning.
// code example
logic [9 : 0] a, b, c;
always_ff #(posedge clk) begin
b <= a + 1;
c <= a - 1;
end
// warning example
Warning (13469): Verilog HDL assignment warning at xxx.sv(xxx): truncated value with size 11 to match size of target (10) File: xxx.sv Line: xxx
Warning (13469): Verilog HDL assignment warning at xxx.sv(xxx): truncated value with size 32 to match size of target (10) File: xxx.sv Line: xxx
I want to find clean way to remove these warnings. I tried two methods:
// method 1
b <= (a + 1)[9 : 0];
// method 2
logic [10 : 0] d;
d <= a + 1;
b <= d[9 : 0];
I thought the first method would compile, but it was invalid syntax in verilog.
Second method works, but it is too verbose and dirty.
Is there any other clean ways?
From IEEE Std 1364-2001.
Page 73:
Table 29—Bit lengths resulting from self-determined expressions:
Unsized constant number = Same as integer
Page 45:
NOTE Implementations may limit the maximum size of an integer variable, but they shall at least be 32 bits.
So the warnings you see come from trying to operate one unsized numeric constant (32 bits at least) with a sized variable (10 bits), so the synthesizer warns about the result may overflow.
So, just make sure all your operands have the same size:
Instead of:
// code example
logic [9 : 0] a, b, c;
always_ff #(posedge clk) begin
b <= a + 1;
c <= a - 1;
end
Do:
// code example
logic [9 : 0] a, b, c;
always_ff #(posedge clk) begin
b <= a + 10'd1;
c <= a - 10'd1;
end
1 id a 32-bit value. As a result the width of the expression is 32.
The way around is to use a sized value of '1', i.e.
b <= a + 1'b1;
c <= b - 1'b1;
This can potentially give you an 11-bit result. Carryon bit will be lost. At this point you can do some other tricks. I guess this is the most common one. Use a carry on bit.
logic con;
logic[9:0] a,b;
...
{con, a} <= b + 1'b1;
You can use a temp variable, as in your example.
In general, verilog standard does allow free truncation or extension of operand widths and no warning is required. Definitely in this case you can ignore the warning or turn it off. I have not seen simulators which would warn about it. Just certain rule in linting tools.
Use curley concatination braces
b <= {a + 1}[9 : 0];
or change the constant size (which defaults to 32-bits)
b <= a + 10'd1;
Is there a way to manipulate variable instantiation depending on a parameter?
For example, here if I were to put just bit [WIDTH-1:0] a; and set DEPTH == 1, WIDTH would be 0 and bit [-1:0] a; would not make sense.
When I code it like in the example below I get an error on the second $display: "Undeclared identifier: a". Is there a way to achieve this in Verilog/SV or is there an error in my code?
module test #(
parameter DEPTH = 2,
parameter WIDTH = $clog2(DEPTH)
)();
generate
if (WIDTH == 0) begin
bit a;
end else begin
bit [WIDTH-1:0] a;
end
endgenerate
initial begin
$display("WIDTH: %d", WIDTH);
$display("Bit width of a: %d", $bits(a));
end
endmodule: test
All you need to do is
bit [(WIDTH>0 ? WIDTH-1 : 0):0] a;
Which version of Verilog are you using? $clog2 was introduced in Verilog-2005. Prior implementations, can give odd results.
See below, I did a loop to show incrementing depth versus result of clog2.
CLOG2(0) = 0
CLOG2(1) = 0
CLOG2(2) = 1
CLOG2(3) = 2
CLOG2(4) = 2
To represent the value of 1, for instance, you need 1 bit, not 0
To represent the value of 2, you need 2 bits...not 1.
To represent the value of 4, you need 3 bits. CLOG2 is always 1 short at the transition points. The prior solution will not account for that as you grow.
So if you say
WIDTH = $clog(DEPTH+1);
I think you will automatically get the results you want.
I made & use this on a regular basis. It determines the width in bits of an integer value. Special case of 0 will return a value of 1 (you still need 1 bit to hold the value). Let's say you need to define an index variable based on memory that has 256 addresses
parameter NUM_ADDR 256
localparam A_SZ = bit_size(NUM_ADDR-1); // example: 255 (highest address) should return 8
logic [A_SZ-1:0] index; // example: [7:0] index
Then All I ever need to change is NUM_ADDR
function integer bit_size;
input integer value;
reg [31:0] shifted;
integer res;
begin
if (value != 0)
begin
shifted = value;
for (res=0; (shifted != 0); res=res+1)
shifted = shifted >> 1;
bit_size = res;
end
else
bit_size = 1; // minimum size, even for a value of 0
end
endfunction
First of all, I had a lot of difficulty phrasing the title of this question. So if you understand the problem I'm facing, and there is a better way to word it and the question has been answered before, I apologise, and please do point out to me how I can resolve this. Anyways, here's the relevant code snippet that I've truncated for clarity:
parameter RAM_DEPTH = 256;
reg ram [0:RAM_DEPTH-1]; //256 deep memory, 1-bit size per location
parameter NUM_INST = 64;
parameter N = 4;
genvar x;
generate for (x = 0; x < NUM_INST; x = x + 1) begin: xs
//instantiate a module here
//connect N bits to input port
//which N bits depends module number x
mod inst (
.in(ram[x*N : x*N + N - 1]) //the error is here
);
end endgenerate
The error is:
error: Array cannot be indexed by a range.
I understand that this is because ram is declared as reg ram [0:RAM_DEPTH-1] instead of reg [0:RAM_DEPTH-1] ram. But is there a way to automate concatenation of RAM bits based on the N parameter, i.e. instead of having to write .in({ram[x*N],ram[x*N+1],ram[x*N+2],ram[x*N+3]}), there's an automated range selection logic that concatenates the bits based on N. You can imagine that if, say, N = 256, I would have to write a very long concatenation operator, and also makes my module less parametric.
In this case, should I just be using reg [0:RAM_DEPTH-1] ram declaration, and re-write my module to support bit updates on a single register array instead?
Thanks.
The easiest solution I found was to do as you suggested and turn reg ram [0:RAM_DEPTH-1] into reg [0:RAM_DEPTH-1] ram. An alternative would be the following:
parameter RAM_DEPTH = 256;
parameter NUM_INST = 64;
parameter N = 4;
reg [RAM_DEPTH-1:0] ram; //256 deep memory, 1-bit size per location
reg [N-1:0] ramwires [NUM_INST-1:0];
genvar x;
integer y, z;
generate for (x = 0; x < NUM_INST; x = x + 1) begin: xs
mod inst (
.in(ramwires[x])
);
end endgenerate
always#(*)
for (y = 0; y<NUM_INST; y = y + 1) begin
for (z=0; z<N; z = z + 1) begin
ramwires[y][z] = ram[y*N+z];
end
end
This converts the 1D array into a 2D array, which is easily passed into the module, while still being parameterizable.
I have a part of code of my design as follows.
parameter n=256;
input [n-1:0] x;
output y;
initial begin
x = 0;
if(0 >= unsigned'(x-9))
y = 1;
end
My expectation is, the unsigned subtraction operation should return decimal 247 but in actual it returns -9. Is anyone having better way of coding to achieve this?
My actual requirement is, even if I subtract a smaller value from larger, the value should rollover w.r.t. parameter width (As if 0-1 should yield 255). My question may be wrong but this requirement is necessary from my project.
247 and -9 are the same bit pattern so the arithmetic is correct. Signed vs unsigned is an interpretation of the bit pattern.
NB: 0-1 is only 255 with 8 bit numbers you have defined them as 256 bit numbers.
The following example should help clarify, We use $signed and $unsigned keywords which alters how the decimal representation is displayed but the underlying binary form does not change.
module tb;
parameter n=8;
logic [n-1:0] x;
logic y;
initial begin
x = 0;
$display("%1d", x-9);
$display("%1b", x-9);
$display("");
$display("%1d", $unsigned(x-9) );
$display("%1b", $unsigned(x-9) );
$display("");
$display("%1d", $signed(x-9) );
$display("%1b", $signed(x-9) );
$display("");
$finish;
end
endmodule
Which Outputs:
4294967287
11111111111111111111111111110111
4294967287
11111111111111111111111111110111
-9
11111111111111111111111111110111
For your example you just need to use $unsigned:
module tb;
parameter n=8;
logic [n-1:0] x;
logic y;
initial begin
x = 0;
if(0 >= $unsigned(x-9)) begin
y = 1;
end
else begin
y = 0;
end
$display("y: %b", y);
$finish;
end
endmodule