I encountered a problem with synthesis where if I had two variables in an if statement, Synthesis will fail (with a very misleading and unhelpful error message).
Given the code snippet below
case(state)
//other states here
GET_PAYLOAD_DATA:
begin
if (packet_size < payload_length) begin
packet_size <= packet_size + 1;
//Code to place byte into ram that only triggers with a toggle flag
next_state = GET_PAYLOAD_DATA;
end else begin
next_state = GET_CHKSUM2;
end
end
I get an error in Xilinx ISE during synthesis:
ERROR:Xst:2001 - Width mismatch detected on comparator next_state_cmp_lt0000/ALB. Operand A and B do not have the same size.
The error claims that next_state isn't correct, but if I take out payload_length and assign a static value to it, it works perfectly fine. As both packet_size and payload_length are of type integer, they are the same size and that is not the problem. Therefore I assume its a similar problem to for loops not being implementable in hardware unless it is a static loop with a defined end. But If statements should work as it is just a comparator between 2 binary values.
What I was trying to do here is that when a byte is received by my module, it will be added into RAM until the the size of the entire payload (which I get from earlier packet data) is reached, then change to a different state to handle the checksum. As the data only comes in 1 byte at a time, I recall this state multiple times until the counter reaches the limit, then I set the next state to something else.
My question is then, how do I achieve the same results of calling my state and repeat until the counter has reached the length of the payload without the error showing up?
EDIT:
Snippets of how packet_size and payload_length are declared, as requested in comments
integer payload_length, packet_size;
initial begin
//other stuff
packet_size <= 0;
end
always # (posedge clk) begin
//case statements with various states
GET_PAYLOAD_LEN:
begin
if (rx_toggle == 1) begin
packet_size <= packet_size + 1;
addr <= 3;
din <= rx_byte_buffer;
payload_length <= rx_byte_buffer;
next_state = GET_PAYLOAD_DATA;
end else begin
next_state = GET_PAYLOAD_LEN;
end
end
rx_byte_buffer is a register of the input data my module receives as 8 bits wide, while packet_size increments in various other states of the machine prior to the one you see above.
I have gotten around the error by switching the if statement conditionals around, but still want to understand why that would change anything.
There are some errors that stick out right away about the code, while they may not fix this problem, they will need to be corrected because it will cause a difference in simulation and hardware tests.
The nextstate logic needs to be in a different always block that does not change based on the posedge of clock. The sensitivity list needs to include things like "state" and/or "*". And if you wanted the nextstate logic to be registered like it is now (which you don't) you should use a nonblocking assignment, this is described in great deal in the cummings paper, provided below.
http://www.sunburst-design.com/papers/CummingsSNUG2000SJ_NBA_rev1_2.pdf
the code should look something like this:
always # (*) begin
//case statements with various states
GET_PAYLOAD_LEN:
begin
if (rx_toggle == 1) begin
packet_size_en = 1'b1;
//these will need to be changed in a similar manner
addr <= 3;
din <= rx_byte_buffer;
payload_length <= rx_byte_buffer;
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
next_state = GET_PAYLOAD_DATA;
end else begin
next_state = GET_PAYLOAD_LEN;
end
end
always#(posedge clk) begin
if(pcket_size_en)
packet_size <= packet_size +1 ;
end
Also, the first thing I would try is to make these a defined length, by making them of type reg (I assume that you wont be needing a signed number so it should have no difference on simulation), outside of generate blocks, you should try to not let synthesis play around with integers.
Related
I have tried writing a small verilog module that will find the maximum of 10 numbers in an array. At the moment I am just trying to verify the correctness of the module without going into specific RTL methods that will to do such a task.
I am just seeing a a couple of registers when I am synthesizing this module. Nothing more that that. Ideally the output should be 7 which is at index 4 but I am seeing nothing neither on FPGA board or in the test bench. What I am doing wrong with this ?
module findmaximum(input clk,rst,output reg[3:0]max, output reg[3:0]index);
reg [3:0]corr_Output[0:9];
always#(posedge clk or posedge rst)
if(rst)
begin
corr_Output[0]=0;
corr_Output[1]=0;
corr_Output[2]=0;
corr_Output[3]=0;
corr_Output[4]=0;
corr_Output[5]=0;
corr_Output[6]=0;
corr_Output[7]=0;
corr_Output[8]=0;
corr_Output[9]=0;
end
else
begin
corr_Output[0]=0;
corr_Output[1]=0;
corr_Output[2]=0;
corr_Output[3]=0;
corr_Output[4]=7;
corr_Output[5]=0;
corr_Output[6]=0;
corr_Output[7]=0;
corr_Output[8]=0;
corr_Output[9]=0;
end
integer i;
always#(posedge clk or posedge rst)
if(rst)
begin
max=0;
index=0;
end
else
begin
max = corr_Output[0];
for (i = 0; i <= 9; i=i+1)
begin
if (corr_Output[i] > max)
begin
max = corr_Output[i];
index = i;
end
end
end
endmodule
Looking are your code, the only possible outputs are max=0,index=0 and a clock or two after reset max=7,index=4. Therefore, your synthesizer is likely optimizing the code with equivalent behavior with simpler logic.
For your find max logic to be meaningful, you need to change the values of corr_Output periodically. This can be done via input writes, LFSR (aka pseudo random number generator), and or other logic.
Other issues:
Synchronous logic (updated on a clock edge) should be assigned by with non-blocking (<=). Combinational logic should be assigned with blocking (=). When this guideline is not followed there is a risk of behavior differences between simulation and synthesis. In the event you need to compare with intermediate values (like your original max and index), then you need to separate the logic into two always blocks like bellow. See code bellow.
Also, FPGAs tend to have limited asynchronous reset support. Use synchronous reset instead by removing the reset from the sensitivity list.
always#(posedge clk) begin
if (rst) begin
max <= 4'h0;
index <= 4'h0;
end
else begin
max <= next_max;
index <= next_index;
end
always #* begin
next_max = corr_Output[0];
next_index = 4'h0;
for (i = 1; i <= 9; i=i+1) begin // <-- start at 1, not 0 (0 is same a default)
if (corr_Output[i] > next_max) begin
next_max = corr_Output[i];
next_index = i;
end
end
end
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
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
Is there any other functionality like always (that would only run if the sensitive signal changes and won't iterate as long as signal stays the same) which can be cascaded, separately or within the always , but is synthesizable in Verilog.
While I don't think there's a construct specifically like this in Verilog, there is an easy way to do this. If you do an edge detect on the signal you want to be sensitive to, you can just "if" on that in your always block. Like such:
reg event_detected;
reg [WIDTH-1:0] sensitive_last;
always # (posedge clk) begin
if (sensitive_signal != sensitive_last) begin
event_detected <= 1'b1;
end else begin
event_detected <= 1'b0;
end
sensitive_last <= sensitive_signal;
end
// Then, where you want to do things:
always # (posedge clk) begin
if (event_detected ) begin
// Do things here
end
end
The issue with doing things with nested "always" statements is that it isn't immediately obvious how much logic it would synthesize to. Depending on the FPGA or ASIC architecture you would have a relatively large register and extra logic that would be instantiated implicitly, making things like waveform debugging and gate level synthesis difficult (not to mention timing analysis). In a world where every gate/LUT counts, that sort of implicitly defined logic could become a major issue.
The assign statement is the closest to always you you can get. assign can only be for continuous assignment. The left hand side assignment must be a wire; SystemVerilog also allows logic.
I prefer the always block over assign. I find simulations give better performance when signals that usually update at the same time are group together. I believe the optimizer in the synthesizer can does a better job with always, but this might depend on the synthesizer being used.
For synchronous logic you'll need an always block. There is no issue reading hardware switches within the always block. The fpga board may already de-bounce the input for you. If not, then send the input through a two phase pipe line before using it with your code. This helps with potential setup/hold problems.
always #(posedge clk) begin
pre_sync_human_in <= human_in;
sync_human_in <= pre_sync_human_in;
end
always #* begin
//...
case( sync_human_in )
0 : // do this
1 : // do that
// ...
endcase
//...
end
always #(posedge clk) begin
//...
if ( sync_human_in==0 ) begin /* do this */ end
else begin /* else do */ end
//...
end
If you want to do a hand-shake having the state machine wait for a human to enter a multi-bit value, then add to states that wait for the input. One state that waits for not ready (stale bit from previous input), and the other waiting for ready :
always #(posedge clk) begin
case(state)
// ...
PRE_HUMAN_IN :
begin
// ...
state <= WAIT_HUMAN__FOR_NOT_READY;
end
WAIT_HUMAN_FOR_NOT_READY :
begin
// ready bit is still high for the last input, wait for not ready
if (sync_human_in[READ_BIT])
state <= WAIT_HUMAN_FOR_NOT_READY;
else
state <= WAIT_HUMAN_FOR_READY;
end
WAIT_HUMAN_FOR_READY :
begin
// ready bit is low, wait for it to go high before proceeding
if (sync_human_in[READ_BIT])
state <= WORK_WITH_HUMAN_INPUT;
else
state <= WAIT_HUMAN_FOR_READY;
end
// ...
endcase
end
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.