I found the following piece of code in the internet , while searching for good FIFO design. From the linkSVN Code FIFO -Author Clifford E. Cummings . I did some research , I was not able to figure out why there are three pointers in the design ?I can read the code but what am I missing ?
module sync_r2w #(parameter ADDRSIZE = 4)
(output reg [ADDRSIZE:0] wq2_rptr,
input [ADDRSIZE:0] rptr,
input wclk, wrst_n);
reg [ADDRSIZE:0] wq1_rptr;
always #(posedge wclk or negedge wrst_n)
if (!wrst_n) {wq2_rptr,wq1_rptr} <= 0;
else {wq2_rptr,wq1_rptr} <= {wq1_rptr,rptr};
endmodule
module sync_w2r #(parameter ADDRSIZE = 4)
(output reg [ADDRSIZE:0] rq2_wptr,
input [ADDRSIZE:0] wptr,
input rclk, rrst_n);
reg [ADDRSIZE:0] rq1_wptr;
always #(posedge rclk or negedge rrst_n)
if (!rrst_n) {rq2_wptr,rq1_wptr} <= 0;
else {rq2_wptr,rq1_wptr} <= {rq1_wptr,wptr};
endmodule
What you are looking at here is what's called a dual rank synchronizer. As you mentioned this is an asynchronous FIFO. This means that the read and write sides of the FIFO are not on the same clock domain.
As you know flip-flops need to have setup and hold timing requirements met in order to function properly. When you drive a signal from one clock domain to the other there is no way to guarantee this requirements in the general case.
When you violate these requirements FFs go into what is called a 'meta-stable' state where there are indeterminate for a small time and then (more or less) randomly go to 1 or 0. They do this though (and this is important) in much less than one clock cycle.
That's why the two layers of flops here. The first has a chance of going meta-stable but should resolve in time to be captured cleanly by the 2nd set of flops.
This on it's own is not enough to pass a multi-bit value (the address pointer) across clock domains. If more than one bit is changing at the same time then you can't be sure that the transition will be clean on the other side. So what you'll see often in these situations is that the FIFO pointers will by gray coded. This means that each increment of the counter changes at most one bit at a time.
e.g. Rather than 00 -> 01 -> 10 -> 11 -> 00 ... it will be 00 -> 01 -> 11 -> 10 -> 00 ...
Clock domain crossing is a deep and subtle subject. Even experienced designers very often mess them up without careful thought.
BTW ordinary Verilog simulations will not show anything about what I just described in a zero-delay sim. You need to do back annotated SDF simulations with real timing models.
In this example, the address is passed through the shift register in order for it to be delayed by one clock cycle. There could have been more “pointers” in order to delay the output even more.
Generally, it is easier to understand what is going on and why if you simulate the design and look at the waveform.
Also, here are some good FIFO implementations you can look at:
Xilinx FIFO Generator IP Core
Altera's single/double-clock FIFOs
OpenCores Generic FIFOs
Hope it helps. Good Luck!
Related
I’m developing a boolean data logger on a ZYNQ 7000 SoC. The logger takes a boolean input from GPIO and logs the input’s value and the time it takes to flip.
I use a 32-bit register as a log entry, the MSB bit is the boolean value. The 30:0 bits is an unsigned integer which records the time between last 2 flips. The logger should work like the following picture.
Here's my implementation of the logger in Verilog. To read the logged data from the processor, I use an AXI slave interface generated by vivado and inline my logger in the AXI module.
module BoolLogger_AXI #(
parameter BufferDepth = 512
)(
input wire data_in, // boolean input
input wire S_AXI_ACLK, // clock
input wire S_AXI_ARESETN, // reset_n
// other AXI signals
);
wire slv_reg_wren; // write enable of AXI interface
reg[31:0] buff[0:BufferDepth-1];
reg[15:0] idx;
reg[31:0] count;
reg last_data;
always #(posedge S_AXI_ACLK) begin
if((!S_AXI_ARESETN) || slv_reg_wren) begin
idx <= 0;
count <= 1;
last_data <= data_in;
end else begin
if(last_data!=data_in) begin // add an entry only when input flips
last_data <= data_in;
if(idx < BufferDepth) begin // stop logging if buffer is full
buff[idx] <= count | (data_in << 31);
idx <= idx + 1;
end
count <= 1;
end else begin
count <= count + 1;
end
end
end
//other AXI stuff
endmodule
In the AXI module, the 512*32bit logged data is mapped to addresses from 0x43c20000 to 0x43c20800.
In the Verilog code, the logger adds a new entry only when the boolean input flips. In simulation, the module works as expected. But in the FPGA, sometimes the logged data is not valid. There are successive 2 data and their MSB bit is the same, which means the entry is added even when the boolean input stays the same.
The invalid data appear from time to time. I've tried reading from the address programmatically (*(u32*)(0x43c20000+4*idx)), and there are still invalid data. I watch idx in a ILA module and idx is 512, which means the logging finishes when I read the data.
The FPGA clock is 10 MHz. The input signal is 10 Hz. So the typical period is 10e6/10/2=0x7A120, which most of the data is close to, except the invalid data.
I think if the Verilog code is implemented well, there should be no such invalid data. What may be the problem? Is this an issue about timing?
The code
First off, are you absolutely sure you are not issuing an accidental write on the AXI bus, resetting the registers?
If so, have you tried inserting a so-called double-flop on data_in (two flip-flops, delaying the signal two clock ticks)? I suppose that your data_in is not synchronous to the FPGA clock, which will lead to metastability and you having bad days if not accounted for. Have a look here for information by NANDLAND.
Citing the linked source:
If you have ever tried to sample some input to your FPGA, such as a button press, or if you have had to cross clock domains, you have had to deal with Metastability. A metastable state is one in which the output of a Flip-Flop inside of your FPGA is unknown, or non-deterministic. When a metastable condition occurs, there is no way to tell if the output of your Flip-Flop is going to be a 1 or a 0. A metastable condition occurs when setup or hold times are violated.
Metastability is bad. It can cause your FPGA to exhibit very strange behavior.
In that source there is also a link to a white paper from Altera about the topic of metastability, linked here for reference.
Citing from that paper:
When a metastable signal does not resolve in the allotted time, a logic failure can result if the destination logic observes inconsistent logic states, that is, different destination registers capture different values for the metastable signal.
and
To minimize the failures due to metastability in asynchronous signal transfers, circuit designers typically use a sequence of registers (a synchronization register chain or synchronizer) in the destination clock domain to resynchronize the signal to the new clock domain. These registers allow additional time for a potentially metastable signal to resolve to a known value before the signal is used in the rest of the design.
Basically having the asynchronous signal routed to two flip-flops might for example lead to one FF reading a 1 and one FF reading a 0. This in turn could lead to the data point being saved, but the counter not being reset to 0 (hence doubling the measured time) and the bit being saved as 0.
Finally, it seems to me, that you are using the Vivado-generated example AXI core. Dan Gisselquist simply calls it "broken". This might not be the problem here, but you might want to have a look at his posts and his AXI core design.
I have a RTL code.
At first, I synthesized the circuit at 10 ns and run post-synthesis simulation. The circuit worked well.
After that, I changed the timing constraint to 7 ns and re-synthesized the code using:
compile_ultra -retime
DC reported that the circuit has met timing requirements (slack = 0) and there is no design rule violation either. However, the netlist couldn't pass post-synthesis simulation. Does anyone know why?
I have found that Xilinx gate level simulation have (had?) a flaw when running at very high frequencies. This was 10+ years ago so things might have changed!
In my case I was simulating logic running at 300MHz. The results where baffling so I pulled in the most important signals in the waveform display.
The problem turned out to be the clock. The delay in the clock tree is simulated by lumping all the delay in the IBUF buffer. The clock tree behaviour is that of a net- or transport delay: The pulse going in will come out after a while. The IBUF delay model should therefore use a non-blocking delay:
always #( I)
O <= #delay_time I;
But it does not. Instead it uses a standard O = I; blocking statement which gets SDF annotated.
Thus if the high/low period of the input frequency to the buffer is longer then the IBUF delay, clock edges get lost and your gate level simulation fails.
I don't know if Xilinx have fixed that but I would say check your clock.
I have some lines of code below:
wire [WIDTH_PIXEL-1:0] x_vector [0:36];
wire [6-1:0] x_sample [0:511]; // 0 <= x_sample <= 36
reg [WIDTH_PIXEL-1:0] rx_512 [0:511];
genvar p;
generate
for(p=0;p<=511;p=p+1) begin: PPP
always#(posedge clk) begin
if(x_sample[p] == counter2) begin
rx_512[p] <= x_vector[x_sample[p]];
end
end
I want to save 512 x_vector elements whose address is the value of x_sample[p]. The problem is when I synthesize on Quartus, the total LC-combinationals over 50000. I know the problem lies on the line
rx_512[p] <= x_vector[x_sample[p]];
So is there any way for improving the access memory? Thank you.
Keep in mind that Verilog is meant as a hardware emulation language.
This makes that you have to learn to write two different types of code:
Code that gets converted to hardware
Test bench code
For the former there are a lot more restrictions. As you correctly noticed you get 512 comparators each comparing 6 bits plus each conditionally selecting one of 37 PIXELWIDTH values and assigning it to one of 512 PIXELWIDTH destinations. My guess is easily a million gates.
You have to use a divide an conquer approach. As Qiu says make the code sequential: One operation per clock cycle. It will take more clock cycles but a lot less logic. Unfortunately you might find out that you do not have enough time to e.g. process a whole image in that (frame?) time. Then choose to do two or four operations per cycle.
You have to continuously weigh speed versus number of gates & power. Maybe you find out that you can't do the operations at all with the chosen hardware. (Nobody said writing Verilog was easy!)
I don't know if it helps but you can make the compiler/optimizer's life a bit easier if you use:
rx_512[p] <= x_vector[counter2];
I am planning to make a snake game using the Altera DE2-115 and display it on LED Matrix
Something similar to this in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQmNYPiPw0
but still i don't know how to start,any help?
You'll have choose between 2 implementation routes:
Using a soft processor (NIOS II)
Writing the game logic in a hardware description language ([System]Verilog or VHDL)
The former will likely be the fastest route to achieving the completed game assuming you have some software background already, however if your intention is to learn to use FPGAs then option 2 may be more beneficial. If you use a NIOS or other soft processor core you'll still need to create an FPGA image and interface to external peripherals.
To get started you'll want to look at some of the example designs that come with your board. You also need to fully understand the underlying physical interface to the LED Matrix display to determine how to drive it. You then want to start partitioning your design into sensible blocks - a block to drive the display, a block to handle user input, storage of state, the game logic itself etc. Try and break them down sufficiently to decide what the interfaces to communicate between the blocks are going to look like.
In terms of implementation, for option 1 you will probably make use of Altera's SoC development environment called Qsys. Again working from an existing example design as a starting point is probably the easiest way to get up-and-running quickly. With option 2 you need to pick a hardware description language ([System]Verilog or VHDL or MyHDL) and code away in your favourite editor.
When you start writing RTL code you'll need a mechanism to simulate it. I'd suggest writing block-level simulations for each of the blocks you write (ideally writing the tests based on your definitions of the interfaces before writing the RTL). Assuming you're on a budget you don't have many options: Altera bundles a free version of Modelsim with their Quartus tool, there's the open source options of the Icarus simulator if using verilog or GHDL for VHDL.
When each block largely works run it through the synthesis tool to check FPGA resource utilisation and timing closure (the maximum frequency the design can be clocked at). You probably don't care too much about the frequency implementing a game like snake but it's still good practice to be aware of how what you write translates into an FPGA implementation and the impact on timing.
You'll need to create a Quartus project to generate an FPGA bitfile - again working from an existing example design is the way to go. This will provide pin locations and clock input frequencies etc. You may need to write timing constraints to define the timing to your LED Matrix display depending on the interface.
Then all you have to do is figure out why it works in simulation but not on the FPGA ;)
Let's say you have a LED matrix like this:
To answer not your question, but your comment about " if u can at least show me how to make the blinking LED i will be grateful :)", we can do as this:
module blink (input wire clk, /* assuming a 50MHz clock in your trainer */
output wire anode, /* to be connected to RC7 */
output wire cathode); /* to be connected to RB7 */
reg [24:0] freqdiv = 25'h0000000;
always #(posedge clk)
freqdiv <= freqdiv + 1;
assign cathode = 1'b0;
assign anode = freqdiv[24];
endmodule
This will make the top left LED to blink at a rate of 1,4 blinks per second aproximately.
This other example will show a running dot across the matrix, left to right, top to down:
module runningdot (input wire clk, /* assuming a 50MHz clock in your trainer */
output wire [7:0] anodes, /* to be connected to RC0-7 */
output wire [7:0] cathodes); /* to be connected to RB0-7 */
reg [23:0] freqdiv = 24'h0000000;
always #(posedge clk)
freqdiv <= freqdiv + 1;
wire clkled = freqdiv[23];
reg [7:0] r_anodes = 8'b10000000;
reg [7:0] r_cathodes = 8'b01111111;
assign anodes = r_anodes;
assign cathodes = r_cathodes;
always #(posedge clkled) begin
r_anodes <= {r_anodes[0], r_anodes[7:1]}; /* shifts LED left to right */
if (r_anodes == 8'b00000001) /* when the last LED in a row is selected... */
r_cathodes <= {r_cathodes[0], r_cathodes[7:1]}; /* ...go to the next row */
end
endmodule
Your snake game, if using logic and not an embedded processor, is way much complicated than these examples, but it will use the same logic principles to drive the matrix.
I am trying to implement the FatICA algorithm in verilog. I have written the whole code and till simulation it shows no error but when I try to synthesize the code it gives an error stating " ";" expecting instead of".""
I am using four floating point modules for arithmetic calculation and I have generated 1000 instances of sum, sqrt ... etc using for loop for the in between calculations.Following is the code for generate
genvar s;
generate
for(s=1;s<=4000;s=(s+1))
begin:cov_mul_ins
Float32Mul cov_mul (.CLK(clk),
.nRST(1'b1),
.leftArg(dummy_14),
.rightArg(dummy_15),
.loadArgs(1'b1)
);
end
endgenerate
Now I am accessing the individual instances using the Dot operator
for(d=1;d<=2;d=(d+1))
begin
for(e=1;e<=2;e=(e+1))
begin
for(c=1;c<=1000;c=(c+1))
begin
if((d==1)&&(e==1))
begin
dummy_14=centered_data_copy[d][c];
dummy_15=Parent.centered_data_float_trans[c][e];
#10 ***cov_mul_ins[c].cov_mul***(.CLK(clk),
.nRST(1'b1),
.leftArg(dummy_14),
.rightArg(dummy_15),
.loadArgs(1'b1),
.product(cov_temp[c][1])
);
I would be grateful if someone could pin point the error I am making.Thanks!
Couple of things to note:
Out of module references can't be synthesised. This means that you can't "peek inside" instantiated modules to look at nets or call functions if you want that code to be synthesisable. It's grand for testbenches though.
Your attempted function call has a delay on it, which will be ignored, ie #10 cov_mul_ins[c].cov_mul ( ... );
I can see your thinking in a softwarey lets-put-everything-in-a-class-and-call-methods way. This is perfect for testbenches, but synthesis will complain, as you've seen. When it comes to hardware, well, you need to think of the hardware - ask youself which blocks you need to build to run your algorithm. For example, if your algorithm needs 30 multiplies on each input sample, then you need either 30 instances of a multiplier, or one multiplier and sequence your 30 operations through it. Or 15 multipliers, each doing 2 multiplications per sample period, or 10 multipliers doing 3 etc...
Try to delete "#10" because I think it is not synthesable.