Prev: PID autotuning - not working for heating application
Next: auto-detecting the resolution of HD44780-based LCD modules ?
From: Antti on 6 Nov 2009 07:32
On Nov 6, 1:53 pm, Joseph Yiu <joseph....(a)somewhereinarm.com> wrote:
> Antti wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 6:00 am, Jack Klein <jackkl...(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> >> Parts obsolescence is biting again, and at least one of my EEs is
> >> insisting that we spin replacement boards with soft-core processors in
> >> FPGAs.
>
> >> There are several things I don't like about that.
>
> >> First, how robust are these systems.  What if power is lost during
> >> updating the configuration device?
>
> >> Second, I don't like the holy wars among our EEs.  Most of them use
> >> Altera and wouldn't touch Xilinx to save their lives.  But one guy
> >> uses only Xilinx and won't give the Altera rep the time of day.  This
> >> hasn't bothered me up until now, when we put together a peripheral
> >> that is accessed to a microcontroller or DSP, because we define an
> >> interface and they meet it.  I don't need to care who the FPGA source
> >> is.
>
> >> But if we're talking soft core, I'm not going to allow our embedded
> >> software department get saddled with supporting both NIOS and Micro
> >> Blaze.
>
> >> So third, I'd be grateful for any experiences with either soft core,
> >> or even better both, with a comparison between the two.
>
> >> And does anybody have any experience with the synthesizable ARM soft
> >> core for FPGA?  Unless there's a serious handicap, I'd prefer ARM if
> >> we do soft core, we've already good tools and programmer experience.
>
> >> Any and all comments, real or delusional, welcome.
>
> >> --
> >> Jack Kleinhttp://JK-Technology.Com
> >> FAQs for
> >> news:comp.lang.chttp://c-faq.com/
> >> news:comp.lang.c++http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
> >> news:alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
>
> > Hi Jack,
>
> > I am one who loves to play around with soft-cores,
> > yet I would also stay unless you have REAL valid reasons
> > to use a soft-core do not go that path.
> > I bet your EE guys can not give valid reasons
> > (or that I would be able to invalidate their reasons)
>
> > 1) obsolete - dont fool your self, FPGA vendor soft-core do get
> > obsoleted as well!
> > 2) FPGA vendor soft-core is actually a client-trap vendor lock-in
>
> > now, Cortex-M3 RTL code is really beatiful, small and easy, basically
> > you just
> > select ITCM/DTCM sizes, number NVIC interrupts, and you are done
> > and it useable on any FPGA with enough resources, so truly vendor
> > independant
>
> > optionally there free Coldfire (original freescale) core available for
> > Cyclone-3
> > (for other FPGAs there is license fee)
>
> > Antti
>
> Hi Antti,
>
> Do you mean Cortex-M1?
> (Cortex-M3 do not have TCM interface :-) )
>
> Hi Jack,
> Currently you can access Cortex-M1 with :
> 1) Actel
> - Design using Libero and SoftConcole
> - Library of AMBA components available
> - Royality free
> - Allow easy reuse of IP blocks with AMBA interface
> Note: The early version of SoftConcole does not support TCM, please
> check with distributor to see if this has been improved.
>
> 2) Altera
> Cortex-M1 Altera kit (contact Arrow Electronics)
> - Design using SOPC builder
> - Library of peripheral components available
> - Free royal for 1000 units
> (according tohttp://www.altera.com/products/ip/processors/32_16bit/m-arm-cortex-m1...)
> Note: Use Avalon interface with SOPC builder rather than AMBA
>
> 3) Synplicity used to have a program called ReadyIP.
> Not sure if they are still doing it.
>
> 4) License it directly from ARM
> - access to RTL so you can retarget to any FPGA
> - include scripts for major FPGA tools and FPGA devices
> - Use AMBA interface, and TCM support
> - peripheral IP not included (you can possible find those in your FPGA
> development tools, on the Internet, books, or develop them on your own).
>
> Hope this helps.
> regards,
> Joseph

sorry, my mistake of course M1 :)
I have synthesized M3 for Xilinx too, but it far more larger and too
complicated (too much resources)

M1 however is real nice thing, real small too, in terms of FPGA
resources

Antti


From: Michael on 7 Nov 2009 04:48
> So third, I'd be grateful for any experiences with either soft core,
> or even better both, with a comparison between the two.

[Warning: my company sells tools.]

Our latest RapidiTTy FPGA tools target both Xilinx and Altera FPGAs
(others in the pipeline). You can migrate between targets with a
couple of mouse clicks.

The tools have a fully-integrated soft core with a cost-effective
licencing model.

Michael Pont
www.tte-systems.com/products/fpga
From: Philipp Klaus Krause on 8 Nov 2009 09:00
Jack Klein schrieb:

> But if we're talking soft core, I'm not going to allow our embedded
> software department get saddled with supporting both NIOS and Micro
> Blaze.

Why go for a non-free softcore? There's lots of free softcores out
there, many of them with good toolchain support (typically gcc), like
OpenRISC or Leon (SPARC compatible).

Philipp

From: Andy Peters on 9 Nov 2009 16:08
On Nov 5, 9:00 pm, Jack Klein <jackkl...(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> Parts obsolescence is biting again, and at least one of my EEs is
> insisting that we spin replacement boards with soft-core processors in
> FPGAs.
>
> There are several things I don't like about that.
>
> First, how robust are these systems.  What if power is lost during
> updating the configuration device?
>
> Second, I don't like the holy wars among our EEs.  Most of them use
> Altera and wouldn't touch Xilinx to save their lives.  But one guy
> uses only Xilinx and won't give the Altera rep the time of day.  This
> hasn't bothered me up until now, when we put together a peripheral
> that is accessed to a microcontroller or DSP, because we define an
> interface and they meet it.  I don't need to care who the FPGA source
> is.
>
> But if we're talking soft core, I'm not going to allow our embedded
> software department get saddled with supporting both NIOS and Micro
> Blaze.
>
> So third, I'd be grateful for any experiences with either soft core,
> or even better both, with a comparison between the two.
>
> And does anybody have any experience with the synthesizable ARM soft
> core for FPGA?  Unless there's a serious handicap, I'd prefer ARM if
> we do soft core, we've already good tools and programmer experience.
>
> Any and all comments, real or delusional, welcome.

Brand X's EDK toolchain and philosophy are built on the presumption
that the user wants to build a Linux system in the FPGA, and it will
all run on one of the eval kits. "It will run" doesn't mean that "it
will have excellent performance" or "be cost-effective for a
production system."

Unless you are greatly constrained by board space, an external
microprocessor or microcontroller will almost always be a better
choice, for both cost and performance reasons.

-a
From: Rene on 11 Nov 2009 07:49
Mark McDougall wrote:

> For the record, I wouldn't touch Xilinx with a 10-foot clown pole either.

What is the reason that Your opinion about Xilinx is so negative?

Thanks in advance,
Rene
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: PID autotuning - not working for heating application
Next: auto-detecting the resolution of HD44780-based LCD modules ?