I've been messing with this for a bit and the ultimate limitation seems to =
me to not be the digital noise in the FPGA, but rather the imbalance in the=
 edge rise/fall times and/or propagation delays.

The digital noise in the FPGA is going to be mostly in the core. The I/Os a=
re the part that matter to the analog portion of the ADC and they have sepa=
rate Vcco from the core and also one another. I've been planning to dedicat=
e a bank to the ADCs. But the input signals have a 5 volt range and will re=
quire a 3.3 Vcco that is ratiometric to the 5 volt supply. It seems simpler=
 to add a 5 volt level shifter and let that be powered by the sensor 5 volt=
 rail.

So now I'm looking for the right buffer device and I'm starting to realize =
the limitation is the symmetry in the rise/fall times and the propagation d=
elays of the two edges. Buffers are not so good with this having delays of =
single digit ns, but also lack of symmetry of single digit ns. With 30 ns p=
ulses, that would add up. I thought analog switches might be better, but th=
ey are worse with unbalanced switching times being hard to get into the low=
 single digit ns. Many of the parts I find are LVC which require 3.3 volt p=
ower to get compatible input levels.  I guess that's what the L is for in L=
VC, duh!=20

Anyone know of parts that would be good for this? Would it make sense to ru=
n through two buffers at least conceptually balancing the rise/fall times a=
nd prop delays? But then the delays start to add up, but that probably does=
n't matter as much.

I found the 74ACT244 which seems to be the best fit so far.  5V power, TTL =
inputs to be compatible with 3.3V CMOS, balanced HL and LH propagation time=
s and balanced H and L drive capabilities.  The prop delay can be up to 9 n=
s which is a significant portion of the 30 ns cycle time, but that should n=
ot be a significant factor. =20

--=20

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 4:24:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Kellett wrote:
> On 24/10/2020 05:30, Rick C wrote:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.=
com wrote:
> >> fredag den 23. oktober 2020 kl. 20.07.58 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> >>> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
> >>>> On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx tools.=
  Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an ADC chip interface?
> >>>>
> >>>> On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have actual ADC'=
s.
> >>>
> >>> Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said insta=
ntiated "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as "instantiating" a cloc=
k block with PLL ect.
> >>>
> >>> I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source project =
and the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma converters and ho=
w to implement them.
> >>>
> >>> Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would significantly i=
mprove accuracy and/or noise to use separate comparator and driver for the =
analog interface.  The sensors are powered from 5 volts and so produce a 5 =
volt analog output.  The separate drivers and comparators could be powered =
from the same supply, separate from any other supply on the board for noise=
 isolation.  Also, as the sensor outputs are proportional to the power rail=
 voltage, this will make all measurements ratiometric eliminating the need =
to correct for the power voltages.  Otherwise we need to provide the I/O ba=
nk 3.3 volts that is a ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  Th=
e point is it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers =
and may get us noise and accuracy advantages.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts to sol=
idify my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os available, so I think=
 I'm going to use both approaches and dedicate a bank of I/Os to the ADCs.
> >>>
> >>
> >> if you need to add external parts you might as well add a real adc
> >=20
> > Not all parts are the same.  The ADCs that give more than 12 bits on mu=
ltiple channels are in the $5 and up range.  I can get comparators for a qu=
arter and CMOS buffers for a dime.  I'm not sure the comparators are needed=
.  The buffer might help though.
> >=20
>=20
> You are  a bit out on price, you can buy an 8 channel part from=20
> Microchip at about $3 5k off, MCP3464 (16 bit, 8 single ended or 4=20
> differential channels).
> That way you get a fully sorted part with with built in PGA and you=20
> won't be at the mercy of using unspecified performance of the FPGA.
>=20
> It would save you endless heartache in approval and=20
> certification/qualification time - I certainly wouldn't want to get=20
> involved with the FMEA for the FPGA sigma-delta design.
>=20
> There may well be cheaper parts than this.

Which aspects of the FPGA impact the performance of a delta-sigma ADC?  Or =
even a single slope ADC?  The only relevant aspect would be the voltage dro=
p from Vcc/ground to the output drive which is going to be very small when =
driving low currents. =20

As I said, there will be an ADC on board for testing.  Then we will choose =
the method that works best for our goals.=20

No risk, no worries.=20

If anything, having the delta-sigma ADC as a backup to the chip ADC reduces=
 the risk if there is a glitch with the chip.  It's not like ICs never have=
 problems.=20

$0.10 is still a lot better than $3.50. =20

--=20

  Rick C.

  +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 24/10/2020 07:08:17, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 9:00:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Perkins wrote:
>> On 23/10/2020 19:07:53, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
>>>> On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx 
>>>>> tools.  Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an
>>>>> ADC chip interface?
>>>> 
>>>> On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have
>>>> actual ADC's.
>>> 
>>> Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said 
>>> instantiated "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as 
>>> "instantiating" a clock block with PLL ect.
>>> 
>>> I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source
>>> project and the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma
>>> converters and how to implement them.
>>> 
>>> Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would
>>> significantly improve accuracy and/or noise to use separate
>>> comparator and driver for the analog interface.  The sensors are
>>> powered from 5 volts and so produce a 5 volt analog output.  The
>>> separate drivers and comparators could be powered from the same
>>> supply, separate from any other supply on the board for noise
>>> isolation.  Also, as the sensor outputs are proportional to the
>>> power rail voltage, this will make all measurements ratiometric
>>> eliminating the need to correct for the power voltages.
>>> Otherwise we need to provide the I/O bank 3.3 volts that is a
>>> ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  The point is
>>> it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers 
>>> and may get us noise and accuracy advantages.
>>> 
>>> Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts
>>> to solidify my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os
>>> available, so I think I'm going to use both approaches and
>>> dedicate a bank of I/Os to the ADCs.
>> 
>> Nothing wrong with thinking out loud.
>> 
>> Like another poster has suggested, and unless there is a tight
>> budget in terms of space or money, it can be cost effective in
>> terms of design time (and cost) to simply fit a known ADC to the
>> PCB that has a known spec and reduce overall risk.
> 
> There will be a socket on the board for an ADC chip.  I'm not going
> to risk a board spin just for this idea.  Risk mitigation.  But at $5
> each significant money can be saved in production by using an
> integrated ADC in the FPGA.

Sounds like best of both worlds.

> We actually don't need more than 10 bits for anything other than one
> sensor that will spend most of it's time in the very low end of the
> range.  If I can get 12 useful bits we are probably ok.  Using a
> single slope converter with calibration by measuring a Vref I can
> probably get better resolution at the low end and still have good
> results with the simpler circuit.

That's still only a few mV of noise threshold.

> I'm not sure how much "noise" will be a problem.  The absolute
> accuracy is limited by the sensors to a couple percent.  But we need
> good resolution for the control loop and for the flow rate which we
> are integrating into a volume.
> 
> Sometimes I talk myself into this being a snap and other times I
> worry it won't work worth a damn.
> 
> The delta-sigma circuits can be designed so they can be built to work
> with a mid-scale Vref and then allow for a single slope configuration
> with a common slope circuit.  I was planning on using something like
> the single slope converter with the slower signals anyway.  I should
> probably design something so it can be tested without involving the
> sensors since it will be hard to manipulate them to get a particular
> output voltage.

I might use a standard comparator rather than rely on an input with a 
noisy threshold. Not mentioning the violation of rise times.

> Or I can convince the group we should use digital sensors.  Lol!  Not
> sure why we picked analog sensors.  I'm having trouble finding anyone
> who carries stock on a board mounted differential pressure sensor
> other than the one we are using.  The gage pressure sensor is
> available with a digital output though.  Only $10.

My experience of off-board third party digital sensors isn't a happy one 
with I2C sensors locking up on a glitch and having to reset them on the fly.

YMMV



-- 
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

On 24/10/2020 10:24, Michael Kellett wrote:
> On 24/10/2020 05:30, Rick C wrote:
>> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4,

>>> if you need to add external parts you might as well add a real adc
>>
>> Not all parts are the same.  The ADCs that give more than 12 bits on
>> multiple channels are in the $5 and up range.  I can get comparators
>> for a quarter and CMOS buffers for a dime.  I'm not sure the
>> comparators are needed.  The buffer might help though.
>>
> 
> You are  a bit out on price, you can buy an 8 channel part from
> Microchip at about $3 5k off, MCP3464 (16 bit, 8 single ended or 4
> differential channels).
> That way you get a fully sorted part with with built in PGA and you
> won't be at the mercy of using unspecified performance of the FPGA.
> 

It is also going to be dependent on the tolerances of the other parts -
the resistors, capacitors, buffers.

> It would save you endless heartache in approval and
> certification/qualification time - I certainly wouldn't want to get
> involved with the FMEA for the FPGA sigma-delta design.
> 
> There may well be cheaper parts than this.
> 

There are also lots of microcontrollers with quite reasonable
multi-channel ADC's and lower prices than this.  They are usually not so
good for high resolution, but you can do other things with the
microcontroller too.

And for higher resolution requirements, the effort to make your own and
be sure it is accurate would seem ridiculous.  How many hundreds of
thousands of systems are you making where the development costs of
rolling your own ADC, testing and qualifying it save the cost of buying one?

On 24/10/2020 05:30, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> fredag den 23. oktober 2020 kl. 20.07.58 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
>>> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
>>>> On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx tools.  Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an ADC chip interface?
>>>>
>>>> On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have actual ADC's.
>>>
>>> Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said instantiated "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as "instantiating" a clock block with PLL ect.
>>>
>>> I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source project and the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma converters and how to implement them.
>>>
>>> Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would significantly improve accuracy and/or noise to use separate comparator and driver for the analog interface.  The sensors are powered from 5 volts and so produce a 5 volt analog output.  The separate drivers and comparators could be powered from the same supply, separate from any other supply on the board for noise isolation.  Also, as the sensor outputs are proportional to the power rail voltage, this will make all measurements ratiometric eliminating the need to correct for the power voltages.  Otherwise we need to provide the I/O bank 3.3 volts that is a ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  The point is it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers and may get us noise and accuracy advantages.
>>>
>>> Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts to solidify my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os available, so I think I'm going to use both approaches and dedicate a bank of I/Os to the ADCs.
>>>
>>
>> if you need to add external parts you might as well add a real adc
> 
> Not all parts are the same.  The ADCs that give more than 12 bits on multiple channels are in the $5 and up range.  I can get comparators for a quarter and CMOS buffers for a dime.  I'm not sure the comparators are needed.  The buffer might help though.
> 

You are  a bit out on price, you can buy an 8 channel part from 
Microchip at about $3 5k off, MCP3464 (16 bit, 8 single ended or 4 
differential channels).
That way you get a fully sorted part with with built in PGA and you 
won't be at the mercy of using unspecified performance of the FPGA.

It would save you endless heartache in approval and 
certification/qualification time - I certainly wouldn't want to get 
involved with the FMEA for the FPGA sigma-delta design.

There may well be cheaper parts than this.

MK

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 9:00:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 23/10/2020 19:07:53, Rick C wrote:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
> >> On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
> >>>=20
> >>> Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx
> >>> tools.  Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an ADC
> >>> chip interface?
> >>=20
> >> On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have actual
> >> ADC's.
> >=20
> > Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said
> > instantiated "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as
> > "instantiating" a clock block with PLL ect.
> >=20
> > I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source project
> > and the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma converters
> > and how to implement them.
> >=20
> > Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would significantly
> > improve accuracy and/or noise to use separate comparator and driver
> > for the analog interface.  The sensors are powered from 5 volts and
> > so produce a 5 volt analog output.  The separate drivers and
> > comparators could be powered from the same supply, separate from any
> > other supply on the board for noise isolation.  Also, as the sensor
> > outputs are proportional to the power rail voltage, this will make
> > all measurements ratiometric eliminating the need to correct for the
> > power voltages.  Otherwise we need to provide the I/O bank 3.3 volts
> > that is a ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  The point
> > is it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers
> > and may get us noise and accuracy advantages.
> >=20
> > Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts to
> > solidify my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os available,
> > so I think I'm going to use both approaches and dedicate a bank of
> > I/Os to the ADCs.
>=20
> Nothing wrong with thinking out loud.
>=20
> Like another poster has suggested, and unless there is a tight budget in=
=20
> terms of space or money, it can be cost effective in terms of design=20
> time (and cost) to simply fit a known ADC to the PCB that has a known=20
> spec and reduce overall risk.

There will be a socket on the board for an ADC chip.  I'm not going to risk=
 a board spin just for this idea.  Risk mitigation.  But at $5 each signifi=
cant money can be saved in production by using an integrated ADC in the FPG=
A. =20

We actually don't need more than 10 bits for anything other than one sensor=
 that will spend most of it's time in the very low end of the range.  If I =
can get 12 useful bits we are probably ok.  Using a single slope converter =
with calibration by measuring a Vref I can probably get better resolution a=
t the low end and still have good results with the simpler circuit. =20

I'm not sure how much "noise" will be a problem.  The absolute accuracy is =
limited by the sensors to a couple percent.  But we need good resolution fo=
r the control loop and for the flow rate which we are integrating into a vo=
lume. =20

Sometimes I talk myself into this being a snap and other times I worry it w=
on't work worth a damn. =20

The delta-sigma circuits can be designed so they can be built to work with =
a mid-scale Vref and then allow for a single slope configuration with a com=
mon slope circuit.  I was planning on using something like the single slope=
 converter with the slower signals anyway.  I should probably design someth=
ing so it can be tested without involving the sensors since it will be hard=
 to manipulate them to get a particular output voltage. =20

Or I can convince the group we should use digital sensors.  Lol!  Not sure =
why we picked analog sensors.  I'm having trouble finding anyone who carrie=
s stock on a board mounted differential pressure sensor other than the one =
we are using.  The gage pressure sensor is available with a digital output =
though.  Only $10.=20

--=20

  Rick C.

  -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com =
wrote:
> fredag den 23. oktober 2020 kl. 20.07.58 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
> > > On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
> > > >
> > > > Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx tools.=
  Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an ADC chip interface?=
 =20
> > >=20
> > > On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have actual ADC's=
.
> >=20
> > Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said instant=
iated "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as "instantiating" a clock =
block with PLL ect. =20
> >=20
> > I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source project an=
d the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma converters and how =
to implement them.=20
> >=20
> > Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would significantly imp=
rove accuracy and/or noise to use separate comparator and driver for the an=
alog interface.  The sensors are powered from 5 volts and so produce a 5 vo=
lt analog output.  The separate drivers and comparators could be powered fr=
om the same supply, separate from any other supply on the board for noise i=
solation.  Also, as the sensor outputs are proportional to the power rail v=
oltage, this will make all measurements ratiometric eliminating the need to=
 correct for the power voltages.  Otherwise we need to provide the I/O bank=
 3.3 volts that is a ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  The =
point is it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers an=
d may get us noise and accuracy advantages. =20
> >=20
> > Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts to solid=
ify my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os available, so I think I=
'm going to use both approaches and dedicate a bank of I/Os to the ADCs. =
=20
> >=20
>=20
> if you need to add external parts you might as well add a real adc

Not all parts are the same.  The ADCs that give more than 12 bits on multip=
le channels are in the $5 and up range.  I can get comparators for a quarte=
r and CMOS buffers for a dime.  I'm not sure the comparators are needed.  T=
he buffer might help though. =20

--=20

  Rick C.

  -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com =
wrote:
> fredag den 23. oktober 2020 kl. 20.28.58 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 1:35:45 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.=
com wrote:
> > > fredag den 23. oktober 2020 kl. 07.10.53 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> > > > On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 7:39:18 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...=
@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tirsdag den 1. september 2020 kl. 00.29.02 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 5:43:54 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...=
@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > mandag den 31. august 2020 kl. 02.57.21 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> > > > > > > > I have looked at ADCs in FPGAs but never built one.  Obviou=
sly sigma delta is a good way to go as it can be done all digitally, or alm=
ost so.  I'm not completely clear on how to do it. =20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Lattice has a reference design using an LVDS receiver as a =
comparator.  They use an RC filter on the output bit as the reference volta=
ge for the input.  I'm having trouble relating this to the typical block di=
agram of the sigma delta converter.  Is this circuit the same thing? =20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > I'd say it is a delta modulator not a delta-sigma modulator
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Sorry, I'm not clear on what distinction you are trying to make=
.  First, what is "it"?=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > the commonly used "RC filter on the output bit used as reference =
voltage" I'd call a delta modulator
> > > > >=20
> > > > > in a delta-sigma input minus output is integrated and the referen=
ce voltage fixed
> > > >=20
> > > > Here is my thinking.  Some people talk about digital noise being th=
e source of noise limitations in this technique.  The I/O bank on FPGAs are=
 separate from the rest of the chip and each other.  We have plenty of spar=
e I/Os so we can dedicate a bank to ADC use.  Then the I/Os for the ADC are=
 not just less noisy, but also it can be provided by it's own supply with l=
ower noise and better accuracy... or more like tracking the 5 volt rail tha=
t powers the sensors. =20
> > > >=20
> > > > I've been mulling the distinction between delta-sigma (or sigma-del=
ta, I can never remember) and the delta modulator.  A simple mod to the ana=
log circuit should make it a delta-sigma. =20
> > > >=20
> > > > Vref -----------------| Vin-
> > > >                       |
> > > > Vin ---RRR---o---o----| Vin+
> > > >              |   |    |
> > > >              R  ---   |
> > > >              R  ---   |
> > > >              R   |    |
> > > >              |   V    |
> > > >              |        |
> > > >              +--------| SD out
> > > >=20
> > > > This should provide the integration and quantization to be sigma-de=
lta, right?=20
> > >=20
> > > yes with the voltage on Vin almost constant it should be an ok approx=
imation,=20
> > > how well it works in practice I don't know
> >=20
> > Not sure what you mean about constant Vin.  Vin is the signal being mea=
sured.
>=20
> I meant Vin+ the comparator input=20
>=20
>=20
> >Of course it needs to be band limited, but a main point of delta-sigma i=
s that band is at the Nyquist rate of the input samples, a much wider band =
than the output band. =20
> >=20
> > I'm also not sure why you refer to this as an approximation.  The resis=
tors are performing the difference of the input and the feedback.  The cap =
is the integrator.  I suppose it's not a perfect integrator.  Is it essenti=
ally equivalent to the other input circuit with the signal input as Vref an=
d an RC from the feedback output to the differential input?  Our decimation=
 factor will be on the order of 32kibi. =20
>=20
>=20
> an ideal integrator would charge the cap with a current proportional to t=
he Vin
> for that to happen Vin+ would need to be constant, it isn't quite

But that is a minor issue, second order at least since the action of the fe=
edback will keep Vin+ very close to Vref.  The Vin signal has no more weigh=
t than the feedback output so worst case if the input pegs at some point th=
e feedback output will also peg and Vcap remains the same. =20

I see Lattice actually shows both input arrangements in their design note o=
nly saying the one above uses an extra resistor and I guess the Vref.  They=
 do mention that using Vref sets the point of operation.  I don't think the=
 differential inputs on the FPGAs are intended to range up and down the vol=
tage scale so fixing it is useful.  I suppose some scaling error can be rem=
oved by setting Vref with a 50/50 duty cycle output onto a similar RC.  We =
will have several ADC, so Vref can be shared between them. =20

For a while I was thinking a single slope ADC could be used.  Then Vref wou=
ld need to be either a linear ramp or if an RC is used a log compensation w=
ould be needed once digitized.  This can give 15 bits of resolution at 1 kS=
PS, but by ramping from Vcc to ground more resolution can be obtained at th=
e low end which is useful for some of the inputs.  Don't know about ENOB th=
ough.  It would factor in Vcc so be a ratiometric measurement which is what=
 we need.  It's much simpler than the delta-sigma approach for sure.  We ha=
ve to do calculations on the measurements including a zero offset so adding=
 a scale factor to compensate for the RC inaccuracy is not a big deal (meas=
uring a Vref periodically).  One of the measurements requires a divide to a=
ccount for absolute pressure, so once we have a divide it can be used for a=
ny of the calcs.  I guess this would require good temperature compensation =
in the RC.  Either in the circuitry or in the calculations.  We'll have a t=
emperature measurement on the board.=20

--=20

  Rick C.

  --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 23/10/2020 19:07:53, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
>> On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
>>> 
>>> Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx
>>> tools.  Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an ADC
>>> chip interface?
>> 
>> On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have actual
>> ADC's.
> 
> Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said
> instantiated "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as
> "instantiating" a clock block with PLL ect.
> 
> I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source project
> and the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma converters
> and how to implement them.
> 
> Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would significantly
> improve accuracy and/or noise to use separate comparator and driver
> for the analog interface.  The sensors are powered from 5 volts and
> so produce a 5 volt analog output.  The separate drivers and
> comparators could be powered from the same supply, separate from any
> other supply on the board for noise isolation.  Also, as the sensor
> outputs are proportional to the power rail voltage, this will make
> all measurements ratiometric eliminating the need to correct for the
> power voltages.  Otherwise we need to provide the I/O bank 3.3 volts
> that is a ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  The point
> is it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers
> and may get us noise and accuracy advantages.
> 
> Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts to
> solidify my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os available,
> so I think I'm going to use both approaches and dedicate a bank of
> I/Os to the ADCs.

Nothing wrong with thinking out loud.

Like another poster has suggested, and unless there is a tight budget in 
terms of space or money, it can be cost effective in terms of design 
time (and cost) to simply fit a known ADC to the PCB that has a known 
spec and reduce overall risk.

-- 
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

fredag den 23. oktober 2020 kl. 20.07.58 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:
> > On 2020-10-23 Rick C wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
> > >
> > > Someone said they had used an instantiated ADC in the Xilinx tools.  =
Anyone know if that is actually an ADC or if it is an ADC chip interface? =
=20
> >=20
> > On what Xilinx device? At least the Zynq devices do have actual ADC's.
>=20
> Don't know yet.  I'm asking questions, but he specifically said instantia=
ted "IP" but I suppose that might be the same as "instantiating" a clock bl=
ock with PLL ect. =20
>=20
> I'm essentially interviewing him to work on this open source project and =
the real issue is how much he knows about delta-sigma converters and how to=
 implement them.=20
>=20
> Right now I'd like to get an idea of whether it would significantly impro=
ve accuracy and/or noise to use separate comparator and driver for the anal=
og interface.  The sensors are powered from 5 volts and so produce a 5 volt=
 analog output.  The separate drivers and comparators could be powered from=
 the same supply, separate from any other supply on the board for noise iso=
lation.  Also, as the sensor outputs are proportional to the power rail vol=
tage, this will make all measurements ratiometric eliminating the need to c=
orrect for the power voltages.  Otherwise we need to provide the I/O bank 3=
.3 volts that is a ratioed to the 5 volt rail. I guess no big deal.  The po=
int is it's not that much more to use separate comparators and drivers and =
may get us noise and accuracy advantages. =20
>=20
> Sorry if this sounds irrelevant.  I often uses newsgroup posts to solidif=
y my thinking.  In this case we have tons of I/Os available, so I think I'm=
 going to use both approaches and dedicate a bank of I/Os to the ADCs. =20
>=20

if you need to add external parts you might as well add a real adc