Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:06:03 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > >> "nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >> >>>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500 >>>>"nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >On 09/24/2012 08:09 AM, nba83 wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> I want to feed data in parallel (8bit) to CPLD, buffer it for >>>>> >> about >>>100 >>>>> >> bytes, and then start to drive SPI Out. I am some how concerned >>>about >>>>> the >>>>> >> speed grade of the CPLD I intend to use(XC95144XL-TQG144-10C), it >>>>> >> is -10C(means 10nsec delay for IO routs), does this delay impose >>>>> >> any >>>>> problem? >>>>> >> Since I want to drive the CPLD with 100MHZ oscillator clk input, >>>>> >> and >>>by >>>>> >>>>> >>>>You've written behavioral VHDL that describes a dual-port block RAM. >>>>That's lovely and all, but have you checked the CPLD datasheet and >>>>confirmed that there is a block RAM resource on the chip that will do >>>>that? You could also write VHDL describing a unicorn, but you'd be >>>>hard pressed to make it pass synthesis. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com Email >>>>address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix. >>>> >>>> >>>I am some how obliged to use XC95144(since I have plenty of them >>>purchased before), and as it was mentioned here, I omitted RAM Module >>>from my design and instead I would like to add a SRAM or SDRAM chip,(and >>>since SDRAM is much cheaper than SRAM I'm apt to SDRAM), and here it >>>posed another question and that is if this CPLD is capable of driving a >>>SDRAM (regarding dynamic memory timing constraints)? >> >> I'd go for SRAM. I have used the XC95144 for replacing CRT / STN >> displays with TFT. The key is to calculate the required bandwidth. In my >> most recent project I used a 16 bit SRAM. >> >> Still, given your project requirements you probably could get by with a >> small FIFO (maybe 4 bytes deep). You need to get enough data from the >> microcontroller. OTOH it sounds like a lot of fuss to keep the >> microcontroller. If you switch to an ARM device (NXP for instance) you >> can reach >30MHz SPI easely and use DMA. > >He's using an STM32F107 which _is_ an ARM Cortex, and he's claiming to >need more than 35MHz.I guess ST is still making mediocre controllers. After an adventure with the STR700 series I switched to NXP and never looked back at ST. Appearantly a good choice :-) -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
Xilinx CPLD XC95144 for Driving Sigma Delta DAC
Started by ●September 23, 2012
Reply by ●September 27, 20122012-09-27
Reply by ●September 27, 20122012-09-27
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:54:08 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:06:03 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: >> >>> "nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >>> >>>>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500 >>>>>"nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >On 09/24/2012 08:09 AM, nba83 wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> I want to feed data in parallel (8bit) to CPLD, buffer it for >>>>>> >> about >>>>100 >>>>>> >> bytes, and then start to drive SPI Out. I am some how concerned >>>>about >>>>>> the >>>>>> >> speed grade of the CPLD I intend to use(XC95144XL-TQG144-10C), >>>>>> >> it is -10C(means 10nsec delay for IO routs), does this delay >>>>>> >> impose any >>>>>> problem? >>>>>> >> Since I want to drive the CPLD with 100MHZ oscillator clk input, >>>>>> >> and >>>>by >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>You've written behavioral VHDL that describes a dual-port block RAM. >>>>>That's lovely and all, but have you checked the CPLD datasheet and >>>>>confirmed that there is a block RAM resource on the chip that will do >>>>>that? You could also write VHDL describing a unicorn, but you'd be >>>>>hard pressed to make it pass synthesis. >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com Email >>>>>address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I am some how obliged to use XC95144(since I have plenty of them >>>>purchased before), and as it was mentioned here, I omitted RAM Module >>>>from my design and instead I would like to add a SRAM or SDRAM >>>>chip,(and since SDRAM is much cheaper than SRAM I'm apt to SDRAM), and >>>>here it posed another question and that is if this CPLD is capable of >>>>driving a SDRAM (regarding dynamic memory timing constraints)? >>> >>> I'd go for SRAM. I have used the XC95144 for replacing CRT / STN >>> displays with TFT. The key is to calculate the required bandwidth. In >>> my most recent project I used a 16 bit SRAM. >>> >>> Still, given your project requirements you probably could get by with >>> a small FIFO (maybe 4 bytes deep). You need to get enough data from >>> the microcontroller. OTOH it sounds like a lot of fuss to keep the >>> microcontroller. If you switch to an ARM device (NXP for instance) you >>> can reach >30MHz SPI easely and use DMA. >> >>He's using an STM32F107 which _is_ an ARM Cortex, and he's claiming to >>need more than 35MHz. > > I guess ST is still making mediocre controllers. After an adventure with > the STR700 series I switched to NXP and never looked back at ST. > Appearantly a good choice :-)35MHz clock at the peripheral -- the ST chip he's looking at is rated for 70 or 72MHz or some such. -- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●September 27, 20122012-09-27
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:>On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:54:08 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > >> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:06:03 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: >>> >>>> "nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500 >>>>>>"nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >On 09/24/2012 08:09 AM, nba83 wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> I want to feed data in parallel (8bit) to CPLD, buffer it for >>>>>>> >> about >>>>>100 >>>>>>> >> bytes, and then start to drive SPI Out. I am some how concerned >>>>>about >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>> Still, given your project requirements you probably could get by with >>>> a small FIFO (maybe 4 bytes deep). You need to get enough data from >>>> the microcontroller. OTOH it sounds like a lot of fuss to keep the >>>> microcontroller. If you switch to an ARM device (NXP for instance) you >>>> can reach >30MHz SPI easely and use DMA. >>> >>>He's using an STM32F107 which _is_ an ARM Cortex, and he's claiming to >>>need more than 35MHz. >> >> I guess ST is still making mediocre controllers. After an adventure with >> the STR700 series I switched to NXP and never looked back at ST. >> Appearantly a good choice :-) > >35MHz clock at the peripheral -- the ST chip he's looking at is rated for >70 or 72MHz or some such.AFAIK most ST devices can't run from flash at their rated clock speeds. NXP's can and some go up to 120MHz (180MHz is on its way)! -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●September 28, 20122012-09-28
On Sep 28, 2:54=A0am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:> Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:54:08 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > > >> Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > >>>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:06:03 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > > >>>> "nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500 > >>>>>>"nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: > > >>>>>>> >On 09/24/2012 08:09 AM, nba83 wrote: > > >>>>>>> >> I want to feed data in parallel (8bit) to CPLD, buffer it for > >>>>>>> >> about > >>>>>100 > >>>>>>> >> bytes, and then start to drive SPI Out. I am some how concerne=d> >>>>>about > >>>>>>> the > > >>>> Still, given your project requirements you probably could get by wit=h> >>>> a small FIFO (maybe 4 bytes deep). You need to get enough data from > >>>> the microcontroller. OTOH it sounds like a lot of fuss to keep the > >>>> microcontroller. If you switch to an ARM device (NXP for instance) y=ou> >>>> can reach >30MHz SPI easely and use DMA. > > >>>He's using an STM32F107 which _is_ an ARM Cortex, and he's claiming to > >>>need more than 35MHz. > > >> I guess ST is still making mediocre controllers. After an adventure wi=th> >> the STR700 series I switched to NXP and never looked back at ST. > >> Appearantly a good choice :-) > > >35MHz clock at the peripheral -- the ST chip he's looking at is rated fo=r> >70 or 72MHz or some such. > > AFAIK most ST devices can't run from flash at their rated clock > speeds. NXP's can and some go up to 120MHz (180MHz is on its way)! >STM32F4 has a flash accelerator similar to NXP and run at full speed 168MHz the stm32f107 looks to have 2x I2S that can run at pclk/2 the ad1933 can run dual line so I think it should be possible -Lasse
Reply by ●September 28, 20122012-09-28
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:54:34 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:54:08 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: >> >>> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:06:03 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: >>>> >>>>> "nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500 "nba83" <3224@embeddedrelated> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >On 09/24/2012 08:09 AM, nba83 wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> I want to feed data in parallel (8bit) to CPLD, buffer it for >>>>>>>> >> about >>>>>>100 >>>>>>>> >> bytes, and then start to drive SPI Out. I am some how >>>>>>>> >> concerned >>>>>>about >>>>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> Still, given your project requirements you probably could get by >>>>> with a small FIFO (maybe 4 bytes deep). You need to get enough data >>>>> from the microcontroller. OTOH it sounds like a lot of fuss to keep >>>>> the microcontroller. If you switch to an ARM device (NXP for >>>>> instance) you can reach >30MHz SPI easely and use DMA. >>>> >>>>He's using an STM32F107 which _is_ an ARM Cortex, and he's claiming to >>>>need more than 35MHz. >>> >>> I guess ST is still making mediocre controllers. After an adventure >>> with the STR700 series I switched to NXP and never looked back at ST. >>> Appearantly a good choice :-) >> >>35MHz clock at the peripheral -- the ST chip he's looking at is rated >>for 70 or 72MHz or some such. > > AFAIK most ST devices can't run from flash at their rated clock speeds. > NXP's can and some go up to 120MHz (180MHz is on its way)!Yes, good point. And part of my point to the OP is that once he solves his ADC throughput problem, is he going to be able to generate the data? Depending on his application, a teeny bit of code running out of RAM in the '107 may be enough. Or, the app may self-destruct on a ton of code running at 120MHz on your NXP. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
