This is likely not a big deal to most, but it hurts me a lot. I have one product in production and it uses an XP device. They are only giving until November to get your last time buy orders in. I think Lattice is doing a disservice to themselves as well as the rest of us. I am very accustomed to extended longevity in FPGAs. This act on the part of Lattice puts them in a separate camp I think. I have been looking at the alternatives. The three distinguishing issues are package, capacity and the need for external configuration memory. The XP I was using is in a 100 pin QFP which is perfect for the board, easy to assemble and works with 6/6 design rules and 12 mil hole diameter. It has 3000 LUTs which are around 80% used and the internal configuration Flash saves space on the tiny, cramped board. Mostly the alternatives are other Lattice devices, but none are a perfect fit. XP2, XO2 and the iCE40 line. The ones that come in the same package don't have as many LUTs, only 2100 which would require using a soft CPU to implement the slow functions in fewer LUTs. The larger parts are in harder to use packages like 0.5 mm BGAs which need very fine pitch design rules and small drills. The Xilinx parts are interesting. Spartan 3 devices come in 100 QFPs and have enough of the "right stuff" inside including multipliers which I can use. But that external flash needs a spot on the board and I have to use a 1.2 volt regulator for the core. The XP parts use an internal regulator and run from 3.3 volts only. Xilinx has a rep for keeping parts in production for a long, long time, but the S3 line came out in 2005, same as the XP line. Spartan 6 parts give a *lot* more functionality, but I'd have to use a 256 pin 1.0 mm BGA *and* external flash *and* the 1.2 volt supply *and* they are twice the price. Maybe I'll talk to the disties. Maybe they can do something about the price at least. I have yet to check out the Altera line. I don't remember them having anything I liked in a nice package. But that will be something to do later today. I guess I should check out the Micro-Semi line as well. It's been a while since I looked hard at their parts and, oh yeah, there is the PSOC from Cypress. I don't think that was an option at the time I did this design. An interesting note is that the Spartan 3 parts came out the same year as the XP line. Xilinx still sells multiple generations of parts older than the Spartan 3, so I think it will be a while before they can get around to obsoleting that line. -- Rick
Lattice Announces EOL for XP and EC/P Product Lines
Started by ●July 30, 2013
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:37:21 -0400 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:> > An interesting note is that the Spartan 3 parts came out the same year > as the XP line. Xilinx still sells multiple generations of parts older > than the Spartan 3, so I think it will be a while before they can get > around to obsoleting that line.Actually just had this conversation with my Xilinx people. They're not recommending Spartan 3 for new designs, and are talking (speculatively) about obsoleting it in 2018. -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com Email address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix.
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
Rob Gaddi wrote:> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:37:21 -0400 > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> An interesting note is that the Spartan 3 parts came out the same year >> as the XP line. Xilinx still sells multiple generations of parts older >> than the Spartan 3, so I think it will be a while before they can get >> around to obsoleting that line. > > Actually just had this conversation with my Xilinx people. They're not > recommending Spartan 3 for new designs, and are talking > (speculatively) about obsoleting it in 2018. >And yet, Xilinx recently updated the Spartan 3 data sheet to remove the "not recommended for new designs" banner and indicated that they in fact *are* recommended for new designs. Still all of these manufacturers are at the mercy of their foundries and have to pull the plug on devices that can no longer be manufactured due to the process going away at UMC, TSMC, ... At this point it's hard to say whether the FPGA manufacturer's previous track record on supporting old devices is any indication of future performance. Another point on Xilinx parts in small packages - I seem to remember that Lattice gave you more usable IO in the same package / pin count than Xilinx. So the fact that you could get a Spartan 3 in a TQ100 doesn't necessarily mean it will have enough IO to replace the Lattice XP device. The other obvious options are: 1) Try to estimate your future usage of this part and schedule that LTB. 2) Stick you head in the sand and deal with the grey market for parts until you can't get any more, then redesign. (This seems to be the approved method here) -- Gabor
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:03:54 -0400 GaborSzakacs <gabor@alacron.com> wrote:> Rob Gaddi wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:37:21 -0400 > > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> An interesting note is that the Spartan 3 parts came out the same year > >> as the XP line. Xilinx still sells multiple generations of parts older > >> than the Spartan 3, so I think it will be a while before they can get > >> around to obsoleting that line. > > > > Actually just had this conversation with my Xilinx people. They're not > > recommending Spartan 3 for new designs, and are talking > > (speculatively) about obsoleting it in 2018. > > > And yet, Xilinx recently updated the Spartan 3 data sheet to remove > the "not recommended for new designs" banner and indicated that they > in fact *are* recommended for new designs. > > Still all of these manufacturers are at the mercy of their foundries > and have to pull the plug on devices that can no longer be manufactured > due to the process going away at UMC, TSMC, ... > > At this point it's hard to say whether the FPGA manufacturer's previous > track record on supporting old devices is any indication of future > performance. > > Another point on Xilinx parts in small packages - I seem to remember > that Lattice gave you more usable IO in the same package / pin count > than Xilinx. So the fact that you could get a Spartan 3 in a TQ100 > doesn't necessarily mean it will have enough IO to replace the Lattice > XP device. > > The other obvious options are: > > 1) Try to estimate your future usage of this part and schedule that LTB. > > 2) Stick you head in the sand and deal with the grey market for parts > until you can't get any more, then redesign. (This seems to be the > approved method here) > > -- > GaborThe thing I'm finding really concerning with Xilinx at the moment is that they've got this big investment in yet another entirely new toolchain (Vivado), and they're saying it's the way of the future. And it doesn't even support Spartan 6, let alone anything older. I switched years ago from X to A when my continuing problems with ISE finally became too much to deal with. I applauded the decision to scrap ISE's dodgy old codebase and take a new crack at it. But if the software they're pushing going forward doesn't support a given chip, then I can't possibly consider that chip to be going forward with them. -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com Email address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix.
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:37:21 PM UTC+3, rickman wrote:> This is likely not a big deal to most, but it hurts me a lot. I have > > one product in production and it uses an XP device. They are only > > giving until November to get your last time buy orders in. I think > > Lattice is doing a disservice to themselves as well as the rest of us. > > I am very accustomed to extended longevity in FPGAs. This act on the > > part of Lattice puts them in a separate camp I think. > > > > I have been looking at the alternatives. The three distinguishing > > issues are package, capacity and the need for external configuration > > memory. The XP I was using is in a 100 pin QFP which is perfect for the > > board, easy to assemble and works with 6/6 design rules and 12 mil hole > > diameter. It has 3000 LUTs which are around 80% used and the internal > > configuration Flash saves space on the tiny, cramped board. > > > > Mostly the alternatives are other Lattice devices, but none are a > > perfect fit. XP2, XO2 and the iCE40 line. The ones that come in the > > same package don't have as many LUTs, only 2100 which would require > > using a soft CPU to implement the slow functions in fewer LUTs. The > > larger parts are in harder to use packages like 0.5 mm BGAs which need > > very fine pitch design rules and small drills. > > > > The Xilinx parts are interesting. Spartan 3 devices come in 100 QFPs > > and have enough of the "right stuff" inside including multipliers which > > I can use. But that external flash needs a spot on the board and I have > > to use a 1.2 volt regulator for the core. The XP parts use an internal > > regulator and run from 3.3 volts only. Xilinx has a rep for keeping > > parts in production for a long, long time, but the S3 line came out in > > 2005, same as the XP line. Spartan 6 parts give a *lot* more > > functionality, but I'd have to use a 256 pin 1.0 mm BGA *and* external > > flash *and* the 1.2 volt supply *and* they are twice the price. Maybe > > I'll talk to the disties. Maybe they can do something about the price > > at least. > > > > I have yet to check out the Altera line. I don't remember them having > anything I liked in a nice package.If "nice" = 100 pin QFP, then yes, except for ancient Cyclone-I, Altera does not have anything nice. But if 144 pin QFP is also o.k. then there are relatively modern Cyclone III devices. Voltage and the rest is more or less the same as Xilinx. MAX2/MAX5 are not for you - too few LUTs.> But that will be something to do > > later today. I guess I should check out the Micro-Semi line as well. > > It's been a while since I looked hard at their parts and, oh yeah, there > > is the PSOC from Cypress. I don't think that was an option at the time > > I did this design. > > > > An interesting note is that the Spartan 3 parts came out the same year > > as the XP line. Xilinx still sells multiple generations of parts older > > than the Spartan 3, so I think it will be a while before they can get > > around to obsoleting that line. > > > > -- > > > > Rick
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
rickman wrote:> The Xilinx parts are interesting. Spartan 3 devices come in 100 QFPs > and have enough of the "right stuff" inside including multipliers which > I can use. But that external flash needs a spot on the board and I have > to use a 1.2 volt regulator for the core. The XP parts use an internal > regulator and run from 3.3 volts only. Xilinx has a rep for keeping > parts in production for a long, long time, but the S3 line came out in > 2005, same as the XP line. Spartan 6 parts give a *lot* more > functionality, but I'd have to use a 256 pin 1.0 mm BGA *and* external > flash *and* the 1.2 volt supply *and* they are twice the price. Maybe > I'll talk to the disties. Maybe they can do something about the price > at least. >Spartan 3AN has internal flash. I don't recall if there is a 100-pin version, I am using the 144-pin version in a couple products. I refuse to go to BGAs until there are no leaded parts remaining available. Jon
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
Jon Elson wrote:> rickman wrote: > > >> The Xilinx parts are interesting. Spartan 3 devices come in 100 QFPs >> and have enough of the "right stuff" inside including multipliers which >> I can use. But that external flash needs a spot on the board and I have >> to use a 1.2 volt regulator for the core. The XP parts use an internal >> regulator and run from 3.3 volts only. Xilinx has a rep for keeping >> parts in production for a long, long time, but the S3 line came out in >> 2005, same as the XP line. Spartan 6 parts give a *lot* more >> functionality, but I'd have to use a 256 pin 1.0 mm BGA *and* external >> flash *and* the 1.2 volt supply *and* they are twice the price. Maybe >> I'll talk to the disties. Maybe they can do something about the price >> at least. >> > Spartan 3AN has internal flash. I don't recall if there is a 100-pin > version, I am using the 144-pin version in a couple products. > I refuse to go to BGAs until there are no leaded parts remaining > available. > > JonI'm pretty sure that the 144-pin package is the smallest with flash. In any case it's not a big win over an external SPI flash part. The difference in footprint between 100 TQFP and 144 TQFP is more than the flash footprint. Not to mention there's a price premium for that multi-die package. -- Gabor
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:> If "nice" = 100 pin QFP, then yes, except for ancient Cyclone-I, Altera > does not have anything nice. > > But if 144 pin QFP is also o.k. then there are relatively modern Cyclone > III devices. Voltage and the rest is more or less the same as Xilinx.There's some Cyclone IVs in 144ish QFP too. Theo
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
GaborSzakacs wrote:> I'm pretty sure that the 144-pin package is the smallest with flash. > In any case it's not a big win over an external SPI flash part. The > difference in footprint between 100 TQFP and 144 TQFP is more than > the flash footprint. Not to mention there's a price premium for that > multi-die package. >Right, unless I have a pretty strong reason to use the 3AN, I use the Spartan 3, and the SST flash chips, which are insanely cheap. I wrote my own programmer code for those. Spartan 2E needed some interface fooling around to command the memory to start dumping at location zero, but the 3A knows how to do it by setting some config pins. Jon
Reply by ●July 30, 20132013-07-30
On 7/30/2013 3:03 PM, GaborSzakacs wrote:> Rob Gaddi wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:37:21 -0400 >> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> An interesting note is that the Spartan 3 parts came out the same >>> year as the XP line. Xilinx still sells multiple generations of parts >>> older than the Spartan 3, so I think it will be a while before they >>> can get around to obsoleting that line. >> >> Actually just had this conversation with my Xilinx people. They're not >> recommending Spartan 3 for new designs, and are talking >> (speculatively) about obsoleting it in 2018. >> > And yet, Xilinx recently updated the Spartan 3 data sheet to remove > the "not recommended for new designs" banner and indicated that they > in fact *are* recommended for new designs. > > Still all of these manufacturers are at the mercy of their foundries > and have to pull the plug on devices that can no longer be manufactured > due to the process going away at UMC, TSMC, ... > > At this point it's hard to say whether the FPGA manufacturer's previous > track record on supporting old devices is any indication of future > performance.Before making any decisions I will do my due diligence as well as have any decision approved by my customer. They will be designing my board into their new product, so they are free to make the decision for me. Actually, 2018 might work for me if not for my customer. I expect I'll be fully retired in 5 more years.> Another point on Xilinx parts in small packages - I seem to remember > that Lattice gave you more usable IO in the same package / pin count > than Xilinx. So the fact that you could get a Spartan 3 in a TQ100 > doesn't necessarily mean it will have enough IO to replace the Lattice > XP device.In this case the count is higher in the Spartan 3 part and is a *lot* higher in nearly any other part since most won't be in the same package.> The other obvious options are: > > 1) Try to estimate your future usage of this part and schedule that LTB.Not mine to estimate. I tried buying just 10 boards ahead and ended up with 10 rev 1.1 boards after we did the 2.0 design. The demand is *very* lumpy as my customer puts it. We got orders this year for more units than we have sold in the last five...> 2) Stick you head in the sand and deal with the grey market for parts > until you can't get any more, then redesign. (This seems to be the > approved method here)No, this is too important to me any my customer. We will work it out one way or the other. Thanks for your comments. -- Rick
