is this a good idea

Hi

I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
later on?

Thanks.

"Paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:3ba4d769.0401040319.40ffdbcd@posting.google.com...
> Hi
>
> I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
> FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
> same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
> later on?
>
> Thanks.

Its the worst idea I have seen on this newsgroup to assume the state of
registers at power up in an ASIC.
BAD BAD BAD, 300 lashes with a broken O'scope lead for the assumption.
Watch your simulator. It should have unknown in registers that were not
initialized.
Some registers initial state is a don't care, some are very critical, it all
depends on your design.

Jer

paulw@mmail.ath.cx (Paul) wrote in message news:<3ba4d769.0401040319.40ffdbcd@posting.google.com>...
> Hi
> 
> I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
> FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
> same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
> later on?
> 
> Thanks.

This is a very bad idea. Bad/no design for exiting reset state will
cause your ASIC/FPGA to be unreliable - sometimes it will start
working, sometimes not.

In addition, most simulators HATE it - they will start with everything
in "unknown" state. Reset-recovery problems are very hard to simulate
(same category as meta-stability problems - not really deterministic),
so that the design appears to be OK in simulation.

Best practice:
* EVERY flip-flop should be explicitly reset (including FFs in I/O
pads).

* Resets are global nets, treated exactly like clocks. Most FPGAs
allow using dedicated clock nets for reset - recommended.

* Each clock-domain should have its own reset. The trailing edge of
the reset signal should be synchronous to the clock and shouldn't
violate reset-recovery timing for any FF. (use a synchronizer for
reset - the probability of two FFs stuck in meta-stable state is much
lower than one or two of a set including tens of thousands FFs in the
clock-domain).

* Just to make your design clear, use the same signal-name everywhere
for every reset net (also good practice for clock nets).

"Jerry" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<vvhf7ii29ntnbf@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:3ba4d769.0401040319.40ffdbcd@posting.google.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
> > FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
> > same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
> > later on?
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> Its the worst idea I have seen on this newsgroup to assume the state of
> registers at power up in an ASIC.
> BAD BAD BAD, 300 lashes with a broken O'scope lead for the assumption.
> Watch your simulator. It should have unknown in registers that were not
> initialized.
> Some registers initial state is a don't care, some are very critical, it all
> depends on your design.
> 
> Jer


Can't I just tell the foundry that I need the regs to be zeroes at powered on?
Anyone done this before?

On 5 Jan 2004 01:01:03 -0800, paulw@mmail.ath.cx (Paul) wrote:

>"Jerry" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<vvhf7ii29ntnbf@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx> wrote in message
>> news:3ba4d769.0401040319.40ffdbcd@posting.google.com...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
>> > FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
>> > same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
>> > later on?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> 
>> Its the worst idea I have seen on this newsgroup to assume the state of
>> registers at power up in an ASIC.
>> BAD BAD BAD, 300 lashes with a broken O'scope lead for the assumption.
>> Watch your simulator. It should have unknown in registers that were not
>> initialized.
>> Some registers initial state is a don't care, some are very critical, it all
>> depends on your design.
>> 
>> Jer
>
>
>Can't I just tell the foundry that I need the regs to be zeroes at powered on?
>Anyone done this before?

No, reset is a functionality which needs to be designed in. There are
several reasons for this. One is that some methodologies require that
there be no asynchronous resets and and initialization be
synchronously loaded. But this requires a clock to work. Also async
reset flops are usually larger and slower than non-reset flops so it's
a plus if you don't need them. Also it doesn't depend on the foundry
but the cell library you use.

The best solution is to use asynchronous resets with external reset
being synchronized with two flops per each clock domain where the
reset signal is needed. This way you can time the reset recovery
constraint and there are NO metastability issues to be dealt with and
two flops are all that's needed. The two flops used in reset
synchronization are similar but not the same two flops which are used
in cross clock domain transfers.

Hope this helps,

Muzaffer Kal

http://www.dspia.com
ASIC/FPGA design/verification consulting specializing in DSP algorithm implementations

"Paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:3ba4d769.0401050101.5f503a45@posting.google.com...
> "Jerry" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:<vvhf7ii29ntnbf@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx> wrote in message
> > news:3ba4d769.0401040319.40ffdbcd@posting.google.com...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
> > > FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
> > > same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
> > > later on?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > Its the worst idea I have seen on this newsgroup to assume the state of
> > registers at power up in an ASIC.
> > BAD BAD BAD, 300 lashes with a broken O'scope lead for the assumption.
> > Watch your simulator. It should have unknown in registers that were not
> > initialized.
> > Some registers initial state is a don't care, some are very critical, it
all
> > depends on your design.
> >
> > Jer
>
>
> Can't I just tell the foundry that I need the regs to be zeroes at powered
on?
> Anyone done this before?

The foundary would have to use a special register primitive that is
supported by a power-on-reset mechanism added to your circuitry.  The ASIC
house would need a different netlist.  Do you want them doing some of your
design?

Also - MAJOR caveat:  the Xilinx devices do NOT always power up registers to
zero.  If the register is implemented with an FDS or FDSE primitive
(synchronous sets) the register powers up to a logic one.

As far as dedicated reset nets, Xilinx has warned many times in the past not
to rely on the dedicated net because the skew across the device - in older
devices, at least - could be large compared to the clock cycle.  The
suggestion in another post to synchronize your reset to each clock domain is
superb; releasing reset is usually an asynchronous event that can send only
some of your circuit out of reset on the first clock cycle.

I plan to use the BUFGMUX primitives to bring my FPGA with well-defined
power-on states into operation by enabling the clock to all elements at the
same time rather than rely on an asynchronous power-on reset OR explicit
snchonized resets to each and every friggin register, using significant
routing resources and some logic resources (by eliminating the synchronous
set/reset from my synthesizer's bag of tricks).  I would never parlay this
FPGA specific method to an ASIC.

The global reset nets in FPGAs are generally too slow to use in systems that are using the clock rate
capability of the FPGA.  In those cases, you need to assume the reset is asynchronous to your clock
anyway because the propagation time on the net can exceed the clock cycle making its release
indeterminate relative to the clock, and possibly on different clock cycles in different places on the
design.  All that really needs to be reset is critical circuits on the FPGA.   For the most part, this
means you just need something to force any feedback loops to a known state so that after some known
number of cycles with reset asserted, you know the state of all the registers in the design without
having to do an explicit reset on more than a small portion of the design.  FPGAs do come out of
configuration in a known state, however you should hold the reset on critical items like state machines
for a clock or two to make sure everything starts cleanly.  Sometimes, even that is unnecessary other
than for simulation purposes if you have a state machine with no illegal states, for example a counter
that only needs to produce an output at some interval for which you do not care about the phasing.

Assaf Sarfati wrote:

> paulw@mmail.ath.cx (Paul) wrote in message news:<3ba4d769.0401040319.40ffdbcd@posting.google.com>...
> > Hi
> >
> > I know that the "reg"'s are all zeroes when powered on (on Xilinx
> > FPGAs). Is this a good idea (assumption) to work on? Can I assume the
> > same for ASIC development? that is I don't have to change my codes
> > later on?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> This is a very bad idea. Bad/no design for exiting reset state will
> cause your ASIC/FPGA to be unreliable - sometimes it will start
> working, sometimes not.
>
> In addition, most simulators HATE it - they will start with everything
> in "unknown" state. Reset-recovery problems are very hard to simulate
> (same category as meta-stability problems - not really deterministic),
> so that the design appears to be OK in simulation.
>
> Best practice:
> * EVERY flip-flop should be explicitly reset (including FFs in I/O
> pads).
>
> * Resets are global nets, treated exactly like clocks. Most FPGAs
> allow using dedicated clock nets for reset - recommended.
>
> * Each clock-domain should have its own reset. The trailing edge of
> the reset signal should be synchronous to the clock and shouldn't
> violate reset-recovery timing for any FF. (use a synchronizer for
> reset - the probability of two FFs stuck in meta-stable state is much
> lower than one or two of a set including tens of thousands FFs in the
> clock-domain).
>
> * Just to make your design clear, use the same signal-name everywhere
> for every reset net (also good practice for clock nets).

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Jerry" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<vvhf7ii29ntnbf@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx> wrote in message

> Watch your simulator. It should have unknown in registers that were not
> initialized.

No, at least for VHDL it should not.
For STD_LOGIC types it should have "uninitialized"=U if no initial
value was given. This is different from "unknown"=X.
As all xilinx flip-flops have an initial value, the VHDL code should
explicitly initialize the registers to '0'. (Or '1', if you use a
register with preset or initialize it to 1 in the UCF file)

For an asic design the registers should be initialized explicitly to
'X'.

That way your simulation should match the behavour of the FPGA/ASIC.

BTW:
As a CAD developer I do not really understand, why I have to set the
power up value in the UCF file when the VHDL line

signal register : std_logic := '1';

tells the synthesis tool all that it needs to know.

Kolja Sulimma