XPS MPMC

Hi all ,

I have been stumped by xilinx tools again ! I have just baught a
Evaluation board , whos supporting software , base system etc where
writen using EDK 8.1 using older IP cores. Now I am using EDK 9.2i and
all the IP cores in the catalogue are new and not compatable with the
microblaze version on the older base system that came with the eval
board. Is there an easy way to reuse this older base system without
rebuilding a new base system from scratch?

I tried to preempt the problem by downloading the lates base system
file from avnet , but this doesnt give an option for interfacing the
Micron DDR SDRAM (MT46V16M16FG-75)! I am currently trying to use the
XPS MPMC from the IP catalogue , which apparently support interfacing
with the exact SDRAM , but when I configure it , it takes away all
the  IO lines for DDR!

is it a tools bug or am I doing something wrong that causes this?

has any one seen such things?

Thanks

Rate

Rate,

Yes, all the tools need to have the same release.

Perhaps in the future we can create separate modules and have them be
backward compatible, but for right now, the effort is better spent on
having the entire release as bug free as possible, supporting all of the
features.

Typically in a commercial setting, the version of the software is
"frozen" and placed under engineering change control at the start of a
project.  That way, there is no wasted time as the project moves
forward, as all the tools are "approved" and verified.

Austin

On Jan 4, 3:18 pm, austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Rate,
>
> Yes, all the tools need to have the same release.
>
> Perhaps in the future we can create separate modules and have them be
> backward compatible, but for right now, the effort is better spent on
> having the entire release as bug free as possible, supporting all of the
> features.
>
> Typically in a commercial setting, the version of the software is
> "frozen" and placed under engineering change control at the start of a
> project.  That way, there is no wasted time as the project moves
> forward, as all the tools are "approved" and verified.
>
> Austin

True , but in our case there is lagacy code import issues. The
application should have backwards compatability.

rate

Rate,

"should" would be nice, yes.

No question there.

But, we do state that we must have all elements of the software toolset
at the same revision level (ISE rev must = EDK rev, etc.).

Sorry,

Austin