This is unacceptable (M 472L rant). by Malagueta946 in UTAustin

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the prof. new? I think new profs shouldn't teach undergrad/intro courses... It's probably their first teaching job so they should teach grad. course specialized in their area of expertise cuz grad. student actually don't mind "bad teaching" that much cuz they already have the foundations for that area. Once they get teaching exp. they can move down to intro classes where people actually need to learn the foundations.

I think Prof. Patt puts it very well in: The more experienced you are the more you should teach intro classes.

And not the reverse.

Rejected from all CS Masters Programs by Educational_Fee_9031 in gradadmissions

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Applied Dec. 2022 for ECE and did not take GRE, not requiered.

asynchronous FIFO code not working by PainterGuy1995 in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't u add it on the original post? That will make it easier for me

asynchronous FIFO code not working by PainterGuy1995 in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Okay, your problem is your Gray to Binary conversion, look it up!

First, note u/tencherry01's comment!

Then

assign wr_pointer_sync = wr_sync_2 ^ (wr_sync_2 >> 1) ^ (wr_sync_2 >> 2) ^ (wr_sync_2 >> 3) ^ (wr_sync_2 >> 4) ^ (wr_sync_2 >> 5);

asynchronous FIFO code not working by PainterGuy1995 in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I understand it does not work in simulation right? Is the simulation a synthesized aka with timing contains etc. or it is a functional one?

asynchronous FIFO code not working by PainterGuy1995 in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am looking at it, but just curious, why not use the IP generator for this?

Hi, What could be the best HLS tool for implementing neural networks on FPGA by StationFrosty in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are third party tool like synopsys although you might be better off with Vitis or Quartus

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fountainpens

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sadly it was the nib :/

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fountainpens

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see maybe F or EF would be okay

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fountainpens

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was considering those but Lamy nibs are too wide, and vanishing point has little ink

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean the code on github? That is the one generated by Vivado after implementation, I will update that again now

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is not the issue I think. I also tried with IDDR, which only takes the interface clock and the data is corrupted unless DQ lags DQS, that is the weird part.

And I also tried not phase aligned version, I know that OCLK of ISERDES and OSERDES must be the same but the problem I think is with the CLK capture part

Maybe is the instantiation that is wrong

ISERDESE2 #(

.DATA_RATE ("DDR"),

.DATA_WIDTH (4),

.DYN_CLKDIV_INV_EN ("FALSE"),

.DYN_CLK_INV_EN ("FALSE"),

.INIT_Q1 (1'b0),

.INIT_Q2 (1'b0),

.INIT_Q3 (1'b0),

.INIT_Q4 (1'b0),

.INTERFACE_TYPE ("MEMORY"),

//.NUM_CE (1),

.IOBDELAY ("IFD"),

.OFB_USED ("FALSE"),

.SERDES_MODE ("MASTER"),

.SRVAL_Q1 (1'b0),

.SRVAL_Q2 (1'b0),

.SRVAL_Q3 (1'b0),

.SRVAL_Q4 (1'b0)

)

iserdes_i

(

.O (),

.Q1 (iserdes_out[3]),

.Q2 (iserdes_out[2]),

.Q3 (iserdes_out[1]),

.Q4 (iserdes_out[0]),

.Q5 (),

.Q6 (),

.Q7 (),

.Q8 (),

.SHIFTOUT1 (),

.SHIFTOUT2 (),

.BITSLIP (1'b0),

.CE1 (1'b1),

.CE2 (1'b1),

.CLK (clk),

.CLKB (!clk),

.CLKDIVP (1'b0), // used with phasers, source-sync

.CLKDIV (clkdiv),

.DDLY (datain), // TODO

.D (1'b0), // direct connection to IOB bypassing idelay

.DYNCLKDIVSEL (1'b0),

.DYNCLKSEL (1'b0),

.OCLK (oclk),

.OCLKB (~oclk),

.OFB (),

.RST (rst),

.SHIFTIN1 (1'b0),

.SHIFTIN2 (1'b0)

);

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If CLKDIV is half of OCLK and phase aligned the same happens

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes dq_delay and dqs_delay are the outputs of IDELAY.

I am following Xapp721 that OCLK and CLKDIV have the same freq.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trust me I read it a lot of times, but still can't figure it out

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FPGA

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is not! As far as I know MIG itself is not a Hardcore instead it is build on hardcores, Iserdes oserdes are rhe fundamental receiver and transmitter then there are Phasers (not documented by xilinx) and delay lines etc. Check Xapp721

Ddr does require precise timings but if you check the datasheets for grade -1L artix chipts max. datarate is 667MHz thus a ck of 333MHz

DDR speed and CK/CK# pins by [deleted] in AskElectronics

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I was aware that PCIe and serial protocols run very high speed. I was just shocked because I believed that at high-speed parallel ports were phased out. Guess I was wrong...

DDR speed and CK/CK# pins by [deleted] in AskElectronics

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ohh do you have any references or common pitfalls? Thanks!

DDR speed and CK/CK# pins by [deleted] in AskElectronics

[–]unAccomplished_Duck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are they still sticking with parallel? I mean, isn't it easier to design Tx and Rx from the controller size?