EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Replaceme EPROM by CPLD/FPGA

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - FPGA - Replaceme EPROM by CPLD/FPGA

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Guest

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:45 am   



fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
Quote:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA > > > > >>> BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device.

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that

Quote:

"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data


Guest

Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:45 am   



On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA > > > > > >>> BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device..

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data


So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.

--

Rick C.

+- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Stef
Guest

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:45 am   



On 2019-03-29 gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Quote:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA =
BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device.

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.


No, 'the board' is connector + PROM on a very small piece of FR4, programmed
in a universal programmer. There is already software generating the data to be
programmed.

And yes, an MCU is a possibility as well. And as I am much more comfortable in
programming MCU's, I think I can handle the software involved for MCU and data
generation. ;-)

But I see a CPLD (or FPGA) as a solution as well and was wondering how I would
approach such a solution. That why I asked in an FPGA group.

Quote:

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data

So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

Startup usually comes with the tools. Just start a new project for the
specific controller and everything is set up to defaults and you just have
to write your main() and set the peripherals (which would only be GPIO in
this case). You may want to check the oscillator setup in the startup. And
if you use a higer level tool (like STM32CubeMX for ST controllers), you
can let it generate most of the peripheral init code.

Quote:

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.


I think this could be done with the linker. Just add a section with the
calibration data at a fixed address. Or maybe even better (does not require
linker during production), there are plenty of hex file tools and I would
be suprised if there is not one that allow adding a bit of data. And if
there's nothing, writing something like that in C (or Python or Perl or ...)
is not too complex (and I think I even have hex file code in C from old
projects somewhere). But all this is not so relevant for an FPGA group, I
suppose.


--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Theo
Guest

Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:45 pm   



Anssi Saari <as_at_sci.fi> wrote:
Quote:
Another way could be to use the user flash memory which is included in
Intel's MaxII and MaxV CPLDs. The size is 8192 bits so big enough. You'd
program the CPLD with the same design and only the UFM part of the flash
would need to be programmed in production.


It appears there's a core for making a MAX CPLD look like an I2C EEPROM:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/programmable/documentation/eis1406081952758.html
I haven't used these cores, but assume a mux could be interposed between
this core and the flash, to allow access to the flash in a parallel manner
in addition to via I2C.

The OP could put a MAX part on their module, and use the spare two pins on
their module to provide an I2C programming interface. The bitfile is
programmed at manufacture time (some JTAG pads on the module or pre-program
the chips) and the memory can then be field-programmed via the I2C pins on
the connector.

Theo


Guest

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 12:12:00 PM UTC-4, Theo wrote:
Quote:
Anssi Saari <as_at_sci.fi> wrote:
Another way could be to use the user flash memory which is included in
Intel's MaxII and MaxV CPLDs. The size is 8192 bits so big enough. You'd
program the CPLD with the same design and only the UFM part of the flash
would need to be programmed in production.

It appears there's a core for making a MAX CPLD look like an I2C EEPROM:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/programmable/documentation/eis1406081952758.html
I haven't used these cores, but assume a mux could be interposed between
this core and the flash, to allow access to the flash in a parallel manner
in addition to via I2C.

The OP could put a MAX part on their module, and use the spare two pins on
their module to provide an I2C programming interface. The bitfile is
programmed at manufacture time (some JTAG pads on the module or pre-program
the chips) and the memory can then be field-programmed via the I2C pins on
the connector.


I don't know about others, but I prefer easy to work with packaging. I find most FPGAs come in hard (for me) to use chip scale or BGA packages (very large pin counts). The Lattice parts at least are available in QFN packages.

--

Rick C.

++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

A.P.Richelieu
Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:45 am   



Den 2019-03-29 kl. 01:17, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
Quote:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA =
BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device.

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data

So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.

If you never used a micro, you may have a problem.
If you have used a specific micro, then you are likely to have setup code.

The ROM code is best expressed in C.
const uint8_t memory[256] = {
0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, ...
};

You get a state of the art C compiler/debugger from IAR free of charge
for these types of applications.

If you are not in a hurry, you can implement a bitbanged USART in three
pins in the micro.
You send an address, as an 8 bit byte, and the micro responds with the data.

The Micro is going to be way cheaper than a programmable logic device
if there is any volume at all behind such a request.

You can also get much much smaller packages with micros than with
programmable logic.

AP


Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:45 am   



On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 6:52:14 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Quote:
Den 2019-03-29 kl. 01:17, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA > >>>>>>>>> BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device.

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data

So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.

If you never used a micro, you may have a problem.
If you have used a specific micro, then you are likely to have setup code..

The ROM code is best expressed in C.
const uint8_t memory[256] = {
0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, ...
};

You get a state of the art C compiler/debugger from IAR free of charge
for these types of applications.

If you are not in a hurry, you can implement a bitbanged USART in three
pins in the micro.
You send an address, as an 8 bit byte, and the micro responds with the data.

The Micro is going to be way cheaper than a programmable logic device
if there is any volume at all behind such a request.

You can also get much much smaller packages with micros than with
programmable logic.


Not if the design is pin defined. This design can't be done with an 8 pin package.

Cost depends on many things and some FPGAs are very inexpensive. Having the simplest production solution is a great start. So far FPGAs are the only solution that actually provides a clear and simple method of being programmed with the configuration data in production without issues. But I shouldn't say that because I don't truly understand all the issues the OP has. I do know that the FPGA will handle them all as presently understood. The MCU will require some work to make that happen I believe.

--

Rick C.

--- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

A.P.Richelieu
Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:45 am   



Den 2019-03-30 kl. 02:48, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
Quote:
On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 6:52:14 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-29 kl. 01:17, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA =
BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device.

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data

So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.

If you never used a micro, you may have a problem.
If you have used a specific micro, then you are likely to have setup code.

The ROM code is best expressed in C.
const uint8_t memory[256] = {
0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, ...
};

You get a state of the art C compiler/debugger from IAR free of charge
for these types of applications.

If you are not in a hurry, you can implement a bitbanged USART in three
pins in the micro.
You send an address, as an 8 bit byte, and the micro responds with the data.

The Micro is going to be way cheaper than a programmable logic device
if there is any volume at all behind such a request.

You can also get much much smaller packages with micros than with
programmable logic.

Not if the design is pin defined. This design can't be done with an 8 pin package.

Cost depends on many things and some FPGAs are very inexpensive. Having the simplest production solution is a great start. So far FPGAs are the only solution that actually provides a clear and simple method of being programmed with the configuration data in production without issues. But I shouldn't say that because I don't truly understand all the issues the OP has. I do know that the FPGA will handle them all as presently understood. The MCU will require some work to make that happen I believe.


The configuration file is a simple text file which gets included in the
build. It is easily generated from a hex file, if that is a need.
You can program the microcontroller and the FPGA before you mount it to
the PCB. Otherwise you program both using JTAG.
There is ZERO issues in programming a micro. It is well known thing.
There will be some fallout with BOTH.

If there is a need to update the contents in the field, you can do so
using a serial port = 2 pin.

With a need for 13 I/Os, for the ROM interface, a 24 pin QFN package (4
x 4 mm) should do. Smallest FPGA is 3 x the price.

It is going to cost around $1.25 @ 1 piece @ Digikey.
The smallest FPGA is 3 x the price.
The power consumption is going to be a fraction of that of an FPGA.

The only thing that needs to be checked if the solution is fast enough.

AP


Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:45 am   



On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:54:36 AM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Quote:
Den 2019-03-30 kl. 02:48, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 6:52:14 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-29 kl. 01:17, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA > >>>>>>>>>>> BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device..

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data

So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.

If you never used a micro, you may have a problem.
If you have used a specific micro, then you are likely to have setup code.

The ROM code is best expressed in C.
const uint8_t memory[256] = {
0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, ...
};

You get a state of the art C compiler/debugger from IAR free of charge
for these types of applications.

If you are not in a hurry, you can implement a bitbanged USART in three
pins in the micro.
You send an address, as an 8 bit byte, and the micro responds with the data.

The Micro is going to be way cheaper than a programmable logic device
if there is any volume at all behind such a request.

You can also get much much smaller packages with micros than with
programmable logic.

Not if the design is pin defined. This design can't be done with an 8 pin package.

Cost depends on many things and some FPGAs are very inexpensive. Having the simplest production solution is a great start. So far FPGAs are the only solution that actually provides a clear and simple method of being programmed with the configuration data in production without issues. But I shouldn't say that because I don't truly understand all the issues the OP has.. I do know that the FPGA will handle them all as presently understood. The MCU will require some work to make that happen I believe.


The configuration file is a simple text file which gets included in the
build. It is easily generated from a hex file, if that is a need.
You can program the microcontroller and the FPGA before you mount it to
the PCB. Otherwise you program both using JTAG.
There is ZERO issues in programming a micro. It is well known thing.
There will be some fallout with BOTH.

If there is a need to update the contents in the field, you can do so
using a serial port = 2 pin.

With a need for 13 I/Os, for the ROM interface, a 24 pin QFN package (4
x 4 mm) should do. Smallest FPGA is 3 x the price.

It is going to cost around $1.25 @ 1 piece @ Digikey.
The smallest FPGA is 3 x the price.
The power consumption is going to be a fraction of that of an FPGA.

The only thing that needs to be checked if the solution is fast enough.


The issue is that the programming file needs to be modified with calibration data for each device being programmed. This process is well defined for FPGAs since it is common to need to load block rams or in this case User Flash. In addition there are particular methods of loading the User Flash.

The point is the loading of configuration data can be easily integrated into the typical programming process for the FPGA. This is not as straightforward for the MCU where you need to perform a build rather than just loading the configuration data.

Your information about FPGAs is not so current, especially the power consumption. You clearly have not worked with the lower power devices which are available. There are devices that have double digit microamp power levels if not being clocked at high rates. The devices I have pointed to are available in QFN packages in addition to very tiny chip scale packages.

FPGA packaging is one of my pet peaves. The focus in smaller FPGAs seems to be package size to fit mobile apps. So while there are very tiny packages available, they don't suit my apps. But you can't say small packages aren't available.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

A.P.Richelieu
Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:45 am   



Den 2019-03-30 kl. 08:12, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
Quote:
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:54:36 AM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-30 kl. 02:48, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 6:52:14 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-29 kl. 01:17, skrev gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
fredag den 29. marts 2019 kl. 00.03.22 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.com wrote:
torsdag den 28. marts 2019 kl. 22.37.18 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.de...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-4, A.P.Richelieu wrote:
Den 2019-03-28 kl. 15:24, skrev Stef:
On 2019-03-28 Theo wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Stef <stef33d_at_yahooi-n-v-a-l-i-d.com.invalid> wrote:
Usually you use the vendor tools to generate a bitstream from an HDL
design. But are there options to generate these bitstreams during the
production cycle, in only a few seconds? Something like HDL + DATA =
BITSTREAM. And then burn the resulting bitsream in the device.

Intel Quartus has an 'Update Memory Initialization File' step where you can
change the memory contents of an existing project without recompiling. I
don't know how much project scaffolding you'd need (you still need to run
the Assembler step to generate bitfiles afterwards, so I don't think you can
edit an existing bitfile). It's not super quick (maybe ten seconds for a
Cyclone V) but better than a recompile.

I think some of the Lattice parts have a user flash memory but I haven't
used those:
http://www.latticesemi.com/-/media/LatticeSemi/Documents/ApplicationNotes/UZ/UsingUserFlashMemoryandHardenedControlFunctionsinMachXO2Devices.ashx?document_id=39086

I suppose another option is a small SPI/I2C flash chip and a CPLD that reads
the contents in at powerup time. Or a NOR flash that you can program
externally (but programming header with 8 address, 4 data, 3 control wires -
might be too big) or another chip to drive them (I2C I/O expander for
instance and a 3/4 pin header)

A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Does your old design have voltage requirements like 5V capability?

The supply is 5V, but the interface on the reading device is 3V3 with 5V
tolerant IO. So adding 3V3 regulation for the memory power should work.

Another limitation is that that the preferred programming interface is
through the available connections: Address (Cool, data (4), control (1 +
1 tied to GND, and VCC rising to VPP). And there are 2 free pins that could
be used as well.

This is a reason why parallel EEPROM (FLASH) is not an option. Those
devices all require access to all address and data to enter the programming
sequence. (or do you know a flash that does not require this?)
Or use a CPLD to generate those sequences? (based on the states of the free
pins?)

What is reading from the EPROM?
What is the bus speed of the access?

I would not be surprised, if you could not implement this with a
microcontroller running at a decent clock frequency.

A small Cortex-M0 chip like the ATSAMD10xxxx in a 20 - 32 pin package
should be small

The program will look like this:
while (1) {
port = memory[pins & 0xff];
oe = (pins & 0x100) ? ON : OFF;
}

AP

I find it interesting that people often feel MCUs are simpler than programmable logic. What your program in particular lacks is the important part, allowing the contents of "memory[]" to be set at manufacturing time. I don't see the use of an MCU to be at all simple. In addition to the above, there is setup code that either needs to be written from scratch by reading the MCU data sheet (starting clocks, initialize I/O banks, brown out detectors, etc., etc...) or by starting with the standard startup code and paring out what is not needed or appropriate.

To me, this is inordinately complex compared to the relatively trivial exercise of creating an HDL ROM which is about as complex as the code above and setting the details of the chosen I/O pins to be used. The only remaining issue is to use the vendor tool to initialize this ROM in the compiled code or even in the same way it is done now which I think is done by the board itself.

Not only is the PLD method simpler, it provides a lot more flexibility.

if the only thing in your toolbox it hammers, nailing things together always
seem like the obvious choice

at slow speed an mcu could be just as viable, and customizing the array could
be as simple as patching the bin or hex file programmed into the part

But you didn't address the additional setup required to write the code for the MCU. The ones I've used have a *lot* of features that need to be set up for the MCU to even run. MCU code is always a lot more complex to design with than HDL in my experience.


so you have only used big MCUs with piles of peripherals and advanced features, small 8bitters are usually nothing like that


"Patching" a hex file is not the way I want to manage configuration data. The PLD tools have already dealt with this issue.


doing exactly the same thing, replacing the data

So there is a tool for patching the hex data? You don't need any startup code on your small 8 bitter?

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the patching issue. The MCU tools I've worked with would require quite a bit of work to replace data in binary code.

If you never used a micro, you may have a problem.
If you have used a specific micro, then you are likely to have setup code.

The ROM code is best expressed in C.
const uint8_t memory[256] = {
0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, ...
};

You get a state of the art C compiler/debugger from IAR free of charge
for these types of applications.

If you are not in a hurry, you can implement a bitbanged USART in three
pins in the micro.
You send an address, as an 8 bit byte, and the micro responds with the data.

The Micro is going to be way cheaper than a programmable logic device
if there is any volume at all behind such a request.

You can also get much much smaller packages with micros than with
programmable logic.

Not if the design is pin defined. This design can't be done with an 8 pin package.

Cost depends on many things and some FPGAs are very inexpensive. Having the simplest production solution is a great start. So far FPGAs are the only solution that actually provides a clear and simple method of being programmed with the configuration data in production without issues. But I shouldn't say that because I don't truly understand all the issues the OP has. I do know that the FPGA will handle them all as presently understood. The MCU will require some work to make that happen I believe.


The configuration file is a simple text file which gets included in the
build. It is easily generated from a hex file, if that is a need.
You can program the microcontroller and the FPGA before you mount it to
the PCB. Otherwise you program both using JTAG.
There is ZERO issues in programming a micro. It is well known thing.
There will be some fallout with BOTH.

If there is a need to update the contents in the field, you can do so
using a serial port = 2 pin.

With a need for 13 I/Os, for the ROM interface, a 24 pin QFN package (4
x 4 mm) should do. Smallest FPGA is 3 x the price.

It is going to cost around $1.25 @ 1 piece @ Digikey.
The smallest FPGA is 3 x the price.
The power consumption is going to be a fraction of that of an FPGA.

The only thing that needs to be checked if the solution is fast enough.

The issue is that the programming file needs to be modified with calibration data for each device being programmed. This process is well defined for FPGAs since it is common to need to load block rams or in this case User Flash. In addition there are particular methods of loading the User Flash.

The point is the loading of configuration data can be easily integrated into the typical programming process for the FPGA. This is not as straightforward for the MCU where you need to perform a build rather than just loading the configuration data.

Your information about FPGAs is not so current, especially the power consumption. You clearly have not worked with the lower power devices which are available. There are devices that have double digit microamp power levels if not being clocked at high rates. The devices I have pointed to are available in QFN packages in addition to very tiny chip scale packages.

FPGA packaging is one of my pet peaves. The focus in smaller FPGAs seems to be package size to fit mobile apps. So while there are very tiny packages available, they don't suit my apps. But you can't say small packages aren't available.


Once you have programmed the microcontroller, you use a write pin to
program the part, and a read pin to read out the part.
These things can be connected to DMA, for quite high speed.
Since the reads were "slow", I bet this is good enough.
Piece of cake.

The build to add an additional memory array of 128 bytes takes a
fraction of a second. It is not complex. It is well known technology.
To say that this is not straightforward shows that you know little about
MCUs.

AP

john
Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:45 am   



In article <q7nbpc$1v9l$1_at_gioia.aioe.org>, aprichelieu_at_gmail.com says...
Quote:

Once you have programmed the microcontroller, you use a write pin to
program the part, and a read pin to read out the part.
These things can be connected to DMA, for quite high speed.
Since the reads were "slow", I bet this is good enough.
Piece of cake.

The build to add an additional memory array of 128 bytes takes a
fraction of a second. It is not complex. It is well known technology.
To say that this is not straightforward shows that you know little about
MCUs.

AP


The first thing that went through my mind when I saw the original post
was "microchip PIC" - the size of a full stop.
I just assumed I'd missunderstood since this was an FPGA group.

I'd concur with the other posters - microprocessor is the way to go.
I'd recommend a download of their parts selector software (free) and have a
browse.
FPGA's require far too much work for everyday tasks such as this.

--

john

=========================
http://johntech.co.uk

=========================

A.P.Richelieu
Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:45 pm   



Den 2019-03-30 kl. 11:00, skrev john:
Quote:
In article <q7nbpc$1v9l$1_at_gioia.aioe.org>, aprichelieu_at_gmail.com says...

Once you have programmed the microcontroller, you use a write pin to
program the part, and a read pin to read out the part.
These things can be connected to DMA, for quite high speed.
Since the reads were "slow", I bet this is good enough.
Piece of cake.

The build to add an additional memory array of 128 bytes takes a
fraction of a second. It is not complex. It is well known technology.
To say that this is not straightforward shows that you know little about
MCUs.

AP


The first thing that went through my mind when I saw the original post
was "microchip PIC" - the size of a full stop.
I just assumed I'd missunderstood since this was an FPGA group.

I'd concur with the other posters - microprocessor is the way to go.
I'd recommend a download of their parts selector software (free) and have a
browse.
FPGA's require far too much work for everyday tasks such as this.


The Event System originally implemented in the AVR is probably quite
useful for this application.
It is available in some Cortex-M parts as well where the NMI can be used
for almost no delay response.

AP

Thomas Stanka
Guest

Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:45 pm   



Am Donnerstag, 28. März 2019 13:43:07 UTC+1 schrieb Stef:
Quote:
We have a product that includes a small parallel OTP memory. These devices
get very hard to get and no easy alternative is available that fits in the
very small available space. A PLCC32 EPROM will not fit unfortunately.
Since the memory array is small (256x4 bits), I was thinking this could
easily fit into a CPLD or FPGA. But how to program this?
[..]
A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.


Many FPGAs require an external EEPROM for storing the Bitfile. All those will be no choice for you.

Whats left is in fact some old CPLDs, Lattice and Microsemi which all use internal Flash. The CPLDs would be in many occasions too small to store 1024 bits random content.

I understand it is something like 256 times 4 bit. This means you have 8 bit address for 4 bit result.
A function calculating 4 bits result from 8 bit address can be either very simple (eg: Bit0=not Adress(0), bit1=Address(0), bit2=address(1) xor address(2), bit3 = address(3) and address(4)) or very complex (example left to you).

Due to Fan-In/Fan-Out constraints a function looking simple can simple explode in size, my experience says you cannot say on first glance how easy or complex a table transfers into a combinatorical circuit.
So the question if you have 10 different tables which of those require what size of combinatoric is hard to answer before implementing it.

On the other hand most FPGAs packages might be too large in size for your board design, if a simple EEPROM is allready too large. No idea what cou can accept.

You might want to check out the Microsemi ProAsic3 technology which provides an 1k EEPROM for user access. The smallest package would be the A3PN010 in QN48 (6x6 mm)

regards Thomas


Guest

Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:45 am   



On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 7:19:09 AM UTC-4, Thomas Stanka wrote:
Quote:
Am Donnerstag, 28. März 2019 13:43:07 UTC+1 schrieb Stef:
We have a product that includes a small parallel OTP memory. These devices
get very hard to get and no easy alternative is available that fits in the
very small available space. A PLCC32 EPROM will not fit unfortunately.
Since the memory array is small (256x4 bits), I was thinking this could
easily fit into a CPLD or FPGA. But how to program this?
[..]
A device like the Lattice ispMACH 4000 seems a possible candidate.

Many FPGAs require an external EEPROM for storing the Bitfile. All those will be no choice for you.

Whats left is in fact some old CPLDs, Lattice and Microsemi which all use internal Flash. The CPLDs would be in many occasions too small to store 1024 bits random content.

I understand it is something like 256 times 4 bit. This means you have 8 bit address for 4 bit result.
A function calculating 4 bits result from 8 bit address can be either very simple (eg: Bit0=not Adress(0), bit1=Address(0), bit2=address(1) xor address(2), bit3 = address(3) and address(4)) or very complex (example left to you).

Due to Fan-In/Fan-Out constraints a function looking simple can simple explode in size, my experience says you cannot say on first glance how easy or complex a table transfers into a combinatorical circuit.
So the question if you have 10 different tables which of those require what size of combinatoric is hard to answer before implementing it.

On the other hand most FPGAs packages might be too large in size for your board design, if a simple EEPROM is allready too large. No idea what cou can accept.

You might want to check out the Microsemi ProAsic3 technology which provides an 1k EEPROM for user access. The smallest package would be the A3PN010 in QN48 (6x6 mm)

regards Thomas


You seem to have not read most of the posts in this thread. There have been specific FPGAs mentioned which will do the job the OP needs. He seems to prefer an MCU approach because he is more familiar with MCUs than FPGAs.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Stef
Guest

Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:45 am   



On 2019-04-03 gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote in comp.arch.fpga:
Quote:
On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 7:19:09 AM UTC-4, Thomas Stanka wrote:

Many FPGAs require an external EEPROM for storing the Bitfile. All those will be no choice for you.


A dual package solution is not prefered, but if the packages are small
enough, it might fit. Double sided placement could be a last resort
as long as the bottom components are <= 1mm high.

Quote:

On the other hand most FPGAs packages might be too large in size for your board design, if a simple EEPROM is allready too large. No idea what cou can accept.


A TSOP EEPROM would be a good mechanical fit, but unfortunately it is
electrically unsuitable as you need access to all address and data pins for
programming. I managed to get an SOIC28 (17.9 x 10.3 mm) on the board after
reducing some clearances and pad sizes, but that relies on the connector
and memory pins 'interleaving' a little (pitch 2.54 and 1.27 mm). So
generically I would say the maximum size is 18 x 9 mm

>> You might want to check out the Microsemi ProAsic3 technology which provides an 1k EEPROM for user access. The smallest package would be the A3PN010 in QN48 (6x6 mm)

That would fit mechanically.

> You seem to have not read most of the posts in this thread. There have been specific FPGAs mentioned which will do the job the OP needs. He seems to prefer an MCU approach because he is more familiar with MCUs than FPGAs.

It is not that I prefer an MCU approach, but I am indeed more comfortable
with MCU's. And if I go that way and need help, I think it's best not to
ask in an FPGA group. ;-)

There are other issues against the MCU approach. One of them is that it
may (this is not sure) be harder for certification than a CPLD solution.

For now I am still trying to find all possible solutions (and still
hoping for a suitable memory device to pop up Sad ) so I can come up with
a good overview of solutions. The overview should include all costs and
effort for components, development, tools, certification, in-line
programming, etc.

--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits
of the world.
-- Schopenhauer

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - FPGA - Replaceme EPROM by CPLD/FPGA

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map