On Oct 3, 12:10 am, Jarek Rozanski <jarek.rozan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Pa , 18:54, Mike Treseler <mike_trese...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Tom Lucas wrote:
> > > Does anybody have any suggestions for a cheap and basic development kit
> > > to practice VHDL on? It doesn't need to do much more than toggle a few
> > > output pins and I'm happy to make up my own programming leads etc. UK
> > > based distributors would be preferred.
>
> > If the objective is to learn vhdl, all you need is
>
> > 1. A simulator to verify and debug
> > the uut and testbench code and
>
> Good solution is a Aldec Active-HDL 7.2 SE (student edition). Very
> good simulation and verification tool. Nice schematic diagrams, easy
> waveform manipulation. Very good choice (personal opinion) for
> learning. Moreover, for this purposes it is free :)

I'll second this recommendation. I've found Active HDL's free student
edition more than enough for educational purposes.

Eli

<cs_posting@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191445567.264534.197790@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 2:25 pm, Ray Andraka <r...@andraka.com> wrote:
>> cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > You can control your degree of vendor lock in fairly easy - if you
>> > don't use their unique library functions, and use only the free
>> > download versions of the tools, and don't utilize any abuses of the
>> > language that one tool or the other might permit, then you should
>> > remain portable.
>>
>> ...and far less efficient than you could be if you designed to the
>> architecture.  Now that doesn't necessarily mean instantiating
>> primitives, but it does play into how you architect your design so 
>> that
>> it makes best use of the target FPGA structure.  Not doing this may 
>> lead
>> to a design that is far larger and slower than one that is 
>> specifically
>> designed to the architecture.
>
> I thought we were talking about exploration and initial learning, not
> making products.

Well my eventual goal is to implement FPGA in my production systems so 
it probably makes sense to keep that in mind as I begin my first forays. 
My philosophy with the C I've written for the system is to keep it all 
as portable as possible and perhaps have lost efficiency in doing so but 
the products are low-volume and the cost of a bigger/faster part is far 
less than the cost of rewriting platform specific code. I think I will 
carry on that methodology with FPGAs and then look toward performance 
gains with platform specific optimisations if my hands get really tied. 

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

> You can control your degree of vendor lock in fairly easy - if you
> don't use their unique library functions, and use only the free
> download versions of the tools, and don't utilize any abuses of the
> language that one tool or the other might permit, then you should
> remain portable.

I mostly agree.
Every design has different constraints.
In my experience, reuse, straightforward
simulation and clean code has been more valuable
than maximum Fmax and minimum LUTs.
But I understand that there are others designing
on the edge that have to sacrifice some reuse
for performance or utilization.

          -- Mike Treseler

On Oct 3, 2:25 pm, Ray Andraka <r...@andraka.com> wrote:
> cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > You can control your degree of vendor lock in fairly easy - if you
> > don't use their unique library functions, and use only the free
> > download versions of the tools, and don't utilize any abuses of the
> > language that one tool or the other might permit, then you should
> > remain portable.
>
> ...and far less efficient than you could be if you designed to the
> architecture.  Now that doesn't necessarily mean instantiating
> primitives, but it does play into how you architect your design so that
> it makes best use of the target FPGA structure.  Not doing this may lead
> to a design that is far larger and slower than one that is specifically
> designed to the architecture.

I thought we were talking about exploration and initial learning, not
making products.

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

> You can control your degree of vendor lock in fairly easy - if you
> don't use their unique library functions, and use only the free
> download versions of the tools, and don't utilize any abuses of the
> language that one tool or the other might permit, then you should
> remain portable.

...and far less efficient than you could be if you designed to the 
architecture.  Now that doesn't necessarily mean instantiating 
primitives, but it does play into how you architect your design so that 
it makes best use of the target FPGA structure.  Not doing this may lead 
to a design that is far larger and slower than one that is specifically 
designed to the architecture.

On Oct 3, 10:44 am, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:

> > Yes, however, to someone who hasn't done it before, not taking the
> > effort through to hardware leaves out part of the feeling of the
> > experience.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. A project just isn't right without a good
> electric shock or a soldering iron burn :-) I started out in hardware
> design so I always prefer to play with bits and pieces where possible
> because simulators are a little joyless.

Oh yes... the 75 cent radio control truck from the tag sale.  Never
did get it going, but learned to solder and launched an EE career. The
burns healed fairly quickly...

> I've heard that Xilinx are the Microsoft
> of the FPGA world and behave similarly - I don't know if that is true
> though.

There might be an element to it, but the major difference is that
Xilinx has to contend with Altera as first-rank competition, in a way
that Microsoft at present doesn't.  That keeps something of a lid on
things, though not as much as one might wish for.

You can control your degree of vendor lock in fairly easy - if you
don't use their unique library functions, and use only the free
download versions of the tools, and don't utilize any abuses of the
language that one tool or the other might permit, then you should
remain portable.

Tom Lucas wrote:

> A project just isn't right without a good 
> electric shock or a soldering iron burn :-) I started out in hardware 
> design so I always prefer to play with bits and pieces where possible 
> because simulators are a little joyless.

Simulation is good clean fun for me,
but if solder is your thing, have at it.

           -- Mike Treseler

<cs_posting@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191420648.836140.188050@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 2, 12:54 pm, Mike Treseler <mike_trese...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If the objective is to learn vhdl, all you need is
>>
>> 1. A simulator to verify and debug
>> the uut and testbench code and
>>
>> 2. Quartus or ise to view the rtl schematic.
>
> Yes, however, to someone who hasn't done it before, not taking the
> effort through to hardware leaves out part of the feeling of the
> experience.

I'm inclined to agree. A project just isn't right without a good 
electric shock or a soldering iron burn :-) I started out in hardware 
design so I always prefer to play with bits and pieces where possible 
because simulators are a little joyless.

>> If the objective is to toggle a few output pins,
>> then buy a board and run the demos.
>
> It just all makes more sense when you see the lights blinking.  After
> you've done that, playing with the simulator is a very powerful, time
> saving tool.  But sometimes "wasting" a few hours with real hardware
> is a precondition to being willing to work in simulation alone for
> weeks.
>
> IMHO, in terms of vendor sold/endorsed boards, Xilinx has the best
> hobbyist or self-funded-training offerings via Digilent.  The plain
> spartan 3 kit is dated at this point but still easy to use, and
> inexpensive, still $100 as far as I know, though if buying another I'd
> get the biggest chip offered rather than the default.

I'll check those out, although the Probe 3 kit ratemonotonic suggested 
also looks to be pretty good. I've heard that Xilinx are the Microsoft 
of the FPGA world and behave similarly - I don't know if that is true 
though. 

On Oct 2, 12:54 pm, Mike Treseler <mike_trese...@comcast.net> wrote:

> If the objective is to learn vhdl, all you need is
>
> 1. A simulator to verify and debug
> the uut and testbench code and
>
> 2. Quartus or ise to view the rtl schematic.

Yes, however, to someone who hasn't done it before, not taking the
effort through to hardware leaves out part of the feeling of the
experience.

> If the objective is to toggle a few output pins,
> then buy a board and run the demos.

It just all makes more sense when you see the lights blinking.  After
you've done that, playing with the simulator is a very powerful, time
saving tool.  But sometimes "wasting" a few hours with real hardware
is a precondition to being willing to work in simulation alone for
weeks.

IMHO, in terms of vendor sold/endorsed boards, Xilinx has the best
hobbyist or self-funded-training offerings via Digilent.  The plain
spartan 3 kit is dated at this point but still easy to use, and
inexpensive, still $100 as far as I know, though if buying another I'd
get the biggest chip offered rather than the default.

"ratemonotonic" <niladri1979@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191402057.403464.242310@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 9:54 am, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVE_tlcs_THIS_dot_TO_fsnet_REPLY_dot_co.uk> wrote:
>> "ratemonotonic" <niladri1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191349922.467508.71410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2 Oct, 19:09, "Michael N. Moran" <mnmo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> Mike Treseler wrote:
>> >> > 1. A simulator to verify and debug
>> >> > the uut and testbench code and
>>
>> >> I've recently been learning VHDL myself and have
>> >> found GHDL to be quite useful and *free* with-out
>> >> all that dreadful IDE stuff. Combined with gtkwave
>> >> under Linux, it is a nice little system. ymmv.
>>
>> >> <http://ghdl.free.fr/>
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Michael N. Moran           (h) 770 516 7918
>> >> 5009 Old Field Ct.         (c) 678 521 5460
>> >> Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144    http://mnmoran.org
>>
>> >> "So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
>> >>   and we never even know we have the key."
>> >> "Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles)
>>
>> >> The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
>>
>> > Try this out for really cheap boards for beginners -
>>
>> >http://www.knjn.com/
>>
>> The Pluto 3 looks like just the thing. Are they available from a UK
>> supplier or do I need to look at getting one imported?
>>
>>
>>
>> > also try this for some "fun projects" -
>>
>> >http://www.fpga4fun.com/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Has to be shipped to UK.
>
> see -
>
> http://www.knjn.com/ShopInfo.html

$10 seems reasonable enough for shipping. Hopefully my credit card won't 
sting me for using foreign currency.