Xilinx Xact software for XC2018 Logic Cell Array

On May 24, 9:28=A0am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In comp.arch.fpga John Adair <g...@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'd second Ed's opinion. These devices were released circa 20-25 years
> > ago and their only useful place now is a museum. Almost anyone that
> > does have software for these will have a reason like long term product
> > maintainence and they are unlikely to let go the software.
>
> When I first knew about FPGAs, about 15 years ago, XC2000 devices
> were still in the book, but no-one I knew used them.
>
> I believe that Xilinx still has software for XC4000 devices on
> their web site, and I might even believe that some would still
> use them. =A0If you want a hobbyist device, go for XC4000 series.
>
> -- glen

I disagree with the suggestion to use an XC4000.  HDL support for this
family (and the Spartan/SpartanXL) ended 5+ years ago.  And by ended,
I mean that there is no legal way of obtaining the necessary software.

RK

Depending on what you want to achieve there are ways to make boards
simple by using modules like our previously mentioned Darnaw1. There
are also the DIL format Craignell1 http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/component_replacements/craignell.html
and Craignell2 http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/component_replacements/craignell2.html
modules. These modules allow you to develop your own carrier board but
handle the complex and costly BGA bit for you.

There are other low cost products like our Polmaddie series
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/polmaddie/polmaddie_family.html offer ways
into FPGA and CPLD technology at not a lot of cost. These particular
boards sell 1 off at GBP 40 (approx USD 60, Euro 50) in one off and
you get a free programming cable (parallel port) for that money. Club
together with a couple of friends and you can get free worldwide
shipping on our web shop if you can get the order over GBP 100.

All of these products are bought by hobby engineers. Tools for all of
the above are free to download. We also use 0.1 inch/ 2.54mm pitch
headers/sockets a lot to facilitate hobby and student markets with
many customers even building their add ons with simple stripboard.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

On 24 May, 18:19, fpgahobbyist <noth...@onearth.com> wrote:
> > Seems hobbyists are no market in these days. Sure, they maybe only buy
> > 10 pieces, but if this is done by many people then this my become still
> > a big quantity. I really would like to see a FPGA in PLCC84 package with
> > 5 V I/O voltage (and maybe an additional smaller core voltage). There
> > are still much older TTL gates so why shouldn't there also be a XC3195
> > (including the developement software).
>
> I completely agree. I have done a lot of projects, some I have sold, some
> I have given away. Its great to be able to design/develop without a HUGE
> investment in manufacturing tools (for smd parts)
>
> This is another reason I maintain a large stock of 22v10 in dip and plcc
> form along with an assorted collection of 8bit micros in dip form as well.
>
> Lately I have been trying to get a hold of the xc95xxx CPLD's and the
> Altera EPM71XX parts.
>
> Guess Ill have to dump these xc2018/30xx parts ;(

On May 24, 1:33=A0pm, d_s_klein <d_s_kl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 9:28=A0am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > In comp.arch.fpga John Adair <g...@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I'd second Ed's opinion. These devices were released circa 20-25 year=
s
> > > ago and their only useful place now is a museum. Almost anyone that
> > > does have software for these will have a reason like long term produc=
t
> > > maintainence and they are unlikely to let go the software.
>
> > When I first knew about FPGAs, about 15 years ago, XC2000 devices
> > were still in the book, but no-one I knew used them.
>
> > I believe that Xilinx still has software for XC4000 devices on
> > their web site, and I might even believe that some would still
> > use them. =A0If you want a hobbyist device, go for XC4000 series.
>
> > -- glen
>
> I disagree with the suggestion to use an XC4000. =A0HDL support for this
> family (and the Spartan/SpartanXL) ended 5+ years ago. =A0And by ended,
> I mean that there is no legal way of obtaining the necessary software.
>
> RK

I'll third that opinion.  Also the XC4000 series is much more
expensive
than many newer, larger, faster devices.  If you want 5V tolerance,
look into Spartan 2, also long in the tooth but supported by ISE 10.1
and available in VQ and TQ package types.

Regards,
Gabor

Mike Harrison wrote:
> On 24 May 2010 07:03:32 GMT, fpgahobbyist<nothere@onearth.com>  wrote:
>
>>> These devices are not worth your time and energy to try to use.  Get a
>>> low cost Spartan-3A board and use the free ISE Webpack software.
>>>
>>> Ed McGettigan
>>
>> Id like to build a board around these chips (simple projects to aid the
>> learning process - which is not limited to hdl digital design but board
>> manufacturing as well).
>>
>> More "modern" fpgas come in formfactors that make it all but impossible
>> to solder at home.
>
> There are plenty of FPGA DIP modules out there.

There's also lots of Xilinx XC95 series available
in PLCC 44 and 84 packages.  With some trivial
adapters, they can be wire-wrapped or soldered
on tenth inch centers.

In comp.arch.fpga d_s_klein <d_s_klein@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip, I wrote)

>> I believe that Xilinx still has software for XC4000 devices on
>> their web site, and I might even believe that some would still
>> use them. &#4294967295;If you want a hobbyist device, go for XC4000 series.
 
> I disagree with the suggestion to use an XC4000.  HDL support for this
> family (and the Spartan/SpartanXL) ended 5+ years ago.  And by ended,
> I mean that there is no legal way of obtaining the necessary software.

I meant it in the sense that one shouldn't go farther back than that.

I thought the software was on the "Classic" section of the Xilinx
web site, but didn't try actually installing it.

-- glen

On May 24, 3:09=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In comp.arch.fpga d_s_klein <d_s_kl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (snip, I wrote)
>
> >> I believe that Xilinx still has software for XC4000 devices on
> >> their web site, and I might even believe that some would still
> >> use them. =A0If you want a hobbyist device, go for XC4000 series.
> > I disagree with the suggestion to use an XC4000. =A0HDL support for thi=
s
> > family (and the Spartan/SpartanXL) ended 5+ years ago. =A0And by ended,
> > I mean that there is no legal way of obtaining the necessary software.
>
> I meant it in the sense that one shouldn't go farther back than that.
>
> I thought the software was on the "Classic" section of the Xilinx
> web site, but didn't try actually installing it.
>
> -- glen

I'm still running version 4.1 of the Xilinx tools, but the
"Foundation"
not "ISE" version.  You can still get ISE 4.1, but it doesn't include
synthesis or schematics, so you'd need some third party tools
to make up the gap.  Xilinx no longer offers the original Foundation
versions, since they don't own the third party (Aldec) content.  The
Alliance tools, by the way also required additional third party
tools for synthesis or schematics.  Definitely not on a
hobbyists budget.

Regards,
Gabor

The other problem you get with old software is the OS. I keep some
machines with NT for times I need to run my old version software.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.


On 24 May, 20:15, Gabor <ga...@alacron.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 3:09=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In comp.arch.fpga d_s_klein <d_s_kl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (snip, I wrote)
>
> > >> I believe that Xilinx still has software for XC4000 devices on
> > >> their web site, and I might even believe that some would still
> > >> use them. =A0If you want a hobbyist device, go for XC4000 series.
> > > I disagree with the suggestion to use an XC4000. =A0HDL support for t=
his
> > > family (and the Spartan/SpartanXL) ended 5+ years ago. =A0And by ende=
d,
> > > I mean that there is no legal way of obtaining the necessary software=
.
>
> > I meant it in the sense that one shouldn't go farther back than that.
>
> > I thought the software was on the "Classic" section of the Xilinx
> > web site, but didn't try actually installing it.
>
> > -- glen
>
> I'm still running version 4.1 of the Xilinx tools, but the
> "Foundation"
> not "ISE" version. =A0You can still get ISE 4.1, but it doesn't include
> synthesis or schematics, so you'd need some third party tools
> to make up the gap. =A0Xilinx no longer offers the original Foundation
> versions, since they don't own the third party (Aldec) content. =A0The
> Alliance tools, by the way also required additional third party
> tools for synthesis or schematics. =A0Definitely not on a
> hobbyists budget.
>
> Regards,
> Gabor

On May 24, 3:07=A0pm, John Adair <g...@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
> The other problem you get with old software is the OS. I keep some
> machines with NT for times I need to run my old version software.
>
> John Adair
> Enterpoint Ltd.
>

Take a look at 'vmware' or 'virtualbox'.  I have been able to run
antique OS's (and applications) on modern hardware using both.

RK

John Adair <g1@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:

>Depending on what you want to achieve there are ways to make boards
>simple by using modules like our previously mentioned Darnaw1. There
>are also the DIL format Craignell1 http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/component_replacements/craignell.html
>and Craignell2 http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/component_replacements/craignell2.html
>modules. These modules allow you to develop your own carrier board but
>handle the complex and costly BGA bit for you.
>
>There are other low cost products like our Polmaddie series
>http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/polmaddie/polmaddie_family.html offer ways
>into FPGA and CPLD technology at not a lot of cost. These particular
>boards sell 1 off at GBP 40 (approx USD 60, Euro 50) in one off and
>you get a free programming cable (parallel port) for that money. Club
>together with a couple of friends and you can get free worldwide
>shipping on our web shop if you can get the order over GBP 100.
>
>All of these products are bought by hobby engineers. Tools for all of
>the above are free to download. We also use 0.1 inch/ 2.54mm pitch
>headers/sockets a lot to facilitate hobby and student markets with
>many customers even building their add ons with simple stripboard.

This is definitely a sensible way to go. 

OTOH it is not very difficult to put a TQFP100 or PQ208 on a board
with a simple soldering iron.

-- 
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:23:36 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:

> John Adair <g1@enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>>All of these products are bought by hobby engineers. Tools for all of
>>the above are free to download. We also use 0.1 inch/ 2.54mm pitch
>>headers/sockets a lot to facilitate hobby and student markets with many
>>customers even building their add ons with simple stripboard.
> 
> This is definitely a sensible way to go.

Seconded. The Drigmorn2 is a lovely little board -- 32MiB SDRAM, onboard 
SPI flash, switches, HD44780 LCD, and a ton of LEDs. Debugging it is a 
DREAM, especially when you can just plug a Harwin pin header into the LHS/
RHS headers, wire in a logic analyser pod and watch as closely as you 
like.

The only thing I don't like about it is the ISSI SDRAM -- the refresh 
rate figures in the datasheet are incorrect. Use 4096 cycles per 32ms 
(the refresh rate for the "Industrial" spec part) and it's fine, use 4096-
in-64ms (the "Commercial" spec rating) and you get random data corruption 
issues. I suspect the section on Auto Refresh has been copy-pasted from a 
datasheet for a different part and not checked against the tested 
specification... but that's just conjecture.

The other possibility is that the part on my DM2 is a mis-marked Ind Temp 
part, but the laser-markings say it *should* be a -7BL, or a 7ns part in 
Pb-free BGA... if it was ind-spec it *should* have been marked "-7BLI"...

> OTOH it is not very difficult to put a TQFP100 or PQ208 on a board with
> a simple soldering iron.

Yeah, tack down a few pins at a corner, then coat the pins in paste flux 
and drag-solder. Clean up with solder wick and you're done. If you're not 
a fan of manual labour you can use solder paste and a hot-air reflow 
station, but drag soldering is usually quicker... not to mention more 
reliable :)

-- 
Phil.
usenet10@philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
If mail bounces, replace "10" with the last two digits of the current year