Hello, I've designed in an instrument board an ATMEL CPLD. For that purpose I had to use their "low cost" software. First I tried the CUPL tool, but it was too much bugged. Then I used their VHDL "prochip designer" which is based on altium tool and their proprietary fitters. After some fighting with VHDL (my first project) I finally had it all OK with simulation, synthesis and fitting (PAR). I had to work around some strange synthesizer results but finally got it OK. Then came the time of timing analysis, using the vital files provided by their fitter. Again some annoying bugs, like (traced by comparing the vital/edif/fitter equations report files) - generated vital files not compatible with their provided vital library (quickly derived from their fpga library) - some vital outputs with the wrong polarity - some floating vital CPLD internal signals - some *strange* results like DFFs with permanent reset, or permanently disabled CE... OK, so far I think (I've not tested the CPLD as I still don't have the board) I know where the errors are in their outputs and that my final design is OK. I've made a *nice* bug report to ATMEL with all my analysis, my commented sources, their file results, and all that's needed to help them quickly reproduce the bugs, and also an enquiry about whether my analysis and consequently my jedec output files were good or not. All that sent, as requested, to their pld support 2 weeks ago. I had no acknowledge, no answer, not even an evidence of live, despite one reminder a few days ago. Are these guys serious ? Any experience ? Thanks, Fred.
ATMEL support / Are they serious ?
Started by ●April 5, 2004
Reply by ●April 5, 20042004-04-05
"Fred Bartoli" <fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote in message news:40714abb$0$19461$626a14ce@news.free.fr...> Hello, > > I've designed in an instrument board an ATMEL CPLD. > For that purpose I had to use their "low cost" software. > First I tried the CUPL tool, but it was too much bugged. Then I used their > VHDL "prochip designer" which is based on altium tool and theirproprietary> fitters. > After some fighting with VHDL (my first project) I finally had it all OK > with simulation, synthesis and fitting (PAR). I had to work around some > strange synthesizer results but finally got it OK. > > Then came the time of timing analysis, using the vital files provided by > their fitter. > Again some annoying bugs, like (traced by comparing the vital/edif/fitter > equations report files) > - generated vital files not compatible with their provided vital library > (quickly derived from their fpga library) > - some vital outputs with the wrong polarity > - some floating vital CPLD internal signals > - some *strange* results like DFFs with permanent reset, or permanently > disabled CE... > > OK, so far I think (I've not tested the CPLD as I still don't have the > board) I know where the errors are in their outputs and that my finaldesign> is OK. > > I've made a *nice* bug report to ATMEL with all my analysis, my commented > sources, their file results, and all that's needed to help them quickly > reproduce the bugs, and also an enquiry about whether my analysis and > consequently my jedec output files were good or not. > All that sent, as requested, to their pld support 2 weeks ago. I had no > acknowledge, no answer, not even an evidence of live, despite one remindera> few days ago.I've always found Xilinx and Altera support very good for their CPLDs and FPGAs. Perhaps you are using the wrong chips. 8-) Leon
Reply by ●April 5, 20042004-04-05
"Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> a �crit dans le message news: 407153a3$0$3300$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...>< snip >> I've always found Xilinx and Altera support very good for their CPLDs and > FPGAs. Perhaps you are using the wrong chips. 8-) >Well, does Xilinx/Altera have a *low* power *5V* CPLD offer ? Too bad Xilinx threw away the 5V Coolrunner parts. Plus the ATMEL "logic doubling" is a nice thing that allow me to pack my design in a 64MC-TQFP44 device instead of a 128MC. The board is pretty dense and have no room for 128MC which would've made mandatory a much bigger (to me) 80-100 pin package. Thanks, Fred.
Reply by ●April 5, 20042004-04-05
On Monday, in article <4071836c$0$14178$636a15ce@news.free.fr> fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo "Fred Bartoli" wrote:>"Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> a ?crit dans le message news: >407153a3$0$3300$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >> >< snip > > >> I've always found Xilinx and Altera support very good for their CPLDs and >> FPGAs. Perhaps you are using the wrong chips. 8-) >> > >Well, does Xilinx/Altera have a *low* power *5V* CPLD offer ? >Too bad Xilinx threw away the 5V Coolrunner parts.I know too well about that demise, but it was on the cards when Xilinx bought out Philips Coolrunner. I personally prefer the old Philips tools for Coolrunners over the Webpack (your own 100baseT connection to Xilinx server for the downloads required). -- Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserv.demon.co.uk <http://www.pcserv.demon.co.uk/> Main Site <http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 & mailing list info. <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate.
Reply by ●April 5, 20042004-04-05
Fred Bartoli wrote:> Hello, > > I've designed in an instrument board an ATMEL CPLD. > For that purpose I had to use their "low cost" software. > First I tried the CUPL tool, but it was too much bugged. Then I used their > VHDL "prochip designer" which is based on altium tool and their proprietary > fitters. > After some fighting with VHDL (my first project) I finally had it all OK > with simulation, synthesis and fitting (PAR). I had to work around some > strange synthesizer results but finally got it OK. > > Then came the time of timing analysis, using the vital files provided by > their fitter. > Again some annoying bugs, like (traced by comparing the vital/edif/fitter > equations report files) > - generated vital files not compatible with their provided vital library > (quickly derived from their fpga library) > - some vital outputs with the wrong polarity > - some floating vital CPLD internal signals > - some *strange* results like DFFs with permanent reset, or permanently > disabled CE... > > OK, so far I think (I've not tested the CPLD as I still don't have the > board) I know where the errors are in their outputs and that my final design > is OK. > > I've made a *nice* bug report to ATMEL with all my analysis, my commented > sources, their file results, and all that's needed to help them quickly > reproduce the bugs, and also an enquiry about whether my analysis and > consequently my jedec output files were good or not. > All that sent, as requested, to their pld support 2 weeks ago. I had no > acknowledge, no answer, not even an evidence of live, despite one reminder a > few days ago. > > Are these guys serious ? > Any experience ?CUPL has a number of component pieces. The low level compiler and functional simulator certainly have some quirks, but these are predictable, stable, and easily avoided. The CUPL shell we avoid, instead using a std Pgmr Editor, and the command line compiler. When working on designs near the ceiling, much of the effort is in check/control of the fitter, and CUPL is better at low level control than VHDL is. Timing simulations I would not sweat too much over with a CPLD, you can always use a calculator and the fitter report, to check some 'key suspect paths'. The fitter is the same in both flows. -jg
Reply by ●April 5, 20042004-04-05
Paul Carpenter wrote:> On Monday, in article > <4071836c$0$14178$636a15ce@news.free.fr> > fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo > "Fred Bartoli" wrote: > > >>"Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> a ?crit dans le message news: >>407153a3$0$3300$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >> >>< snip > >> >>>I've always found Xilinx and Altera support very good for their CPLDs and >>>FPGAs. Perhaps you are using the wrong chips. 8-) >>> >> >>Well, does Xilinx/Altera have a *low* power *5V* CPLD offer ? >>Too bad Xilinx threw away the 5V Coolrunner parts. > > > I know too well about that demise, but it was on the cards when Xilinx > bought out Philips Coolrunner. I personally prefer the old Philips tools for > Coolrunners over the Webpack (your own 100baseT connection to Xilinx server > for the downloads required).Lattice claim 5V tolerant I/O on their new LC4xxx family, but they do need multiple supplies. -jg
Reply by ●April 5, 20042004-04-05
Jim Granville wrote:> > Paul Carpenter wrote: > > > On Monday, in article > > <4071836c$0$14178$636a15ce@news.free.fr> > > fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo > > "Fred Bartoli" wrote: > > > > > >>"Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> a ?crit dans le message news: > >>407153a3$0$3300$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... > >> > >>< snip > > >> > >>>I've always found Xilinx and Altera support very good for their CPLDs and > >>>FPGAs. Perhaps you are using the wrong chips. 8-) > >>> > >> > >>Well, does Xilinx/Altera have a *low* power *5V* CPLD offer ? > >>Too bad Xilinx threw away the 5V Coolrunner parts. > > > > > > I know too well about that demise, but it was on the cards when Xilinx > > bought out Philips Coolrunner. I personally prefer the old Philips tools for > > Coolrunners over the Webpack (your own 100baseT connection to Xilinx server > > for the downloads required). > > Lattice claim 5V tolerant I/O on their new LC4xxx family, but they do > need multiple supplies.They do have a 3.3 volt only version that just uses one supply, however it is not "zero" power. As to the 5 volt tolerance, Read the fine print carefully. The Lattice parts have a max number of IOs that can be above 3.3 volts at the same time. I ended up using an Altera EP1K part which is fully 5 volt tolerant even with the power off. But of course it is RAM based, not Flash. MCU anyone? -- Rick "rickman" Collins rick.collins@XYarius.com Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY removed. Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com 4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX