Good morning
I have a project where I need to embed microcontroller in a Xilinx ML401.This
project consist a GSM which connect to a microcontroller(ATMEGA8535) and the
microcontroller is eventually connected to Xilinx Virtex4 (ML401).It is actually
road traffic light implementation for Emergency Vehicle Preemption System.
My friend told me that I could do this by implementing a Microblaze
microprocessor in the FPGA on the ML401 board and then connect the GSM modem
serial line to the Microblaze instead of through the external microcontroller
board. Then I could port the code from the external microcontroller to the
Microblaze.
My problems are :-
1)Where could I get the microblaze free tutorial? Is the tutorial in VHDL?
2)After attaining the microblaze code, how should I use it? For the ML401 , I am
using software named Xilinx ISE 8.2i . Should I use this software to run the
microblaze code?
Your aid is really being appreciated. Thank you very much
Microblaze In FPGA Virtex4 ML401?
Started by ●July 20, 2007
Reply by ●July 21, 20072007-07-21
--- In f..., moraali_ali@... wrote:
>
> Good morning
>
> I have a project where I need to embed microcontroller in a
Xilinx ML401.This project consist a GSM which connect to a
microcontroller(ATMEGA8535) and the microcontroller is eventually
connected to Xilinx Virtex4 (ML401).It is actually road traffic light
implementation for Emergency Vehicle Preemption System.
> My friend told me that I could do this by implementing a
Microblaze microprocessor in the FPGA on the ML401 board and then
connect the GSM modem serial line to the Microblaze instead of through
the external microcontroller board. Then I could port the code from
the external microcontroller to the Microblaze.
> My problems are :-
> 1)Where could I get the microblaze free tutorial? Is the tutorial in
VHDL?
>
> 2)After attaining the microblaze code, how should I use it? For the
ML401 , I am using software named Xilinx ISE 8.2i . Should I use this
software to run the microblaze code?
>
> Your aid is really being appreciated. Thank you very much
>
There are a lot of soft core CPUs around. Look over at
www.opencores.org. Look under Projects
Microblaze is an IP Core licensed and SOLD by Xilinx. It comes as
part of their Embedded Development Kit (EDK) and it sells for $900.00.
I don't know what the recurring licensing fee is.
It is also not clear that the WebPACK version of ISE will link the IP.
That may require the full cost version but I am not sure of that. In
any event, the full ISE Foundation software package is about $2500;
another $1000 if you want a simulator.
There is a PicoBlaze soft core that I believe is free - registration
required. It includes the source code so it can be handled by the
WebPACK version of ISE. Google for 'xilinx picroblaze'.
I can't imagine that a traffic light needs a sophisticated CPU.
One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite.
For many other soft cores, you are on your own. This is a non-trivial
problem when it comes to development and validation.
Richard
>
> Good morning
>
> I have a project where I need to embed microcontroller in a
Xilinx ML401.This project consist a GSM which connect to a
microcontroller(ATMEGA8535) and the microcontroller is eventually
connected to Xilinx Virtex4 (ML401).It is actually road traffic light
implementation for Emergency Vehicle Preemption System.
> My friend told me that I could do this by implementing a
Microblaze microprocessor in the FPGA on the ML401 board and then
connect the GSM modem serial line to the Microblaze instead of through
the external microcontroller board. Then I could port the code from
the external microcontroller to the Microblaze.
> My problems are :-
> 1)Where could I get the microblaze free tutorial? Is the tutorial in
VHDL?
>
> 2)After attaining the microblaze code, how should I use it? For the
ML401 , I am using software named Xilinx ISE 8.2i . Should I use this
software to run the microblaze code?
>
> Your aid is really being appreciated. Thank you very much
>
There are a lot of soft core CPUs around. Look over at
www.opencores.org. Look under Projects
Microblaze is an IP Core licensed and SOLD by Xilinx. It comes as
part of their Embedded Development Kit (EDK) and it sells for $900.00.
I don't know what the recurring licensing fee is.
It is also not clear that the WebPACK version of ISE will link the IP.
That may require the full cost version but I am not sure of that. In
any event, the full ISE Foundation software package is about $2500;
another $1000 if you want a simulator.
There is a PicoBlaze soft core that I believe is free - registration
required. It includes the source code so it can be handled by the
WebPACK version of ISE. Google for 'xilinx picroblaze'.
I can't imagine that a traffic light needs a sophisticated CPU.
One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite.
For many other soft cores, you are on your own. This is a non-trivial
problem when it comes to development and validation.
Richard
Reply by ●July 21, 20072007-07-21
Hi,
> Microblaze is an IP Core licensed and SOLD by Xilinx. It comes as
> part of their Embedded Development Kit (EDK) and it sells for $900.00.
I believe it's $500, and you should be able to get a quite sizable student
discount.
> I don't know what the recurring licensing fee is.
There are no licensing fees.
> One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite.
> For many other soft cores, you are on your own. This is a non-trivial
> problem when it comes to development and validation.
How very true.
Regards,
Austin
> Microblaze is an IP Core licensed and SOLD by Xilinx. It comes as
> part of their Embedded Development Kit (EDK) and it sells for $900.00.
I believe it's $500, and you should be able to get a quite sizable student
discount.
> I don't know what the recurring licensing fee is.
There are no licensing fees.
> One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite.
> For many other soft cores, you are on your own. This is a non-trivial
> problem when it comes to development and validation.
How very true.
Regards,
Austin
Reply by ●July 24, 20072007-07-24
Ok, I'll bite.
Having never used MicroBlaze, I'm curious about what makes the software development suite so special?
MicroBlaze and Nios II are both highly optimized for their targets from X and A respectively, and are [supposed to] make it easy to configure a SoC from library parts. Alas, that comes at the price of vendor lock-in.
For DIYers, a MIPS clone is the best option I've found as it's the smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets supported by the GNU tool chain which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take you out at the first given opportunity (witness all the shut down ARM clones). Like many, I have rolled a few MIPS clones myself and building cross tools gcc, binutils, and newlib is not that hard. With a bit more work gdb will be there also. I don't seem to miss anything there.
Regards,
Tommy
Austin Franklin wrote:> One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite.
> For many other soft cores, you are on your own. This is a non-trivial
> problem when it comes to development and validation.
How very true.
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
Having never used MicroBlaze, I'm curious about what makes the software development suite so special?
MicroBlaze and Nios II are both highly optimized for their targets from X and A respectively, and are [supposed to] make it easy to configure a SoC from library parts. Alas, that comes at the price of vendor lock-in.
For DIYers, a MIPS clone is the best option I've found as it's the smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets supported by the GNU tool chain which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take you out at the first given opportunity (witness all the shut down ARM clones). Like many, I have rolled a few MIPS clones myself and building cross tools gcc, binutils, and newlib is not that hard. With a bit more work gdb will be there also. I don't seem to miss anything there.
Regards,
Tommy
Austin Franklin wrote:> One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite.
> For many other soft cores, you are on your own. This is a non-trivial
> problem when it comes to development and validation.
How very true.
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
Reply by ●July 24, 20072007-07-24
> Having never used MicroBlaze, I'm curious about
what makes the software
> development suite so special?
The only thing that comes to mind is the MDM core which provides debug
support through the same JTAG cable used to load the FPGA. It's possible
to do that for your own core design, but not trivial.
The main "special" thing about the development suite is the configuration
of the hardware, not the software.
> For DIYers, a MIPS clone is the best option I've found as it's the
> smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets supported by the
> GNU tool chain
If you're happy doing that, why do you care about MicroBlaze?
> which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take you out
> at the first given opportunity (witness all the shut down ARM clones).
Interesting, it looks like MIPS' infamous '976 patent has finally
expired. Until that happened, you had to leave out the unaligned
load and store instructions if you wanted to keep that army of
lawyers at bay.
Eric
> development suite so special?
The only thing that comes to mind is the MDM core which provides debug
support through the same JTAG cable used to load the FPGA. It's possible
to do that for your own core design, but not trivial.
The main "special" thing about the development suite is the configuration
of the hardware, not the software.
> For DIYers, a MIPS clone is the best option I've found as it's the
> smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets supported by the
> GNU tool chain
If you're happy doing that, why do you care about MicroBlaze?
> which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take you out
> at the first given opportunity (witness all the shut down ARM clones).
Interesting, it looks like MIPS' infamous '976 patent has finally
expired. Until that happened, you had to leave out the unaligned
load and store instructions if you wanted to keep that army of
lawyers at bay.
Eric
Reply by ●July 24, 20072007-07-24
> For DIYers, a MIPS clone is the best option I've
found as it's the
smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets supported by
the GNU tool chain which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take
you out at the first given opportunity (witness all the shut down ARM
clones). Like many, I have rolled a few MIPS clones myself and
building cross tools gcc, binutils, and newlib is not that hard. With
a bit more work gdb will be there also. I don't seem to miss anything
there.
>
> Regards,
> Tommy
I was under the impression that the Microblaze development suite
included a C compiler and the rest of the toolchain. Since I don't
have someone else paying the bills, I haven't pursued it.
There is another clone around that used the LCC retargetable C compiler.
I think the reason I have walked around the MIPS clones is that they
don't (and can't for copyright reasons) implement the entire
instruction set. They omit byte aligned loads or some such thing.
Maybe it's a patent thing...
I wasn't sure that the GNU toolchain would understand that it couldn't
emit instructions that weren't implemented.
Richard
smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets supported by
the GNU tool chain which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take
you out at the first given opportunity (witness all the shut down ARM
clones). Like many, I have rolled a few MIPS clones myself and
building cross tools gcc, binutils, and newlib is not that hard. With
a bit more work gdb will be there also. I don't seem to miss anything
there.
>
> Regards,
> Tommy
I was under the impression that the Microblaze development suite
included a C compiler and the rest of the toolchain. Since I don't
have someone else paying the bills, I haven't pursued it.
There is another clone around that used the LCC retargetable C compiler.
I think the reason I have walked around the MIPS clones is that they
don't (and can't for copyright reasons) implement the entire
instruction set. They omit byte aligned loads or some such thing.
Maybe it's a patent thing...
I wasn't sure that the GNU toolchain would understand that it couldn't
emit instructions that weren't implemented.
Richard
Reply by ●July 24, 20072007-07-24
Hi Richard,
> I was under the impression that the Microblaze development suite
> included a C compiler and the rest of the toolchain.
Yes, it does include a C compiler and the rest of the toolchain. It's also
capable of C++.
Regards,
Austin
> I was under the impression that the Microblaze development suite
> included a C compiler and the rest of the toolchain.
Yes, it does include a C compiler and the rest of the toolchain. It's also
capable of C++.
Regards,
Austin
Reply by ●July 24, 20072007-07-24
> For DIYers, a MIPS clone is the best option I've
found as it's the smallest, simplest, and cleanest among the 32-bit targets
> supported by the GNU tool chain which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take you out at the first given opportunity
> (witness all the shut down ARM clones). Like many, I have rolled a few MIPS clones myself and building cross tools gcc, binutils,
> and newlib is not that hard. With a bit more work gdb will be there also. I don't seem to miss anything there.
You did *a few* MIPS clones? I would be interested in that clones.
I've tried the Plasma, but was not very happy with it.
LEON is, in my opinion, the most professional and free RISC
for an FPGA. Got it running in a few days on my Cyclone FPGA
board.
Martin
To post a message, send it to: f...
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: f...
> supported by the GNU tool chain which doesn't have an army of lawyers ready to take you out at the first given opportunity
> (witness all the shut down ARM clones). Like many, I have rolled a few MIPS clones myself and building cross tools gcc, binutils,
> and newlib is not that hard. With a bit more work gdb will be there also. I don't seem to miss anything there.
You did *a few* MIPS clones? I would be interested in that clones.
I've tried the Plasma, but was not very happy with it.
LEON is, in my opinion, the most professional and free RISC
for an FPGA. Got it running in a few days on my Cyclone FPGA
board.
Martin
To post a message, send it to: f...
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: f...
Reply by ●July 25, 20072007-07-25
Eric Smith wrote:
If you're happy doing that, why do you care about MicroBlaze?
I care about all available soft cores and want to understand how they compare.
My question was spurred by Richard's "One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite." comment, which you apparently agree isn't that special.
Interesting, it looks like MIPS' infamous '976 patent has finally
expired. Until that happened, you had to leave out the unaligned
load and store instructions if you wanted to keep that army of
lawyers at bay.
The unaligned load and store instructions (LWR, LWL, etc) only matters for existing code, but were talking embedded applications here where all code is compiled from source. The GNU tool chain will never generate the offending instructions. Keep your data aligned and you'll never miss them. Finally, they constrain the implementation, so I'd never include them.
Regards,
Tommy
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
If you're happy doing that, why do you care about MicroBlaze?
I care about all available soft cores and want to understand how they compare.
My question was spurred by Richard's "One advantage of the MicroBlaze is the software development suite." comment, which you apparently agree isn't that special.
Interesting, it looks like MIPS' infamous '976 patent has finally
expired. Until that happened, you had to leave out the unaligned
load and store instructions if you wanted to keep that army of
lawyers at bay.
The unaligned load and store instructions (LWR, LWL, etc) only matters for existing code, but were talking embedded applications here where all code is compiled from source. The GNU tool chain will never generate the offending instructions. Keep your data aligned and you'll never miss them. Finally, they constrain the implementation, so I'd never include them.
Regards,
Tommy
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
Reply by ●July 25, 20072007-07-25
Martin Schoeberl wrote:You did *a few* MIPS clones? I would be
interested in that clones.
I've tried the Plasma, but was not very happy with it.
What in particular?
Alas, the only fairly complete clone was not been optimized very much (~ 50 MHz in a Cyclone 1C20). How does Plasma compare to that?
I later understood an alternative to stalling for interdependencies: late detect and "lazy" flushing. The experimental prototype based on this was completely dominated by the ALU, seeing 90 - 130 MHz (1C20) depending on how many stages I used for the ALU. IIRC, the rest of the pipe was about 6 stages. I'd love to complete this to the point where it can boot Linux, but I have other priorities today.
I should post the ALU (which was based on the article on the Nios I ALU). Maybe someone with extensive experience with a Java processor could suggest improvements ;-)
LEON is, in my opinion, the most professional and free RISC
for an FPGA. Got it running in a few days on my Cyclone FPGA
board.
Ah, but doesn't LEON include a complete MMU? Even without it, I think it is much much larger than my clone, MB, and Nios II.
Professional and free rarely go together. To get to the polish level of LEON is quite a lot of work.
All the best,
Tommy
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
I've tried the Plasma, but was not very happy with it.
What in particular?
Alas, the only fairly complete clone was not been optimized very much (~ 50 MHz in a Cyclone 1C20). How does Plasma compare to that?
I later understood an alternative to stalling for interdependencies: late detect and "lazy" flushing. The experimental prototype based on this was completely dominated by the ALU, seeing 90 - 130 MHz (1C20) depending on how many stages I used for the ALU. IIRC, the rest of the pipe was about 6 stages. I'd love to complete this to the point where it can boot Linux, but I have other priorities today.
I should post the ALU (which was based on the article on the Nios I ALU). Maybe someone with extensive experience with a Java processor could suggest improvements ;-)
LEON is, in my opinion, the most professional and free RISC
for an FPGA. Got it running in a few days on my Cyclone FPGA
board.
Ah, but doesn't LEON include a complete MMU? Even without it, I think it is much much larger than my clone, MB, and Nios II.
Professional and free rarely go together. To get to the polish level of LEON is quite a lot of work.
All the best,
Tommy
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
