You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
According to specification, FPGA IO banks serving FMC Bank B IO pins should be powered by VIO_B_M2C.
For EEM modules ARTIQ use iostandard parameter, that is a function returning required IO standard. For EEM modules, it is always LVDS.
The problem
It seems to be beneficial to provide some decoupling between FMC module and platform specific code as it is done with e.g. differential inputs or synchronizers.
LA and HA banks can have different IO standards than HB (both single ended and differential). Those standards can be both platform-specific and FMC specific. Not all carriers support VADJ adjustment (e.g. FMC2 @ AFCK), and some do not accept VIO_B_M2C (e.g. EEM FMC Carrier). FMC also not always follow specification (e.g. Shuttler and VIO_B_M2C).
So for FMC modules using all 3 FMC banks and mixing single-ended and differential signals, a number of different IO standards can be in use. Hard-coding them in FMC module will impact decoupling from particular platform.
Passing them to the io function may be a solution, but it seems a bit cumbersome. The developer would then need to match signals with appropriate voltage levels. This can be easily performed inside platform class.
Suggested solution
For applications, I've come across, mostly two types of signals are used (excluding MGT and clocking that uses CLKx lines): single-ended IOs with appropriate voltage standard and LVDS. For that reason, I assumed that those two should be supported in the first place.
As bank voltages can not be really deducted due to different implementations, I assumed they have to be given on per gateware design basis. In my opinion, instantiation of the platform is a good place to pass desired voltage configuration.
The platform would then be able to provide appropriate IO standard for the given bank.
For example: defining a single-ended signal on bank LA using a platform initialized with VADJ=1.8V would lead to, in the case of Xilinx platform, LVCMOS18.
On the other hand, attempt to define differential signal (by default in LVDS standard) on VADJ=3.3V configured Kintex 7 platform would rise an exception, as such configuration is not supported.
Designer intent to use a specific type of IO standard (e.g. single-ended or differential) would be expressed by using an "IO standard keyword". Such keyword would be used when instantiating IOStandard class. During execution of add_extension method, the platform would replace "keyword IO standards" with those applicable to the given platform configuration.
In the example below, two keywords are used: single and diff, expressing will of using single-ended and differential LVDS types, respectively. More keywords can be implemented, if needed.
If one wants to force a specific IO standard (thereby breaking FMC-platform decoupling), instead of a keyword a desired IO standard prefixed with force:<IO standard> can be used. In the example, this feature is illustrated with IOStandard("force:FANCY_HARDCODED_STD").
This could be generalized beyond FMC by simply defining platform-independent I/O standards, e.g. some Enum with common signaling standards that could be used in place of IOStandard. It seems that is the main point of this proposal. I would not bother with VADJ/VIO_B_M2C and leave it to the user to sort out at the Migen application level, it seems everybody has their own sauce there anyway.
On the other hand, attempt to define differential signal (by default in LVDS standard) on VADJ=3.3V configured Kintex 7 platform would rise an exception, as such configuration is not supported.
The rules there are complicated and best left to the vendor tools.
For FMC TDC and Shuttler debugging, I've created some helpers for dealing with FMC that I'd like to submit to your critical review ;-).
Observations
VADJ
andVIO_B_M2C
voltages.VADJ
is set by the carrier (preferably based on EEPROM content).VIO_B_M2C
should be set by FMC (but it is not always obeyed by the carriers, see FMC VIO_B_M2C not connected sinara-hw/FMC_Shuttler#32).VIO_B_M2C
.iostandard
parameter, that is a function returning required IO standard. For EEM modules, it is always LVDS.The problem
It seems to be beneficial to provide some decoupling between FMC module and platform specific code as it is done with e.g. differential inputs or synchronizers.
LA
andHA
banks can have different IO standards thanHB
(both single ended and differential). Those standards can be both platform-specific and FMC specific. Not all carriers support VADJ adjustment (e.g. FMC2 @ AFCK), and some do not acceptVIO_B_M2C
(e.g. EEM FMC Carrier). FMC also not always follow specification (e.g. Shuttler andVIO_B_M2C
).So for FMC modules using all 3 FMC banks and mixing single-ended and differential signals, a number of different IO standards can be in use. Hard-coding them in FMC module will impact decoupling from particular platform.
Passing them to the
io
function may be a solution, but it seems a bit cumbersome. The developer would then need to match signals with appropriate voltage levels. This can be easily performed inside platform class.Suggested solution
For applications, I've come across, mostly two types of signals are used (excluding MGT and clocking that uses CLKx lines): single-ended IOs with appropriate voltage standard and LVDS. For that reason, I assumed that those two should be supported in the first place.
As bank voltages can not be really deducted due to different implementations, I assumed they have to be given on per gateware design basis. In my opinion, instantiation of the platform is a good place to pass desired voltage configuration.
The platform would then be able to provide appropriate IO standard for the given bank.
For example: defining a single-ended signal on bank
LA
using a platform initialized withVADJ=1.8V
would lead to, in the case of Xilinx platform,LVCMOS18
.On the other hand, attempt to define differential signal (by default in LVDS standard) on
VADJ=3.3V
configured Kintex 7 platform would rise an exception, as such configuration is not supported.Designer intent to use a specific type of IO standard (e.g. single-ended or differential) would be expressed by using an "IO standard keyword". Such keyword would be used when instantiating
IOStandard
class. During execution ofadd_extension
method, the platform would replace "keyword IO standards" with those applicable to the given platform configuration.In the example below, two keywords are used:
single
anddiff
, expressing will of using single-ended and differential LVDS types, respectively. More keywords can be implemented, if needed.If one wants to force a specific IO standard (thereby breaking FMC-platform decoupling), instead of a keyword a desired IO standard prefixed with
force:<IO standard>
can be used. In the example, this feature is illustrated withIOStandard("force:FANCY_HARDCODED_STD")
.Implementation example:
Genesys2 has its IO standards defined in the following way:
Therefore, example code generates the following constraints:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: