ANN: Amontec JTAGkey programs XC4VLX25 at 2.8s

A

Amontec, Larry

Guest
ON NEXT MONDAY : 17-JUNE-2006

Amontec will provide the ‘how-to’ program via a XILINX VIRTEX XC4VLX25
7.9Mbits bit stream) at 2.8 seconds using the Amontec JTAGkey !

On next Monday, your Amontec JTAG key will be close to the speed of a
Xilinx Platform Cable USB for programming any FPGA and CPLD vendors
(Altera Xilinx Lattice Cypress ...)

Come back next Monday on http://www.amontec.com !

Laurent
 
On 13 Jun., 16:52, "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.ga...@ANTI-
SPAMamontec.com> wrote:
ON NEXT MONDAY : 17-JUNE-2006

Amontec will provide the 'how-to' program via a XILINX VIRTEX XC4VLX25
7.9Mbits bit stream) at 2.8 seconds using the Amontec JTAGkey !

On next Monday, your Amontec JTAG key will be close to the speed of a
Xilinx Platform Cable USB for programming any FPGA and CPLD vendors
(Altera Xilinx Lattice Cypress ...)

Come back next Monday onhttp://www.amontec.com!

Laurent
Click to expand...
Hi Laurent

when making public announcements its generically a good idea not to
lie.I am quoting your website:

"On next Monday, your Amontec JTAGkey will receive the speed of a
Xilinx Platform Cable USB for programming any FPGA (Altera Xilinx
Lattice Cypress ...)"


Platform USB Cable is USB HS Device, with dedicated CPLD for JTAG. It
can support 24Mbit JTAG clock
Amontec Key, is FT2232 a USB FS device with kinda support for JTAG
with max bit rate of 6MBit

the fact that it may take same time to program some FPGA under some
condition with those 2 programmers doesnt really mean that amonteckey
is as same speed as xilinx platform usb.

the very next update to xilinx cable FW and or CPLD may increase the
xilinx speed to the theoreatical maximum, that is at 4 times the speed
any FT2232 MPSSE solution (without extra CPLD) can ever support.

4 times is not "same" to me.

or have you find a way to convert FT2232 to HS device?
or are you offering a HS USB solution to all customers?

sorry, but I preffer when technical matters are explained correctly.

Antti
 
On Jun 14, 7:47 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

the fact that it may take same time to program some FPGA under some
condition with those 2 programmers doesnt really mean that amonteckey
is as same speed as xilinx platform usb.
Click to expand...
That depends on if it's true in a specific case, or if it's true in
general.

The theoretical speed of well designed hardware is unimportant, what
matters is the speed of the available-to-users hardware + software
system. Unless of course you end up limited by signal integrity
issues instead...
 
On 13 Jun., 16:52, "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.ga...@ANTI-
SPAMamontec.com> wrote:
ON NEXT MONDAY : 17-JUNE-2006

Amontec will provide the 'how-to' program via a XILINX VIRTEX XC4VLX25
7.9Mbits bit stream) at 2.8 seconds using the Amontec JTAGkey !

On next Monday, your Amontec JTAG key will be close to the speed of a
Xilinx Platform Cable USB for programming any FPGA and CPLD vendors
(Altera Xilinx Lattice Cypress ...)

Come back next Monday onhttp://www.amontec.com!

Laurent
Click to expand...
Hi Laurent,

I assumed you meant next monday, as "monday next week" from current
day, this would then be TODAY
but on your website it reads: "ON NEXT MONDAY : 17-JUNE-2006" this is
monday a year ago??

so where is this 2.8 second HOWTO "coming next monday" is it going to
be online today ?
or was it online year ago? if it was year ago then its really old
news.

hm.. ok, the monday is almos over, in japan its way past working hours
already, and the HOWTO
is not yet available, hm should we all look your website in june
2006 ??
ah, maybe I should use webarchive.org to fetch the old pages?

Antti is still hoping to see how amontec FS device works faster then
HS USB from Xilinx
 
On Jun 18, 7:48 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Antti is still hoping to see how amontec FS device works faster then
HS USB from Xilinx
Click to expand...
Amontec is claiming "7.9Mbits bit stream) at 2.8 seconds" which works
out to 2.82 Mbit/second, well less than the data transfer capability
of usb full speed (some 12 mbit/s if I recall correctly).

Do you have evidence that xilinx is actually running faster, instead
of merely using a usb chip that is theoretically capable of going much
faster than it's actually being used in their product?
 
On 19 Jun., 16:00, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:48 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Antti is still hoping to see how amontec FS device works faster then
HS USB from Xilinx

Amontec is claiming "7.9Mbits bit stream) at 2.8 seconds" which works
out to 2.82 Mbit/second, well less than the data transfer capability
of usb full speed (some 12 mbit/s if I recall correctly).

Do you have evidence that xilinx is actually running faster, instead
of merely using a usb chip that is theoretically capable of going much
faster than it's actually being used in their product?
Click to expand...
so far nobody can actually compare the 2 cables under same condictions
because
Amontec promised their "2.8 second howto" to be available "next
monday" what
would be yesterday, and as of the moment of writing Amontec website
still has
no actual updated info about this claimed "speed improvment" :(

if/when Amontec fullfills their promise then it will be possible to
compare the speeds

Antti
 
On Jun 19, 9:15 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Do you have evidence that xilinx is actually running faster, instead
of merely using a usb chip that is theoretically capable of going much
faster than it's actually being used in their product?

so far nobody can actually compare the 2 cables under same condictions
because
Amontec promised their "2.8 second howto" to be available "next
monday" what
would be yesterday
Click to expand...
Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?
 
On 19 Jun., 16:45, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:15 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Do you have evidence that xilinx is actually running faster, instead
of merely using a usb chip that is theoretically capable of going much
faster than it's actually being used in their product?

so far nobody can actually compare the 2 cables under same condictions
because
Amontec promised their "2.8 second howto" to be available "next
monday" what
would be yesterday

Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?
Click to expand...
yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,

well, lets wait up the "2.8 second howto" ..

Antti
 
On Jun 19, 9:56 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?

yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,
Click to expand...
So how fast have _you_ gotten the xilinx cable to go?

You seem to be having more fun laughing at Larry's calendar challenges
than actually seeking to compare performance.

The Amontec claimed performance, while yet unverified, doesn't seem
unreasble to me, so I'm really curious if you have evidence that the
xilinx cable is working faster than that for you?
 
On 19 Jun., 17:00, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:56 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?

yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,

So how fast have _you_ gotten the xilinx cable to go?

You seem to be having more fun laughing at Larry's calendar challenges
than actually seeking to compare performance.

The Amontec claimed performance, while yet unverified, doesn't seem
unreasble to me, so I'm really curious if you have evidence that the
xilinx cable is working faster than that for you?
Click to expand...
you should have realized that I want answer until I have actually
compared the 1 cables in comparable environment.

I guess its all Larry's "marketing stuff" to promise things and then
not deliver as promised. For me I see now reason or excuse to promise
something "next monday" and then just ignore this. It sure is nice
marketing, I have checked amontec website every few hours ;)

Antti
 
On 19 Jun., 17:00, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:56 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?

yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,

So how fast have _you_ gotten the xilinx cable to go?

You seem to be having more fun laughing at Larry's calendar challenges
than actually seeking to compare performance.

The Amontec claimed performance, while yet unverified, doesn't seem
unreasble to me, so I'm really curious if you have evidence that the
xilinx cable is working faster than that for you?
Click to expand...
actually as you have asked the same thing question SO MANY times, here
is the answer
YES, Xilinx Platform cable WORKS FASTER.

example: 11MBit bitstream, REDUCED TCK Clock to 12MHz, time : 2.547
seconds

On the test board the JTAG chain clock isnt optimal so I can not test
at 24MHz TCK,
I assume the speed performance would be noticeable.

this doesnt mean that Xilinx software and drivers are good, they are
not, many JTAG operations
could be carried out faster then do, but eh, this is the same thing as
with Actel, they changed to
use windriver USB drivers, and as result their programming times
increased 2 times.

but hardware wise the Xilinx Platform USB cable is defenetly capable
to get much better performance
then any implementation of FT2232 in plastic box (== Amontec jtagkey,
etc..) ever can. FT2232 has
limitation on max JTAG clock of 6MHz.

Antti
 
Antti wrote:
On 19 Jun., 17:00, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Jun 19, 9:56 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:


Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?

yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,

So how fast have _you_ gotten the xilinx cable to go?

You seem to be having more fun laughing at Larry's calendar challenges
than actually seeking to compare performance.

The Amontec claimed performance, while yet unverified, doesn't seem
unreasble to me, so I'm really curious if you have evidence that the
xilinx cable is working faster than that for you?


actually as you have asked the same thing question SO MANY times, here
is the answer
YES, Xilinx Platform cable WORKS FASTER.

example: 11MBit bitstream, REDUCED TCK Clock to 12MHz, time : 2.547
seconds

On the test board the JTAG chain clock isnt optimal so I can not test
at 24MHz TCK,
I assume the speed performance would be noticeable.

this doesnt mean that Xilinx software and drivers are good, they are
not, many JTAG operations
could be carried out faster then do, but eh, this is the same thing as
with Actel, they changed to
use windriver USB drivers, and as result their programming times
increased 2 times.

but hardware wise the Xilinx Platform USB cable is defenetly capable
to get much better performance
then any implementation of FT2232 in plastic box (== Amontec jtagkey,
etc..) ever can. FT2232 has
limitation on max JTAG clock of 6MHz.

Antti
Click to expand...
Dear Antti,

Sorry for the delay, but last Friday was the big CRASH. We received
lightning on Amontec's House... the lightning comes in over LAN ! We
lost 5 computers ! Our servers protected by UPS are safe, HOUFFF !

Strange meteo in Switzerland at this moment.

....
 
Amontec, Larry wrote:

ON NEXT MONDAY : 17-JUNE-2006

Amontec will provide the ‘how-to’ program via a XILINX VIRTEX XC4VLX25
7.9Mbits bit stream) at 2.8 seconds using the Amontec JTAGkey !

On next Monday, your Amontec JTAG key will be close to the speed of a
Xilinx Platform Cable USB for programming any FPGA and CPLD vendors
(Altera Xilinx Lattice Cypress ...)

Come back next Monday on http://www.amontec.com !

Laurent
Click to expand...
Hi all,

You may download the Amontec SVF Player from
http://www.amontec.com/jtagkey.shtml

Already tested for programming Altera Lattice Xilinx FPGA s CPLD s and
FLASH s.
It can be use for programming AVR ATMEGA processors too.
But you may use it as custom JTAG Boundary Scan.

Infini SCAN LENGTH !
Infini number of TAP (number of Targets) integrating Header and Trailer
scans.

The amtsvfplayer.exe comes with c project source. Also, you may edit the
source, customize it and re-compile a new SVF Player for your specific
needs.

amtsvfplayer.exe -h to get help on usage.

You may execute SVF Files or SVF Lines.
A SVF Line could be a concatenation of SVF commands.

You may adapt JTAG Frequency (FREQUENCY) via -frequencyFactor. In this
way you do not need to edit the SVF yourself. When using
-frequencyFactor, the RUNTEST x TCK is automaticaly updated ...

Linux version ready to be published.

HAVE FUN WITH JTAG AND SVF !
.... but you need to have the JTAGkey.

Regards,
Laurent
http://www.amontec.com

Ann: via JTAGkey, you have a lot of ARM Debug Solutions too, including
OpenOCD JTAG server, Crossworks, Yagarto ... !
 
On Jun 21, 9:03 am, "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.ga...@ANTI-
SPAMamontec.com> wrote:

Sorry for the delay, but last Friday was the big CRASH. We received
lightning on Amontec's House... the lightning comes in over LAN ! We
lost 5 computers ! Our servers protected by UPS are safe, HOUFFF !
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that.

You do appear to have recently posted some code for an SVF player.
Always good to see manufacturer's providing real user flexibility in
using their products!

Is this code the how-to for the JTAG speed claim?

Was the comparison to a Xilinx cable also run in SVF file mode, or did
you have impact reading a native xilinx bitstream file?
 
On Jun 21, 4:03 pm, "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.ga...@ANTI-
SPAMamontec.com> wrote:
Antti wrote:
On 19 Jun., 17:00, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Jun 19, 9:56 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?

yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,

So how fast have _you_ gotten the xilinx cable to go?

You seem to be having more fun laughing at Larry's calendar challenges
than actually seeking to compare performance.

The Amontec claimed performance, while yet unverified, doesn't seem
unreasble to me, so I'm really curious if you have evidence that the
xilinx cable is working faster than that for you?

actually as you have asked the same thing question SO MANY times, here
is the answer
YES, Xilinx Platform cable WORKS FASTER.

example: 11MBit bitstream, REDUCED TCK Clock to 12MHz, time : 2.547
seconds

On the test board the JTAG chain clock isnt optimal so I can not test
at 24MHz TCK,
I assume the speed performance would be noticeable.

this doesnt mean that Xilinx software and drivers are good, they are
not, many JTAG operations
could be carried out faster then do, but eh, this is the same thing as
with Actel, they changed to
use windriver USB drivers, and as result their programming times
increased 2 times.

but hardware wise the Xilinx Platform USB cable is defenetly capable
to get much better performance
then any implementation of FT2232 in plastic box (== Amontec jtagkey,
etc..) ever can. FT2232 has
limitation on max JTAG clock of 6MHz.

Antti

Dear Antti,

Sorry for the delay, but last Friday was the big CRASH. We received
lightning on Amontec's House... the lightning comes in over LAN ! We
lost 5 computers ! Our servers protected by UPS are safe, HOUFFF !

Strange meteo in Switzerland at this moment.

...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
brrr :( too bad the lightning strike, and lost computers.

and too bad tha the "source code" published is 100% useless, as all
the actual JTAG handling is hidden in an DLL and there is no source
code available for it.

Antti
 
cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:03 am, "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.ga...@ANTI-
SPAMamontec.com> wrote:


Sorry for the delay, but last Friday was the big CRASH. We received
lightning on Amontec's House... the lightning comes in over LAN ! We
lost 5 computers ! Our servers protected by UPS are safe, HOUFFF !


Sorry to hear that.

You do appear to have recently posted some code for an SVF player.
Always good to see manufacturer's providing real user flexibility in
using their products!

Is this code the how-to for the JTAG speed claim?

Was the comparison to a Xilinx cable also run in SVF file mode, or did
you have impact reading a native xilinx bitstream file?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the how-to code.

But the power of this solution is to be a generic JTAG solution because
the SVF is a portable, FPGA / CPLD vendor independent! (Antti will not
be OK with me, but vendor have to respect SVF specification. Our parser
does :) )

An other () :
( we will prove that we can program a ARM7 or ARM9 via SVF too !

Running a native xilinx bitstream could be a bit faster than we do not
have to read and parse SVF file, but just take the .bit and upload it
byte-after-byte.
With the support of AmtXHAL, a native bitstream solution could be build
in 1 or 2 hours for us (some hours for beginners) ... we could write an
example if you need.
Native bitstream stays custom solutions depending on number of chained
Targets.

But you are right, in test / program production stage, secondes could be
important.

Laurent
 
Antti wrote:
On Jun 21, 4:03 pm, "Amontec, Larry" <laurent.ga...@ANTI-
SPAMamontec.com> wrote:

Antti wrote:

On 19 Jun., 17:00, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Jun 19, 9:56 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Yes, that's odd, but doesn't bar us from begining a comparison.

How fast have you documented the Xilinx cable going?

yes that ODD

and yes it does prevent comparison, actually ;)
the USB performance can be influenced by many things,
it could be that amontec used FS only hub or root port as example,

So how fast have _you_ gotten the xilinx cable to go?

You seem to be having more fun laughing at Larry's calendar challenges
than actually seeking to compare performance.

The Amontec claimed performance, while yet unverified, doesn't seem
unreasble to me, so I'm really curious if you have evidence that the
xilinx cable is working faster than that for you?

actually as you have asked the same thing question SO MANY times, here
is the answer
YES, Xilinx Platform cable WORKS FASTER.

example: 11MBit bitstream, REDUCED TCK Clock to 12MHz, time : 2.547
seconds

On the test board the JTAG chain clock isnt optimal so I can not test
at 24MHz TCK,
I assume the speed performance would be noticeable.

this doesnt mean that Xilinx software and drivers are good, they are
not, many JTAG operations
could be carried out faster then do, but eh, this is the same thing as
with Actel, they changed to
use windriver USB drivers, and as result their programming times
increased 2 times.

but hardware wise the Xilinx Platform USB cable is defenetly capable
to get much better performance
then any implementation of FT2232 in plastic box (== Amontec jtagkey,
etc..) ever can. FT2232 has
limitation on max JTAG clock of 6MHz.

Antti

Dear Antti,

Sorry for the delay, but last Friday was the big CRASH. We received
lightning on Amontec's House... the lightning comes in over LAN ! We
lost 5 computers ! Our servers protected by UPS are safe, HOUFFF !

Strange meteo in Switzerland at this moment.

...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


brrr :( too bad the lightning strike, and lost computers.

and too bad tha the "source code" published is 100% useless, as all
the actual JTAG handling is hidden in an DLL and there is no source
code available for it.

Antti
Click to expand...
Dear Antti,

Did you try it ? or do you only search open sources ?
Is a work too bad and 100% useless because it does not provide ALL in
Open-Source?
Do you make $$$ multi-donations for an Open-Source project? We have the
replies.

Amontec team works daily for providing real user flexibility and
solutions in using Amontec products ...

Our SVF player based on AmtXHAL is a very powerfull solution. And it is
FREE. Our JTAG Hardware Abstration Layer is a big work too. We will put
all code as Open-Source when our JTAGkey21 and JTAGkey24 will be ready
for sales. These two new products will be based on USB2.0 high-speed
processors and we already know that we will have the faster worldwide
JTAG solutions).

If you are designing from AmtXHAL, the use of JTAGkey21 and JTAGkey24
will be transparent for you ! You have to see yourself, but you'll see
soon !

Larry
 
On Jun 21, 9:54 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

and too bad tha the "source code" published is 100% useless, as all
the actual JTAG handling is hidden in an DLL and there is no source
code available for it.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree.

First you can use it as intended.

Then you can use the functions in the provided header file to
accomplish various other jtag tasks.

And if you really want to understand it, well, you have a header file
for Larry's DLL, and Larry's DLL calls the FTD2xx.dll. So you make up
a fake version of the later, and see what a given trial call to
Larry's DLL produces in terms of FTD2xx operations... Yeah, reverse
engineering, but simpler than reverse engineering the xilinx stuff,
and people have done that!
 
On 21 Jun., 17:47, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:54 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:

and too bad tha the "source code" published is 100% useless, as all
the actual JTAG handling is hidden in an DLL and there is no source
code available for it.

Strongly disagree.

First you can use it as intended.

Then you can use the functions in the provided header file to
accomplish various other jtag tasks.

And if you really want to understand it, well, you have a header file
for Larry's DLL, and Larry's DLL calls the FTD2xx.dll. So you make up
a fake version of the later, and see what a given trial call to
Larry's DLL produces in terms of FTD2xx operations... Yeah, reverse
engineering, but simpler than reverse engineering the xilinx stuff,
and people have done that!
Click to expand...
eh there is absolutly no sense to RE Larry DLL's ;)
its nothing magical to found there.

the "functions provided" did look like primitive replacement for
something calles
"command line parameter passing" - but well I only looked 2 minutes,
maybe there
is something more to see. But what I did see did look like useless.
I would prefer just run from batch file, then using this customization
API

Antti
 
Antti wrote:
On 21 Jun., 17:47, cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Jun 21, 9:54 am, Antti <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:


and too bad tha the "source code" published is 100% useless, as all
the actual JTAG handling is hidden in an DLL and there is no source
code available for it.

Strongly disagree.

First you can use it as intended.

Then you can use the functions in the provided header file to
accomplish various other jtag tasks.

And if you really want to understand it, well, you have a header file
for Larry's DLL, and Larry's DLL calls the FTD2xx.dll. So you make up
a fake version of the later, and see what a given trial call to
Larry's DLL produces in terms of FTD2xx operations... Yeah, reverse
engineering, but simpler than reverse engineering the xilinx stuff,
and people have done that!


eh there is absolutly no sense to RE Larry DLL's ;)
its nothing magical to found there.

the "functions provided" did look like primitive replacement for
something calles
"command line parameter passing" - but well I only looked 2 minutes,
maybe there
is something more to see. But what I did see did look like useless.
I would prefer just run from batch file, then using this customization
API

Antti
Click to expand...
Electronic is not Magic but Logic. Only Physic is Magic!
True Random Number Generator is Magic and Physic but use some Electronics!

It is very simple to talk and think about True Random Number but you
need more than 2 minutes for developing a True Random Number Generator!

Bla - bla ... as your bla - bla Antti.

Antti, you CANNOT take 2 minutes and then resume by a "too bad" and by a
"100% useless".

Laurent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top