F
fl
Guest
Hi,
I read a post on this forum about CRC:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.vhdl/crc/comp.lang.vhdl/GL1irJS6WrA/FiBxmFXal24J
I can run this routine through simulation. In the same time, my Matlab can generate the same results with CCITT (x^16+x^12+x^5+1). The initial generator
states are all '0'. When the message bits are 0x80000, the checksum is 0x1B98.
When I check website:
http://www.lammertbies.nl/comm/info/crc-calculation.html
There are several kinds of CCITT, such as xModem, 0xFFFF etc. I have tried
different kinds of initial states, byte order etc., but no one can generate
the same results of the simulation program and Matlab result. Could you tell me
what format can result in the differences?
Second, the original code is very good. I know some FPGA vendors sell CRC IP.
I would like to know what advantage of their design comparing to the Mike
Treseler's code?
Thanks,
I read a post on this forum about CRC:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.vhdl/crc/comp.lang.vhdl/GL1irJS6WrA/FiBxmFXal24J
I can run this routine through simulation. In the same time, my Matlab can generate the same results with CCITT (x^16+x^12+x^5+1). The initial generator
states are all '0'. When the message bits are 0x80000, the checksum is 0x1B98.
When I check website:
http://www.lammertbies.nl/comm/info/crc-calculation.html
There are several kinds of CCITT, such as xModem, 0xFFFF etc. I have tried
different kinds of initial states, byte order etc., but no one can generate
the same results of the simulation program and Matlab result. Could you tell me
what format can result in the differences?
Second, the original code is very good. I know some FPGA vendors sell CRC IP.
I would like to know what advantage of their design comparing to the Mike
Treseler's code?
Thanks,