Interview questions ;)

[Thomas Stanka]

On 6 Mrz., 13:41, Peter <peter.hermans...@sts.saab.se> wrote:

sollution to be glitch free, but how could you
obtain a symetrical clock, if your master clock is not symetrical?

Its not so bad:

A master clock with a 45/55 ratio gives 48/52 as a divide by 3 output.
30/70 gives 43/57. So even if the output clock is not exactly
symmetrical,
its better than the input clock.

You are right, but the question was for a 50% duty cycle (Interview
question, however my colleque has a design that wouldn't be in spec,
if the external duty cycle varies more than 1% as the DDR output would
be out of window).

bye Thomas

 

[Peter]

sollution to be glitch free, but how could you
obtain a symetrical clock, if your master clock is not symetrical?

Its not so bad:

A master clock with a 45/55 ratio gives 48/52 as a divide by 3 output.
30/70 gives 43/57. So even if the output clock is not exactly
symmetrical,
its better than the input clock.

/Peter

 

[Clemens Blank]

Hi

I just came across some interview questions for digital design, and
would like to discuss my solutions with you!

#Design a circuit to divide input frequency by 2
I could do this with a Toggle Flip flop where the inverted output
is connected to the input, then i also divide the clock frequency by two

# Design a divide-by-3/divide-by-5 sequential circuit with 50% duty cycle.
I was thinking of having here a statemachine that outputs for 3 cycles
0, and then it changes the state to output 3 times a 1 at each clock
transition.

# Which one is superior: Asynchronous Reset or Synchronous Reset

Cleary this is the asynchronous reset but not sure why

Feedback or other questions would be interesting. Could be fun!

 

[Dwayne Dilbeck]

Cleary this is the asynchronous reset but not sure why

Not clear at all. This question is more of a trick. Neither reset type is
superior.
Each has it's benefits and negatives. Depending on your final target
application and technology the strength for one type versus the other will
be greater.

Take a look on the comp.lang.fpga board, some of the very knowledgable users
highley recommned not using async resets when targeting FPGAs. To make
things even more interesting, you can code the design for a Xilinx fpga with
no resets at all, making use of the fact that when the FPGA resets and
reloads the program the FF and memories are in known states.

Your other solutions are heading the right direction. Since you are asking
on the comp.lang.vhdl board. I suggest you code a divide-by-n sequencial
vhdl circuit and let the synthesizer do it's job.

"Clemens Blank" <CBlank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fpkvep$6u0$1@aioe.org...

Hi

I just came across some interview questions for digital design, and would
like to discuss my solutions with you!

#Design a circuit to divide input frequency by 2
I could do this with a Toggle Flip flop where the inverted output
is connected to the input, then i also divide the clock frequency by two

# Design a divide-by-3/divide-by-5 sequential circuit with 50% duty cycle.
I was thinking of having here a statemachine that outputs for 3 cycles 0,
and then it changes the state to output 3 times a 1 at each clock
transition.

# Which one is superior: Asynchronous Reset or Synchronous Reset

Cleary this is the asynchronous reset but not sure why

Feedback or other questions would be interesting. Could be fun!

 

[Thomas Stanka]

On 21 Feb., 22:54, Clemens Blank <CBl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

# Design a divide-by-3/divide-by-5 sequential circuit with 50% duty cycle.
I was thinking of having here a statemachine that outputs for 3 cycles
0, and then it changes the state to output 3 times a 1 at each clock
transition.

You describe a divide by 6 cirquit.
A divide by 3 with 50% duty cycle means for a 1 MHZ clk (1us periode),
you generate 3 us periode with 1500 ns high and 1500 ns low. You need
additional cornerstones to achieve this. Either you have a reliable
clock double circuit available (eg. DLL) to generate a 2 MHZ clock and
divide this by 6, or you have already 50% duty cycle and use rising
and falling edge of the clock. Second sollution requires you to be
aware of glitches.

# Which one is superior: Asynchronous Reset or Synchronous Reset

Trick question.

bye Thomas

 

[Wolfgang Grafen]

Thomas Stanka schrieb:

On 21 Feb., 22:54, Clemens Blank <CBl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
# Design a divide-by-3/divide-by-5 sequential circuit with 50% duty cycle.
I was thinking of having here a statemachine that outputs for 3 cycles
0, and then it changes the state to output 3 times a 1 at each clock
transition.

You describe a divide by 6 cirquit.
A divide by 3 with 50% duty cycle means for a 1 MHZ clk (1us periode),
you generate 3 us periode with 1500 ns high and 1500 ns low. You need
additional cornerstones to achieve this. Either you have a reliable
clock double circuit available (eg. DLL) to generate a 2 MHZ clock and
divide this by 6, or you have already 50% duty cycle and use rising
and falling edge of the clock. Second sollution requires you to be
aware of glitches.

Idea:
to divide a clock by 3 initialise two 3-bit ringregisters with "110" and
clock the first with rising edge, the second with falling edge. Then
combine both LSBs with AND => The generated clock will be symmetrical
and glitch free!

Similar divide by 5

Best regards

Wolfgang

 

[Thomas Stanka]

Hi Wolfgang,

On 22 Feb., 15:18, Wolfgang Grafen <wolfgang.gra...@ericsson.com>
wrote:

Thomas Stanka schrieb:
divide this by 6, or you have already 50% duty cycle and use rising
and falling edge of the clock. Second sollution requires you to be
aware of glitches.

Idea:
to divide a clock by 3 initialise two 3-bit ringregisters with "110" and
clock the first with rising edge, the second with falling edge. Then
combine both LSBs with AND => The generated clock will be symmetrical
and glitch free!

This is a good[1] sollution to be glitch free, but how could you
obtain a symetrical clock, if your master clock is not symetrical?

bye Thomas

[1] for designs operating in "normal" environment

 

[Wolfgang Grafen]

Thomas Stanka schrieb:

Hi Wolfgang,

On 22 Feb., 15:18, Wolfgang Grafen <wolfgang.gra...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Thomas Stanka schrieb:
divide this by 6, or you have already 50% duty cycle and use rising
and falling edge of the clock. Second sollution requires you to be
aware of glitches.
Idea:
to divide a clock by 3 initialise two 3-bit ringregisters with "110" and
clock the first with rising edge, the second with falling edge. Then
combine both LSBs with AND => The generated clock will be symmetrical
and glitch free!

This is a good[1] sollution to be glitch free, but how could you
obtain a symetrical clock, if your master clock is not symetrical?

Yes, master clock has to be symmetrical. If not and you need a symmetrical

output clock then you could make input or output clock symmetrical e.g.
by means of a PLL.

Wolfgang

 

[Ralf Hildebrandt]

Thomas Stanka schrieb:

You describe a divide by 6 cirquit.
A divide by 3 with 50% duty cycle means for a 1 MHZ clk (1us periode),
you generate 3 us periode with 1500 ns high and 1500 ns low. You need
additional cornerstones to achieve this. Either you have a reliable
clock double circuit available (eg. DLL) to generate a 2 MHZ clock and
divide this by 6, or you have already 50% duty cycle and use rising
and falling edge of the clock. Second sollution requires you to be
aware of glitches.

The 2nd solution is a tricky one, but at the end a solution with few
hardware ressources. One can use a Pseudo-Dual-Edge D-Flipflop:
<http://www.ralf-hildebrandt.de/publication/pdf_dff/pde_dff.pdf> and
<http://www.ralf-hildebrandt.de/publication/pdf_dff/pde_dff.vhd>.

# Which one is superior: Asynchronous Reset or Synchronous Reset

Trick question.

Yes. Both of them have advanteages and disadvantes.

Ralf