What is a PLD/FPGA with serial or Ethernet port logic or blo

L

LM

Guest
I am looking for a chip with somekind of communication port inbuilt. I
am slowly planning a system where some data is sent from a computer to
be processed in the chip.

Processing data is probably easy, but I prefer not to make a serial
port my self and an ethernet port is too much. But an Ethernet port
would be very nice to have.

I would like to have a reasonably priced chip with low cost evaluation
board. And I need as many outputs I can get. Some time ago I was told
here about LCMXO2-1200ZE-B-EVN and others. It is a good kit/chip but
it doesn't have serial port logic built in.
 
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:46:04 -0800, LM wrote:

I am looking for a chip with somekind of communication port inbuilt. I
am slowly planning a system where some data is sent from a computer to
be processed in the chip.

Processing data is probably easy, but I prefer not to make a serial port
my self and an ethernet port is too much. But an Ethernet port would be
very nice to have.

I would like to have a reasonably priced chip with low cost evaluation
board. And I need as many outputs I can get. Some time ago I was told
here about LCMXO2-1200ZE-B-EVN and others. It is a good kit/chip but it
doesn't have serial port logic built in.
Asynchronous serial ports are dead easy if you use a fixed baud rate.

They're so easy, in fact, that I can implement them successfully the
first time!!

Here's some Verilog code that implements a basic NAAUART (Not At All
Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter). I last worked with it in
2004, and you're not paying a cent for it -- so don't expect much in the
way of support. About all I can remember of it is that (a) it worked,
(b), the clock rate was 25MHz, and (c) my favorite serial port setup is
115200, n, 1, so that's probably what this is. And -- I'm not an FPGA
designer: I just play one on TV. So if anyone wants to critique it,
don't think I'm going to be offended.

https://docs.google.com/open?
id=0B5lSHlBBxGvjY2JmODk1MDEtMGYyYy00MzNiLWE0MjUtMWU3YThjZDM1MTU1

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
I am looking for a chip with somekind of communication port inbuilt. I
am slowly planning a system where some data is sent from a computer to
be processed in the chip.

Processing data is probably easy, but I prefer not to make a serial
port my self and an ethernet port is too much. But an Ethernet port
would be very nice to have.

I would like to have a reasonably priced chip with low cost evaluation
board. And I need as many outputs I can get. Some time ago I was told
here about LCMXO2-1200ZE-B-EVN and others. It is a good kit/chip but
it doesn't have serial port logic built in.
The Xilinx Spartan 6 has an in-built Ethernet MAC block, and there ar
various development boards available:
http://www.xilinx.com/products/boards/s6conn/reference_designs.htm

I have never used the Spartan 6, but have used the Ethernet MAC in a Virte
5.

There are many examples of serial port code on the Interwebs. The searc
keyword is UART.


---------------------------------------
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com
 
On 23 Feb., 10:26, "RCIngham"
<robert.ingham@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote:

The Xilinx Spartan 6 has an in-built Ethernet MAC block, and there are
various development boards available:http://www.xilinx.com/products/boards/s6conn/reference_designs.htm
Are you sure that you do not mix this up with the built-in PCIe-
endpoint? I think for Ethernet you need a soft IP-core?

Thomas
 
On 23 Feb., 10:26, "RCIngham"
robert.ingham@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote:

The Xilinx Spartan 6 has an in-built Ethernet MAC block, and there are
various development board
available:http://www.xilinx.com/products/boards/s6conn/reference_designs.htm


Are you sure that you do not mix this up with the built-in PCIe-
endpoint? I think for Ethernet you need a soft IP-core?

Thomas
Opps! Good spot - but I did say that I hadn't used Spartan 6. Th
transceiver I/O are compatible with Gigabit Ethernet, however.

Maybe PCIe will suit the OP better than Ethernet if (s)he can't afford th
soft-core license.


---------------------------------------
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com
 
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:27:35 -0800 (PST)
LM <sala.nimi@mail.com> wrote:

Asynchronous serial ports are dead easy if you use a fixed baud rate.

They're so easy, in fact, that I can implement them successfully the
first time!!

https://docs.google.com/open?
id=0B5lSHlBBxGvjY2JmODk1MDEtMGYyYy00MzNiLWE0MjUtMWU3YThjZDM1MTU1

Heh. This will help of course. Thanks.

Serial port is a bit slow. Ethetnet port would be more flexible. Wlan,
switches and so on.

Maybe PCIe will suit the OP better than Ethernet if (s)he can't afford the
soft-core license.
What I know of PCIe it is only local, inside the computer. I planned
to my device to be a separate box. Any license payment at this stage
is too much. This is a bit of a hobby now and the millions of euros
come later.

Thank you for answers so far
Leif
Do you actually need an FPGA, or could a fast enough general purpose
microprocessor cover your needs? You can really get a lot of
horsepower for pennies these days in a micro, and it comes with
peripherals for Ethernet/UARTS/whathaveyou already built in.

A lot of my designs use an FPGA together with an off-the-shelf micro,
exactly so as not not have to worry about implementing things like
Ethernet MACs in the FPGA.

--
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com
Email address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix.
 
Asynchronous serial ports are dead easy if you use a fixed baud rate.

They're so easy, in fact, that I can implement them successfully the
first time!!

https://docs.google.com/open?
id=0B5lSHlBBxGvjY2JmODk1MDEtMGYyYy00MzNiLWE0MjUtMWU3YThjZDM1MTU1

Heh. This will help of course. Thanks.

Serial port is a bit slow. Ethetnet port would be more flexible. Wlan,
switches and so on.

Maybe PCIe will suit the OP better than Ethernet if (s)he can't afford the
soft-core license.
What I know of PCIe it is only local, inside the computer. I planned
to my device to be a separate box. Any license payment at this stage
is too much. This is a bit of a hobby now and the millions of euros
come later.

Thank you for answers so far
Leif
 
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:17:21 -0800, Rob Gaddi wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:27:35 -0800 (PST) LM <sala.nimi@mail.com> wrote:

Asynchronous serial ports are dead easy if you use a fixed baud rate.

They're so easy, in fact, that I can implement them successfully the
first time!!

https://docs.google.com/open?
id=0B5lSHlBBxGvjY2JmODk1MDEtMGYyYy00MzNiLWE0MjUtMWU3YThjZDM1MTU1

Heh. This will help of course. Thanks.

Serial port is a bit slow. Ethetnet port would be more flexible. Wlan,
switches and so on.

Maybe PCIe will suit the OP better than Ethernet if (s)he can't afford
the soft-core license.
What I know of PCIe it is only local, inside the computer. I planned to
my device to be a separate box. Any license payment at this stage is
too much. This is a bit of a hobby now and the millions of euros come
later.

Thank you for answers so far
Leif

Do you actually need an FPGA, or could a fast enough general purpose
microprocessor cover your needs? You can really get a lot of horsepower
for pennies these days in a micro, and it comes with peripherals for
Ethernet/UARTS/whathaveyou already built in.

A lot of my designs use an FPGA together with an off-the-shelf micro,
exactly so as not not have to worry about implementing things like
Ethernet MACs in the FPGA.
-- and, unless your Ethernet messaging is really low-level, boneheaded,
and simplified, you're going to need a microprocessor to manage it anyway
(no _way_ do you want to try to make an all-logic TCP/IP stack!). So you
may as well get a micro that has on-board Ethernet (and serial, to boot).

Why didn't I think of that?

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:27:35 -0800, LM wrote:

Asynchronous serial ports are dead easy if you use a fixed baud rate.

They're so easy, in fact, that I can implement them successfully the
first time!!

https://docs.google.com/open?
id=0B5lSHlBBxGvjY2JmODk1MDEtMGYyYy00MzNiLWE0MjUtMWU3YThjZDM1MTU1

Heh. This will help of course. Thanks.

Serial port is a bit slow. Ethetnet port would be more flexible. Wlan,
switches and so on.

Maybe PCIe will suit the OP better than Ethernet if (s)he can't afford
the soft-core license.
What I know of PCIe it is only local, inside the computer. I planned to
my device to be a separate box. Any license payment at this stage is too
much. This is a bit of a hobby now and the millions of euros come later.
I recall reading an article on using ATA ports as real-time I/O. So if
your box is close to, and dependent on, a computer, using a SATA port may
be easy.

But it sounds so perverse that I suspect that the times when it is the
best solution are few.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
A lot depends on your concept of low cost and what you actually need.
The LCMXO2 PLD is a relatively limited device and has it's slot in the
CPLD and FPGA line up.

Our Pomaddie3 (http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/polmaddie/polmaddie3.html)
board is based on Spartan-3 but it's a nice balance of cost /
performance / I/O. That gets you 60 I/O with a simple USB serial port
based on a FTDI FT232.

Our Drigmorn3 (http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/drigmorn/drigmorn3.html) is
a possibility.

If you have more money a PCIe card like our (Raggedstone2
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/raggedstone/raggedstone2.html) gets you
much more performance still with I/O.

We have some modules that will compliment Drigmorn and Raggedstone
boards and other ranges. On Ethernet we have a 10/100 Phy and 10/100
SPI controller solutions already available. A 10/100/1000 Phy solution
also coming soon as a module. It's on our testbech now. If you prefer
USB we have a FT4232 solution coming as well as a nice easy reasonable
performance interface.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.


On Feb 22, 4:46 pm, LM <sala.n...@mail.com> wrote:
I am looking for a chip with somekind of communication port inbuilt. I
am slowly planning a system where some data is sent from a computer to
be processed in the chip.

Processing data is probably easy, but I prefer not to make a serial
port my self and an ethernet port is too much. But an Ethernet port
would be very nice to have.

I would like to have a reasonably priced chip with low cost evaluation
board. And I need as many outputs I can get. Some time ago I was told
here about LCMXO2-1200ZE-B-EVN and others. It is a good kit/chip but
it doesn't have serial port logic built in.
 
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

(snip)

-- and, unless your Ethernet messaging is really low-level, boneheaded,
and simplified, you're going to need a microprocessor to manage it anyway
(no _way_ do you want to try to make an all-logic TCP/IP stack!). So you
may as well get a micro that has on-board Ethernet (and serial, to boot).
You might be able to do UDP/IP, though. TCP is enough harder that
I would have to agree. That processor could be fairly simple, and
implemented in an FPGA.

Why didn't I think of that?
-- glen
 
On 24 helmi, 10:58, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

(snip)

-- and, unless your Ethernet messaging is really low-level, boneheaded,
and simplified, you're going to need a microprocessor to manage it anyway
(no _way_ do you want to try to make an all-logic TCP/IP stack!).  So you
may as well get a micro that has on-board Ethernet (and serial, to boot).

You might be able to do UDP/IP, though. TCP is enough harder that
I would have to agree. That processor could be fairly simple, and
implemented in an FPGA.

Why didn't I think of that?

-- glen
Some microprocessors have Ethernet in them. And Ethernet is certainly
easier to use with a microprocessor. But then, I plan drive each pin
separately in a loop, and that is easier in VHDL. It is faster too. I
may end up using a FTDI chip or some similar serial to Ethernet chip
here with the FPGA chip. I can say that my Ethernet messaging is
really simple, but then, that can be handled with an Ethernet to
serial chip too.

When I studied VHDL, I heard that all larger devices have built in or
optional logic block of common functions like Ethernet or some CPUs.
And they are optimised so that you dont need to make them your self.
One reason to my post is curiosity, I'd like to know what these larger
devices are and what they cost.

I once read that ATA ports are old simplified ISA ports in disguise,
programming them may anyway be hard when Windows and PCIe try their
best to stop you.

This is interesting
Leif
 
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:54:26 -0800, LM wrote:

On 24 helmi, 10:58, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

(snip)

-- and, unless your Ethernet messaging is really low-level,
boneheaded, and simplified, you're going to need a microprocessor to
manage it anyway (no _way_ do you want to try to make an all-logic
TCP/IP stack!).  So you may as well get a micro that has on-board
Ethernet (and serial, to boot).

You might be able to do UDP/IP, though. TCP is enough harder that I
would have to agree. That processor could be fairly simple, and
implemented in an FPGA.

Why didn't I think of that?

-- glen

Some microprocessors have Ethernet in them. And Ethernet is certainly
easier to use with a microprocessor. But then, I plan drive each pin
separately in a loop, and that is easier in VHDL. It is faster too. I
may end up using a FTDI chip or some similar serial to Ethernet chip
here with the FPGA chip. I can say that my Ethernet messaging is really
simple, but then, that can be handled with an Ethernet to serial chip
too.

When I studied VHDL, I heard that all larger devices have built in or
optional logic block of common functions like Ethernet or some CPUs. And
they are optimised so that you dont need to make them your self. One
reason to my post is curiosity, I'd like to know what these larger
devices are and what they cost.
Nope. There's scads of intellectual property ("soft core logic") that
implements that sort of thing, and there's a few FPGAs that have
processor cores embedded in them. But it's certainly not universal, and
while I don't know for sure what the market shares are, I'd guess that
90% of the FPGAs that ship do so without dedicated processors, PCI, or
other such hardware.

So - "built in", no. But "don't have to build it yourself" -- yes, sort
of, but you often need to be pretty sharp and knowledgeable to get a
chunk of IP working correctly with all the rest of your stuff on chip.

(I think there's even an ARM core that's designed to work on FPGAs these
days).

I once read that ATA ports are old simplified ISA ports in disguise,
programming them may anyway be hard when Windows and PCIe try their best
to stop you.
PATA is a stripped-down ISA port. I'm really not up on what SATA is. I
wouldn't expect that PCI is going to "get in the way", because by
definition the PCI bus won't be active when you're doing ATA accesses.

You can count on having to have someone on your team who knows Windows
drivers if you want to use one -- but that's a software problem.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:40:03 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

LM <sala.nimi@mail.com> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
You might be able to do UDP/IP, though. TCP is enough harder that I
would have to agree. That processor could be fairly simple, and
implemented in an FPGA.

Some microprocessors have Ethernet in them. And Ethernet is certainly
easier to use with a microprocessor.

But what do you write to the ethernet? You need at least a TYPE (also
called ethertype). UDP is a fairly simple header in front of the data.
You also need ARP to make IP work, but you can fake that if needed, or
use a simple state machine.
My understanding with Ethernet is that you can choose an unused port and
just send out raw Ethernet packets fairly easily -- but that's based on a
throw-away comment made by someone I trust, in an otherwise unrelated
conversation. So it's in my bucket of "worthwhile to check" notions, but
it certainly doesn't belong in my bucket of "count on it" ideas.

Using an Ethernet soft core along with a processor soft core to handle a
stack might work -- and might even come supported by an FPGA vendor. But
by the time you get that much processing power into an FPGA I always
start wondering if it isn't more wise to just put that much processing
power _next to_ the FPGA, let the FPGA do the logic, and let the
processor do the processing.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
LM <sala.nimi@mail.com> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
You might be able to do UDP/IP, though. TCP is enough harder that
I would have to agree. That processor could be fairly simple, and
implemented in an FPGA.

Some microprocessors have Ethernet in them. And Ethernet is
certainly easier to use with a microprocessor.
But what do you write to the ethernet? You need at least a TYPE
(also called ethertype). UDP is a fairly simple header in front of
the data. You also need ARP to make IP work, but you can fake that
if needed, or use a simple state machine.


But then, I plan drive each pin
separately in a loop, and that is easier in VHDL. It is faster too. I
may end up using a FTDI chip or some similar serial to Ethernet chip
here with the FPGA chip. I can say that my Ethernet messaging is
really simple, but then, that can be handled with an Ethernet to
serial chip too.
Usually it isn't so bad to have a processor (soft in the FPGA) do
the harder parts like ARP, and otherwise directly write UDP to
the ethernet chip.

-- glen
 
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

(snip)
My understanding with Ethernet is that you can choose an unused port and
just send out raw Ethernet packets fairly easily -- but that's based on a
throw-away comment made by someone I trust, in an otherwise unrelated
conversation. So it's in my bucket of "worthwhile to check" notions, but
it certainly doesn't belong in my bucket of "count on it" ideas.
Ethernet without IP doesn't have ports. There is ethertype, which
identifies the protocol in use. (IP is X'0800') You could use an
unused ethertype, or maybe one reserved for testing.

You could also put a UDP header on it with an unused UDP port.
It is convenient toalso do ARP, but you could put a static ARP
entry on some other host such that packets would be send to the
right place, and a fixed ethernet MAC address in the FPGA for the
destination. (For one-way communication, only one of those is needed.)

Using an Ethernet soft core along with a processor soft core to handle a
stack might work -- and might even come supported by an FPGA vendor. But
by the time you get that much processing power into an FPGA I always
start wondering if it isn't more wise to just put that much processing
power _next to_ the FPGA, let the FPGA do the logic, and let the
processor do the processing.
For fast transfer, you want the FPGA logic connected to the ethernet
device as direct as possible. Then a processor to handle the less
time sensitive tasks like ARP and routing.

-- glen
 
On 25 helmi, 10:31, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

(snip)

My understanding with Ethernet is that you can choose an unused port and
just send out raw Ethernet packets fairly easily -- but that's based on a
throw-away comment made by someone I trust, in an otherwise unrelated
conversation.  So it's in my bucket of "worthwhile to check" notions, but
it certainly doesn't belong in my bucket of "count on it" ideas.

Ethernet without IP doesn't have ports. There is ethertype, which
identifies the protocol in use. (IP is X'0800') You could use an
unused ethertype, or maybe one reserved for testing.

You could also put a UDP header on it with an unused UDP port.
It is convenient toalso do ARP, but you could put a static ARP
entry on some other host such that packets would be send to the
right place, and a fixed ethernet MAC address in the FPGA for the
destination. (For one-way communication, only one of those is needed.)

Using an Ethernet soft core along with a processor soft core to handle a
stack might work -- and might even come supported by an FPGA vendor.  But
by the time you get that much processing power into an FPGA I always
start wondering if it isn't more wise to just put that much processing
power _next to_ the FPGA, let the FPGA do the logic, and let the
processor do the processing.

For fast transfer, you want the FPGA logic connected to the ethernet
device as direct as possible. Then a processor to handle the less
time sensitive tasks like ARP and routing.

-- glen
I think it is either a microcontroller with Ethernet, like Arduino, or
a Ethernet chip.

What is a good, simple to use or easy to get running Ethernet chip.
But I have to check Ethernet modules too. What I remember of them,
they are like a virtual serial port. That could also work.

It was some years ago I studied VHDL. So It is quite possible that I
miss heard or something, about those macro blocks. I checked also Open
Cores some time ago. They are like a big software projects, it is
difficult to know even where to start. Well that is what they are,
they are big sw projects. It is faster and easier to do this with an
other way.
 
On Feb 23, 5:46 am, LM <sala.n...@mail.com> wrote:
I am looking for a chip with somekind of communication port inbuilt. I
am slowly planning a system where some data is sent from a computer to
be processed in the chip.

Processing data is probably easy, but I prefer not to make a serial
port my self and an ethernet port is too much. But an Ethernet port
would be very nice to have.

I would like to have a reasonably priced chip with low cost evaluation
board. And I need as many outputs I can get. Some time ago I was told
here about LCMXO2-1200ZE-B-EVN and others. It is a good kit/chip but
it doesn't have serial port logic built in.
MachXO2 has SPI and i2c ports.built in.

You really need to state some numbers, 'a bit slow' is not good
enough.

Specify how fast it needs to be and how much data needs to be sent
each way, and over what distance.

High speed serial is no slouch, you can get 12MBd Async easily, and
more with
sync protocols out of something like a FT2232H

The FT2232H and Ethernet are available as small modules, (one is even
free on the MaxhXO2 boards..) so start with those, and pull them into
the logic only if you really need to.
-jg
 
MachXO2 has SPI and i2c ports.built in.

You really need to state some numbers, 'a bit slow' is not good
enough.

 Specify how fast it needs to be and how much data needs to be sent
each way, and over what distance.
About speed and data.

Lets say about 640 bytes 10-50 times per second from PC to devices.
More than this would always be better. Opposite direction is not
critical. And distance, 3 feet minimum, more is better. I can test it
with less, but it is not of much when ready.

The FT2232H and Ethernet are available as small modules, (one is even
free on the MaxhXO2 boards..) so start with those, and pull them into
the logic only if you really need to.
This seems wise
So speed of virtual serial port like FTchip is not limited to same way
as physical RS232 port?
 
On Feb 28, 8:02 am, LM <sala.n...@mail.com> wrote:
The FT2232H and Ethernet are available as small modules, (one is even
free on the MaxhXO2 boards..) so start with those, and pull them into
the logic only if you really need to.

This seems wise
So speed of virtual serial port like FTchip is not limited to same way
as physical RS232 port?
As in set by a legacy 1.8432MHz/16 Motherboard clock, no.

The FT2232H uses 120MHz and divides by 10, and a N/8 fraction
It can do 12MBd/6MBd and fractions below 6MBd, and 12MBd sustained
with largish packets ( >~ 600 bytes from memory), over the high speed
USB link. (and faster in other modes, but serial is simple)
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top