ATMEL USERS GROUP

advertisement
Assessment and debugging of
ATMEL ATF280 Development kit
and suitability for ESA IP cores
Javier Galindo
TEC-EDM
27/09/2011
Outline
• Experience learning the ATMEL
development kit.
• Exposition about the work done with
the HurriCANe IP core .
• Exposition about the work done with
the SpaceWire-b ESA Codec IP core
-2-
Motivation of the Study
• ATF280F first In-house design experiences
o
In-house evaluation of ATMEL FPGA Development Kit and
Tools through small designs: new Atmel FPGA user
learning curve
• Study the suitability of ESA IP Cores within
the ATMEL ATF280 FPGA and its Tools
(HurriCANe and SpaceWire Codec)
o
Assess the feasibility and performance of these IPs in the
European FPGA technology ATF280
-3-
Study Flow I
1.Review of ATMEL Architecture and General
ATF280 Features
–
Expertise and work already done by ESA with ATMEL FPGAs
2.Review of work already done with ATF280
–
Analysis of developed designs, In-house and by Industry
–
Tricks, bugs and problems found which are not well
explained in ATMEL documentation.
–
At first glance, promising device
-4-
Study Flow II
3.Understanding of ATMEL Tool flow
–
Non trivial; Compilation of different applications.
–
Lack of “good” documentation and EXAMPLES!!!
–
In-house Know How; thanks to Mrs F. Decuzzi
4.Implementation of simple test designs
–
Start with simple designs to become familiar with tool flow
–
Correlate documentation with reality
-5-
Study Flow III
5.Implementation of ESA IP Cores
–
Use of HurriCANe (Data Link Layer); small and interesting
IP core
–
Use of SpaceWire Codec; small and interesting IP core
–
Future; CANOpen, Space Wire, Small processor or LEON
6.Results analysis and comparison with other
technologies
–
Validation and verification of the designs
–
Problem analysis and results
–
Comparison and conclusions
-6-
Outline
• Experience learning the ATMEL
development kit.
• Exposition about the work done with
the HurriCANe IP core .
• Exposition about the work done with
the SpaceWire-b ESA Codec IP core
-7-
Development Kits
– Initial Prototype
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
ATF280 Silicon Revision F
Compact PCI mother board
EEPROM, SDRAM, SRAM memories
AT17LV040 configuration memory is used instead
of AT69170E.
Configurable clock generator
LEDs, buttons and a LCD display
Serial RS232 and LVDS drivers
Initial prototype
– Current Development Kit
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
ATF280 Silicon Revision F
Compact PCI mother board
EEPROM, SRAM memories
4 x AT17LV010 configuration memory is used
instead of AT69170E.
Configurable clock generator and external clock
inputs
LEDs and buttons
Serial RS232 and LVDS drivers
Development Kit
-8-
Simple Test Designs
• Test of simple designs to become
familiar with the tools.
–
Simple combinational circuits
–
Up and Down Counters
–
Frequency Dividers
–
Hard Macros with dummy State Machines
–
Simple UART access to On-Chip RAM
-9-
Objectives
– Behaviour of the tools with hierarchical designs
– Clock resources management
– HardMacro detection and mapping
– LPM detection and mapping
– Placing capabilities
– Routing capabilities
– Simulation and analysis features
– Functionality of the development kit blocks
– Usability of the ATF280 with ESA IP cores
-10-
Tech. Comparison
Considerations
– Synthesis Technology comparisons purpose:
–
Check consistency of the results obtained with the Atmel
design flow and other FPGA technologies
–
The purpose is not to have a full benchmark
– Important note;
–
The technologies compared belong to different technology
nodes and some (Altera Cyclone 2 and Xilinx Virtex 4) are
commercial
•
Altera Cyclone: 90 nm TSCM, commercial
•
Xilinx Virtex-4: 90 nm UMC, commercial
•
Microsemi RTAX : 150 nm, rad tolerant
-11-
Frequency Divider Area
Frequency Divider; Technology Comparison
ATMEL – ATF280
ALTERA – Cyclone II
ACTEL – RTAX1000
XILINX – Virtex 4
FIGARO Report
Correlation
among
technologies
-12-
Frequency Divider
Timing
Frequency Divider; Technology Comparison
ATMEL – ATF280
ALTERA – Cyclone II
ACTEL – RTAX1000
XILINX – Virtex 4
FIGARO Report
ATMEL
shows speed
problems
-13-
Down Counter Notes
Down Counter; Notes
–
Complex tool flow. Non integration of all the tools in only one software
application.
–
Integration of IDS Figaro in Precision is not working. Old version.
–
Lack of “good” documentation and EXAMPLES!!!
–
Tricks, bugs and problems found which are not well explained in ATMEL
documentation. Mesh in different documents in the users group.
–
Complicated tracking of signals due to renaming.
–
LPM mapping and HardMacros mapping is functional and desirable.
–
Needed more detailed explanation and status in current soft release.
–
Incomplete area and timing reports due to black boxes; number of Core Cells
consumed by Black Box is not estimated in Synthesis
–
Post Synthesis simulation not fully available. Post Place and Route
simulation possible but under development.
-14-
Frequency Divider Notes
Frequency Divider; Notes
–
–
–
–
–
–
Hierarchy Flattening Mandatory.
Problems routing different clock domains in same
die areas.
–
Using the 8 DKit LEDs with different clock
domains almost impossible.
–
Solution not always feasible; use not
registered outputs. Optimization problems.
FanOut switch already working.
Atmel shows clear speed problems, analysis of
reasons needed.
–
Characterization ongoing. Repeaters?
–
Needed deeper study of ATMEL timing
analysis, not clear results. Bugs being fixed.
Not optimal placing induces not optimal routing;
waste of resources regarding other technologies.
RAM allocation problems; max @ width is 8 = 256
Bytes per block without glue logic. Simulation
libraries?
-15-
ATMEL Development Kit I
After the verification and validation of the simple designs the
following conclusions were achieved;
– Lack of good documentation for the Development Kit and Tools.
–
Last DK relase has only info about Prototype Kit. Improvement needed; clarify tools
status and compile bugs and tricks in one single document. Efficient RadHard Hotline
support.
– DK absence of sample designs, only self test bit stream without
documentation.
– DK absence of LCD Display as in the prototype.
– DK absence of AT69170E Configuration Memory
– SpaceProgrammer has no native drivers for 64 bit Windows Versions,
useless. IDS Figaro compatible only up to Windows Vista.
-16-
ATMEL Development Kit II
After the verification and validation of the simple designs the
following conclusions were achieved;
– Speed problems of ATMEL device; still valid for small/medium designs
not very fast.
– Place and Route capabilities to be improved dramatically.
– Simulation libraries and documentation improvement needed
– Appreciable effort in enhancing the tools and supporting users shown,
good way for future.
-17-
ATMEL Development Kit
– Gone through the learning curve of using
the FPGA design tools (including lab
equipment); focusing the ATF280 FPGA
– FPGA still valid for some “small” designs
– Several days/weeks of work with ATMEL
validated in only one XILINX work day.
-18-
Outline
• Experience learning the ATMEL
development kit.
• Exposition about the work done with
the HurriCANe IP core .
• Exposition about the work done with
the SpaceWire-b ESA Codec IP core
-19-
HurryCANe Tests
– HurryCANe – ESA IP Core
implementing the DATA
LINK LAYER of BOSCH 2.0 A
and B CAN standard.
– Well spread controller
– Includes an AMBA APB
wrapper, not used in these
test.
– Lower Layer for CCPIP IP
Core. Work done with it but
stable version not yet
released for synthesis.
-20-
HurryCANe Setups
Two test setups used;
– Single CAN Node, SCN;
ESA HurryCANe IP Core
Simple CAN node which sends packets when board push buttons are
pressed and switch on and off LEDs depending on the received packet.
– CAN-UART Bridge;
Bridge with a CAN interface and a Serial UART interface. LCD to monitor
traffic. Enables more extensive testing
-21-
Simple CAN Node, SCN
Simple CAN Node to asses IP core functionality
with ATMEL FPGAs.
–
Only Data Link Layer implemented controlled with dummy state machines.
–
Computer emulated CAN network to send packets to the node and monitor
packet received from the node.
–
LEDs and push buttons to control node.
–
1Mbps CAN link speed.
–
Internal or external PCB clock.
–
Synthesis performed with
Precision RTL 2010a U2.
–
Place & route performed with
Figaro IDS 9.0.3.
–
ATMEL Development Kit used.
-22-
SCN Setup
1. Physical Layer Driver for CAN
Voltage levels in protoboard.
2. Used 65HVD251 from TI (CAN
V levels, not RS485) Up to
1Mbp
3. Vector CANoe software
package to simulate CAN
network nodes and monitor
traffic.
4. PCMCIA Card with optocoupled
physical layer drivers.
Design validated and verified ✔
-23-
SCN Details
–
Design fits and works in ATF280
–
Most complicated step; learning of Vector
CANoe software package. Powerful tool but
time consuming to be learnt.
–
Internal and external clock tested up to 20
Mhz. No need for higher speeds, max CAN
speed is 1Mbps, achievable with less than 20
Mhz.
–
Very low design frequency due to long
combinatorial paths of the IP core (Specially
expensive in time for ATMEL FPGAs).
–
Not functional problem but detailed analysis
needed.
IP core
works
without
big issues
-24-
SCN Problems
IP core
Usable with
ATF280
Estrange problem with encapsulated transistor burnt after an On Off On
cycle. DK not damaged but component need to be replaced.
-25-
CAN UART Bridge
–
HurryCANe – ESA IP Core implementing the DATA LINK LATER of
BOSCH 2.0 A and B CAN standard interfacing OpenCores simple serial
UART 96008N1.
–
Dummy LCD display controlled with simple state machine to monitor
traffic.
-26-
CAN-UART Setup
1. Physical Layer Driver for CAN
Voltage levels in protoboard.
Equivalent to SCN including;
Serial port on computer with Putty as
terminal
2. Used 65HVD251 from TI (CAN V
levels, not RS485) Up to 1Mbp
3. Vector CANoe software package
to simulate CAN network nodes
and monitor trafic.
4. PCMCIA Card with optocoupled
physical layer drivers.
5. Serial port on computer with
Putty as terminal.
Design validated and verified ✔
-27-
CAN-UART Results Area
Technology Comparison
ATMEL – ATF280
ALTERA – Cyclone II
ACTEL – RTAX1000
XILINX – Virtex 4
FIGARO Report
(FANOUT = 100)
-28-
CAN-UART Results Timing
Technology Comparison
FANOUT impact: not too large for this design
ATMEL – ATF280
ALTERA – Cyclone II
FANOUT
= 100
FANOUT
= 30
ACTEL – RTAX1000
XILINX – Virtex 4
FIGARO Report
FANOUT
= 30
-29-
CAN-UART Results FGEN2
Technology Comparison
FIGARO Report
Where are the
FGEN2??
(In the lpms??)
PRECISION Report
-30-
CAN-UART Results
Repeaters
Delay in the nets: very high for ATF280 (for many 4 ns),
characterization required.
ATMEL – ATF280
XILINX – Virtex 4
-31-
CAN-UART Results
Design validated and verified ✔
– CAN traffic and Serial traffic
monitored on LCD.
– FGEN2 problem identified on
Precision reports.
– FanOut doesn’t change results
significantly.
– Technology Gap between
Atmel and other technologies.
– Mature expertise with Atmel
tools assessed.
– ESA CAN IP Core simple and
useful, even with ATF280
-32-
Outline
• Experience learning the ATMEL
development kit.
• Exposition about the work done with
the HurriCANe IP core .
• Exposition about the work done with
the SpaceWire-b ESA Codec IP core
-33-
SpW Codec
– Implementation of UoD Space Wire Codec ESA IP
– According to standard ECSS-E-ST-50-12C
– High-speed serial protocol for links and networks used
onboard spacecraft.
– Up to 400 Mbits/sec, bi-directional and full-duplex.
– Application information is sent along a SpaceWire link
in discrete packets.
– Control and time information
can also be sent along
SpaceWire links.
-34-
SpW Codec Info
– SpaceWire CODEC is responsible for making a connection with
the SpaceWire interface at the other end of a link.
– Managing the flow of data across the link.
– The interface transmits and receives SpaceWire characters which
can be link characters (L-Char) or normal characters (N-Char).
–
L-Chars are characters that are used to manage the flow of
data across a link (NULL & FCT).
–
N-Chars are the characters that are used to pass information
across the link (data characters, EOP, EEP and time-codes).
-35-
SpW Approach
– Three SpW ESA IPs available;
–
SpW-b; SpW alone codec.
–
SpW-AMBA; SpW codec with AMBA interface.
–
SpW-RMAP; SpW codec with Remote Memory Access Protocol (RMAP) extensions.
– Planned to start with SpW RMAP IP; standard
mechanism for reading from, and writing to memory in
a remote SpaceWire node.
–
Preliminary analysis shown problems mapping RMAP memories inside FPGA.
–
Only 115-Kbits of user-configurable SRAM.
–
Limited usability of this RAM due to Figaro IDS. Glue logic routing problems
– Finally first approach with SpaceWire CODEC alone and
later continue with RMAP mapping memories outside
FPGA.
-36-
SpW Codec IP
– Very versatile IP core with many configuration options;
–
Valuable for experienced user / Confusing for newcomer
– Main options are;
–
Pipelined to increase transmission speed or non pipelined to save area.
–
DDR outputs or SDR outputs depending the on required data rate and the users
selected technology.
–
TX clock configuration options to allow an independent TX clock and default system
clock therefore greatly increasing the achievable data rate and decoupling the TX
logic from the system clock logic.
–
Internal variable data rate generation.
–
Configurable receive buffer size. Internal FCT credit counter operations are
handled internally.
– No functional example available in documentation. Only SpW
RMAP Xilinx implementation sample.
– Only generic wrapper available with a TX FIFO and RX memory.
-37-
SpW Codec
Configuration
– First approach with a basic configuration; Fixed 10Mbps TX rate.
–
Two clock domains;
–
System and TX clocks common clock at 10Mhz.
–
RX recovered clock.
–
No DDR outputs
–
Small TX and RX FIFOs; 16 words of 9bits.
– Loopback of data inside FPGA
– Establish a running link with Brick Tool
– Tests the standard with SpW Conformance Tester
– Monitoring traffic with SpW router
-38-
SpW Codec Simulation I
– First problems with the available simulation test bench;
–
Verification test bench useful only with the codec itself.
–
Runs different codec configuration tests.
–
Monitors SpW traffic and internal signals of the codec.
– Wrapper on top doesn’t allow configuration changes and hides
internal signals.
-39-
SpW Codec Simulation II
– Decided to simulate codec itself post Synthesis and Post P&R
– P&R requires some GENERICS to be defined, problem to
simulate all tests as logic synthesis removes unused logic.
–
Simulation only of the selected configuration.
– Lack of documentation to select specific test.
–
Manual modification of synthesis and simulation scripts.
– Not available Modelsim Post Synthesis ATMEL libraries.
–
Short help guide and libraries received upon request.
–
Manual Post Synthesis .vhd and libraries modification
requried.
– Same problem with Post Place and Route simulation
– Some test failed due to RX clock recovery.
-40-
SpW Codec Hardware
Setup
– Basic design; Fixed 10Mbps TX rate, two domain clocks
Nice surprise;
The official
Development Kit
had the wrong
SpW receptacle.
Back to ATMEL
prototype.
-41-
SpW Codec Clock
Recovery I
– Critical Clock Recovery; Constraint design.
– SpW has timing
constrains for recovery.
– Microsemi (ACTEL)
application note suggest
manual routing.
– Previous ATMEL SpW
desing (V.Carlier IAS/ORSAY)
routed manually. TX
20Mbps/RX120Mbps
– Our design; low speed,
10 Mbps, automated
routing could work
-42-
SpW Codec Clock
Recovery II
– Recovered Clock is a Derived Clock
– ATMEL suit doesn’t initially allow Derived Clocks
–
New release while working fixed that problem.
– ATMEL suit doesn’t allow STA for clock falling edges
–
We assume that the same engine is used for STA and Time
Driven P&R
–
Figaro puts effort in optimizing paths with falling
edges, leaving rest of design non optimized.
– Really poor low performance in results, max clocks around 10 Mhz
– Non Time Driven P&R gives similar results
– Next step hardware validation of the design
-43-
SpW Codec First Results
– Initial configuration was 2 SpW instances of the Codec connected
in loopback mode inside the FPGA.
– The link was running for a few useconds
before disconnect error of the brick
– The link was stablished with other hardware
Working with SpW router, Conformance Tester
and Link Analyzer. (Thanks to TEC-EDP)
– Link Active but Nchar traffic was not
loopbacked
– Next step debugging with
Logic Analyzer (Thanks to TEC-EDD)
-44-
SpW Codec Debugging I
Periodic
Disconnect
Error
-45-
SpW Codec Debugging II
– When mapping out signals random behavior of the design.
– Random effort trying to debug the functionality of the P&R.
– Some times affected even the current consumption of the board.
–
210mA regular design vs 400mA in some working instances
–
Waiting issue answer of ATMEL Help line
– Possible damage of the board discarded after manual analysis of
resources used in designs that shown estrange current behavior.
– Corruption of the bitstream discarded after comparison
between bitstreams in DK memory and computer.
– Assumption for possible timing related problems with P&R
Simpler design with only one codec.
-46-
SpW Codec Debugging III
– Less random behavior of the development kit
– Ass before link established normally.
– Loopback of characters.
– Not fully functional
–
Characters not in order.
–
Unknown characters
– Problem in TX or RX?
– New design with UART
–
Monitor RX character and clock domain
–
Monitor TX and system clock domain
-47-
SpW Codec Debugging IV
– With this last configuration RX domain validated
–
UART monitors RX characters, some improvements needed
–
Automated P&R for RX clock recovery at low speed valid
– Work being done in the TX and system clock domain
–
UART not well connected to TX FIFO or timing problem?
– New iteration in STA of the design; estrange behavior of IDS
Figaro when changing Constraint for STA with a fix P&R
–
Re-running STA relaxing some strong constraints produces improvement in
timing performance --- Correct
–
Re-running STA rising some strong constraints produces improvement in
timing performance --- Non correct??
– Probably related to falling edge clocks. Not clear answer from
ATMEL help line, still under investigation.
-48-
SpW Codec Results Area
FIGARO Report
Mentor Precision for
ATMEL – ATF280
-49-
SpW Codec Results Timing
Mentor Precision for ATMEL – ATF280
FIGARO Report
-50-
CAN-UART Results
Design not yet validated and verified
– Further work need to be developed
– ESA SpW-b IP Core powerful but complex
– Lack of examples
– Not easy simulation of designs, only the codec
– Automated routing for low speed valid
– ATMEL main problem timing; possible to synthesize
SpW with ATMEL but tricky
-51-
ATF280 Timing Charact.
A Timing Characterization is being developed
Correlate simulations
with real Hardware.
ATMEL timing issues
related to net delays?
Repeaters?
Last library updates
doesn’t add big penalty
when routing repeaters
Further analysis required
-52-
ATF280 DK Conclusions
– Non trivial tool flow, compilation of several vendor software;
–
self learning the software will not give the same results
as experimented users could get, help needed.
–
Lack of application examples and some
documentation. Only self test bit stream with the FPGA,
need to ask for samples.
– Lack of centralized document with tips and tricks for new users.
– Old dated manuals and tutorials, 2002, lots of changes.
– Fast and good support from ATMEL RadHard Hotline; efficient and
fast solutions answers and help.
-53-
ATF280 DK Conclusions
– Old errors and problems still reproduced. Need to be fixed.
– Routing problems due to non optimal Placement, specially
registered outputs and clock resources on mixed clock domains.
– LPM and Macros seen as black boxes, no timing or area resources
report in Synthesis step.
– FGEN2 estrange behavior.
– Improve Atmel timing reports and correlation with Precision and
reality.
– Not support for falling clock edges in STA or Timing driven P&R,
STA.
-54-
ATF280 DK Conclusions
– Strong differences between ATMEL and other technologies.
– Not always comparable; XTMR overhead or other techniques
avoided with RadHard by design architecture from ATMEL;
–
Valid comparison in terms of speed
–
Non equivalent comparison in terms of Area due to different
radiation features.
– Not suitable FPGA for “big” designs but still valid for
small/medium designs.
– Problem with the Development Kit, Transistors burnt with only
switching on-off-on, SpW receptacles.
– SpaceProgrammer without native drivers for 64 bit Windows
Versions, useless. FIGARO not working under windows 7.
-55-
HurriCANe Conclusions
– IP core easy to use and learn.
– Not big requirements in terms of area and clock.
– Fastest configuration, 1Mbps, running even in ATF280
– Possible upgrade in clocks? Increase of system clock speed.
Nowadays worst case is ATF280, in the future ATF450?
– Stable design, well documented. Lack of info about ATMEL FPGA.
– Complement to higher levels of CAN stack, next ESA CCIPC IP.
-56-
SpW Codec Conclusions
– IP core versatile and powerful.
– Not easy to use and configure.
– Lack of some examples of configuration.
– Some status signals in the IP core could be replaced for debug.
– Not big requirements in terms of area. Tricky P&R for the clock
recovery.
– Not yet working with ATMEL .
-57-
Global Conclusions
Atmel on the good path.
ATF280 still valid for some designs.
Improvements on the tools would give more usability.
More work need to be done.
Atmel Users Group Forum needs to be stimulated and
updated.
-58-
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME
QUESTIONS?
-59-
YOUR TIME
YOUR TIME
Down Counter Area
Down Counter; AREA Precision Vs IDS
ATMEL
IDS
MENTOR
PRECISION
MENTOR
Similar Results
PRECISION
Down Counter Timing
Down Counter; TIMING Precision Vs IDS
MENTOR
PRECISION
ATMEL
IDS
Not So
Accurate
Correlation
Down Counter Macros
Down Counter; AREA and TIMING VHDL Vs IDS Hard Macros
VHDL
VHDL
HARD
MACROS
HARD
MACROS
HardMacros
perform much better
CAN-UART IDS Figaro
Registered Outputs
Download
Related flashcards
Create Flashcards