Hi,
In the XST manuals, it is mentioned rather cryptically that these type of muxes can be more efficient in some cases than the MUXFX versions, especially for very large muxes. What is actually meant: very large input muxes, or muxes with a limited number of very wide inputs? I fail to see how they are more efficient... I've searched the web/news groups to no avail.
Thanks for your answer,
with regards,
Jo
"Jo Pletinckx" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news: snipped-for-privacy@News.Individual.NET...
see Xilinx techxclusives multiplexer selection from ken chapman:
MIKE
Thanks your quick answer Mike. Unfortunately, it does not really answer my question. In fact, the TechExclusive from Ken Chapman uses a different approach: he only has one input per LUT, whereas the XST- generated muxes have 2 two inputs and two selectors and function much in the same way as Ken's multiplexer, with one selector en or dis-abling the LUT and the other selecting one of both inputs. At two inputs per LUT, this in roughly the same ratio as the MUXFX based multiplexers. So when does it become more efficient the use the carry-chain?
Or is the gain located only in the implementation, as it reduces the probability of routing congestion by spreading the inputs over a taller column than the MUXFX multiplexer does?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.