FPGA with fully asynchronous RAM

If you need small RAMs, sure! But small is the key word. The two types of memory in the Xilinx devices are BlockRAMs which require the clock for the read and CLB SelectRAM distributed memory. In the Virtex-II and Virtex-IIPro devices support up to 128 bit depth for single port memories or

Xilinx LUT-RAMs read asynchronously and write synchronously (clocked). Xilinx BlockRAMs perform read and write operations synchronously (clocked). In most situations, clocked operation is preferrable and inherently more reliable.

Peter Alfke

I know that synchronous RAMs are preferable, but the asynchronous RAMs are needed in my design due to the fact that it is a processor design that is fully asynchronous.

regards Gottfried

Sym> Hi Gottfried,

"Fully asynchronous", ohmygod! Well, you can always generate a strobe pulse when you want to read or write. We would call that a clock, but if your religion forbids that, you can call it something else..We are agnostic, up to a point :-) Peter Alfke =================================================

I'm sorry for the pain you are going to suffer making self timing circuits in an FPGA.

--

--Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Hi everybody, while you are discussing asynchronous designs on FPGAs...

Has anybody made experience with the balsa tools?

And YES! todays FPGAs are designed to work synchronously, but there are asynchronous chips around (e.g. part of the SPARC 2i and other µP) that seem to work sufficently. So, while it's still hard work its not impossible to do.. My final question is...when will there be FPGAs with C-Elements etc. ?? (Small market at this time, I think :-) )

An outgrowth of the Amulet project!

Well Manchester always had a great reputation for these sorts of things but even in full custom design Async design is pushing a rock up a hill, there are few $ EDA tools in the ASIC market to my knowledge and few takers.

I suspect that for large asics, a better aproach is to design clocked subsystems with pseudo async interfaces so any no of free cycles can pass by between clocked blocks. Its still really a synced design with sync handshakes but more tolerant of delays that are in clock periods. Still thats hard too.

Mind you with Xilinx talking up 500MHz and my timing reports giving me many single wire nets in 1-4ns zone, maybe FPGAs will have to do same thing.

regards

johnjakson

Whats a C-Elements?

You're talking about "Asynchronous Communicatiing Processes" ... Systems that communicate over Clock domains by handshaked signals. Can save a lot of energy, if your system can be divided into parts running at different clock speeds.

Using multiple independant clock domains and communicate via handshakes? I think lots of FPGA Designs are doing that already. Just look at the increasing number of available dedicated clock nets in large FPGAs. Someone gotta need them :-) Besides that, speed is not the only (wanted or unwanted) advantage of asynchronous designs. Power is another one. Have you recently taken a look into a state of the art PC? What good is the integration of the several million transistors of a Pentium4 when you need a cooling plate, the size of a big mans fist plus an extra fan? (Not to mention the power supply.)

I wonder, besides any asynchronous stuff, if the same space could hold a bunch of (slow) low power SoC microcomputers, working together as known from grid computers.

Remember the old days, when a '386 was just a bare PLCC on the PCB and from that time on all the higher speed and integration started cooling plates to grow like fungi on the motherbords.

Well, it's starting to get philosophical here...but, I was just wondering. :-)

A special kind of latch designed for use in asynchronous designs (as mentioned in "Logic Synthesis of Asynchronous Controllers and Interfaces" (Springer, ISBN 3-540-43152-7) Unfortunately there is no commonly known terminology for asynchronous building blocks.

regards Eilert Backhus

My family is all too aware of AthlonXP heat output, looking to kill it one day with a Transputer or 2, but 1 should suffice. After all it only surfs & plays net TV.

Yes, thats what I am working on, Inmos did this 20yrs ago, probably

The intel supporters will pooh pooh that analysis but if you have distributed cpus & local memory and know how to use them (Transputer people do), you also get far more total memory b/w than pushing it all up 1 pipe. Also no reason to be limited to std DRAM, theres RLDRAM available with 20n RAS times. And with MTA architecture, branching & memory delays are better hidden than single threaded cpus with ever bigger caches.

Yes been along time since I saw computer fanless. my old BBC & QL still got quite warm though!

regards

johnjakson_usa_com

Then why don't you dial down the clock and save all that heat? The Athlon will run at lower voltages as well when you slow it down. The entire system can run cooler and you might even be able to get rid of the fan altogether. I did that with a Celeron. Of course I dialed it back up after I ran the test. I need the speed for FPGA work.

The only problem is the same one Motorola ran into, all the code is written for the Intel architecture. You can say you have a better solution, but it really is not practical for a typical app. One CPU (even a monster Intel with heatsink) is much easier to design a system with than 30 Transputers. Of course you get higher memory bandwidth, you have a dozen more pins to memory!

I bought a Walmart special with a Via CPU (I forget the name of it). It was not fanless, but I unhooked the fan and it idled nearly at room temp and only got up to about 55-60C when running a heat test program. That is a little hot, but with a better cooling design I believe it could be kept under 50C.

I just didn't dare to mention Transputers :-)

There are lots of pro's and con's about transputer technology, but what really broke their neck was the high price of the CPU alone compared to a whole PC with (then) cheap Network cards. The parallel processing people started grid computing and the controller people were just happy with their (then) fast controllers(ARM etc.)

Today there is a possibility for the return of integrated parallel processing architectures. The IEEE1355 and Spacewire Interfaces (successors of the Transputer links) are available as FPGA-cores, and combined with a CPU-core and other fancy stuff (e.g. hardware scheduler) we get powerful Transputer-Substitutes on cool and cheap(?) FPGA-Silicon.

regards Eilert Backhus

Exactly, but today it is even more prudent to consider the plusses of FPGA design and work around the minusses to build a new Transputer or any cpu for that matter.

Once you have x MHz in FPGA you get maybe 2-5X more in ASIC. I've been keeping an eye on .13 cell libs, and the critical path in both is ultimately how fast a dual port BlockRam can cycle for about 512x32. In Samsung its near 1GHz.

One very nice advantage of MTA is that it allows for even that bottleneck to be pipelined although all the cells I've seen are single cycle 1.0ns designs. A fully pipelined DP SRAM could probably go 2x faster still.

The cost isn't as low as I'd originally hoped, maybe in the 1k to 1.5K flops ballpark but FPGA does allow interesting architecture to be tried out for