How to handle a data packet while calculating CRC.

Hi,
I'm trying to process a Ethernet type package. Suppose if i have detected S
FD and now have a
Reply to
yogesh tripathi
Loading thread data ...
Hi
Calculate CRC on-the-fly together with incoming data.
Adam
Reply to
Adam Górski
ed SFD and now have a >
ating them in a long shift register and at same time passing it to a fifo t o buffer and calculating crc32 which will take some clock cycles(xoring and shifting). Now if calculated CRC matched what is received, pass data to nx t stage else rst fifo.
Hi Adam,
"Calculate CRC on-the-fly together with incoming data." , can you elaborat e it a bit more. I'm getting a 8bit data in one clock cycle from the decoder. Now for crc i need serial shift register.
Reply to
yogesh tripathi
Implement this transition function as your 8-bit data is coming in on each cyle:
formatting link

Or you could have a 2x clock for the inner loop to fit the table access, or compute everything one byte per clock cycle by pipelining the accesses suc h as: crc32_now = crc32_prev[23:0] XOR output_from_sram_one_cycle_delay lookup_sram_index_next = crc32_now[7:0] XOR data_from_packet crc32_prev = crc32_now
Then make sure you handle the reset conditions on packet start, end of pack et, etc.
cted SFD and now have a > >
enating them in a long shift register and at same time passing it to a fifo to buffer and calculating crc32 which will take some clock cycles(xoring a nd shifting). Now if calculated CRC matched what is received, pass data to nxt stage else rst fifo.
ate it a bit more.
i need serial shift register.
Reply to
Emilian Miron
for crc i =
You have some options: 1. Use a precalculated table (rainbow table) for CRC. With 8 bit the size of the table is usually acceptable. 2. Use the 8x clock for the CRC calculating shift register (not recommended here). 3. Use a pipelined CRC calculation: The calc module is 8 times in parallel and you get the final result with eight clocks latency.
Bart
Reply to
Bart Fox
Table methods are very likely NOT the correct solution for FPGA implementations. Those methods are tuned for SW solutions.
CRCs in hardware are actually quite easy / low resources. Shifting through the 8 bits in one clock cycle will probably work just fine. There's online websites that have "CRC" calculators which can do some of this work for you. But I find just coding up the algorithm in verilog / VHDL to be more compact and clear.
If that doesn't work - i.e. you're not hitting you're desired clock frequencies - then Bart's suggestion of pipelining the calc is valid. That can be a little trickier, but still doable. I don't think you'll need to go this far, unless you're trying to hit some high clock rates.
Regards,
Mark
Reply to
gtwrek
Not necessarily, have a look at:
formatting link

I've used this, albeit a few years ago and the website has changed since.
If I recall you have to invert and swap the bit order to get the correct CRC. I used a simulator to check the permutations until I got it right.
If you have 8bit data you can generate the CRC on the fly at the same rate.
--
Mike Perkins 
Video Solutions Ltd 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike Perkins
e:
cted SFD and now have a >>>
enating them in a long shift register and at same time passing it to a fifo to buffer and calculating crc32 which will take some clock cycles(xoring a nd shifting). Now if calculated CRC matched what is received, pass data to nxt stage else rst fifo.
borate it a bit more.
c i need serial shift register.
e.
Thank-You Mike. The link gives a provide a HDL package which is basically a Parallel LFSR. You know any related text how to generate a custom LFSR for these CRC ,just for better understanding.
Reply to
yogesh tripathi
So look for CRC implementation able to process 8bits ( byte ) in single clock and store data in same time to fifo and to CRC unit.
Hint: Online CRC VHDL generator. There is many.
Best regards
Reply to
Adam Górski
I looked into this a long while ago and gave up!
A LFSR is a simple concept in it's own right but I didn't have time to decipher a Parallel LFSR. I made the choice of using the result rather than spend time trying to understand something I would only use once in a long while.
I'm sure there are proof and theorems on the 'net somewhere!
--
Mike Perkins 
Video Solutions Ltd 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike Perkins
Sorry for respeak.Of course is the usage of a lookup-table a valid design technic for FPGAs. Maybe not in the range of megabytes, but e.g. for 8 bit input and 8 bit output it's very acceptable. One example: a low fidelity DDS usually use a small ROM with a sine table...
Bart Fox
Reply to
Bart Fox
Table lookups, in general, are a very valid tool for some hardware solutions. Just not for CRCs. A "brute force" table lookup for an 8-bit input, 8-bit CRC would require 2**16 entries by 8 bits. So a 64 KByte table. Not efficient. So one looks up many of the "Software" table generated techniques to reduce the requirements. Problem is those techniques are tuned to optimizes SW, not HW.
... All to replace something less than a 100 LUT6s, and 8 FFs.
CRCs in hardware are very efficient just coded brute force.
Regards,
Mark
Reply to
gtwrek
Den fredag den 16. marts 2018 kl. 01.29.54 UTC+1 skrev gtwrek:
formatting link

doesn't look too bad
Reply to
lasselangwadtchristensen
My favorite reference is:
formatting link

Hardware engineers should STOP reading after section 8. That's all you need to know as a hardware designer. Everything after section 8 is dedicated to software optimizations where one doesn't have free access to any bit - like we do in hardware.
Regards,
Mark
Reply to
gtwrek
No, it is 8-bit in (the address), 32-bit out for a 32-bit CRC - 1024 bytes.
CRC's in hardware, using a shift register, are very efficient if your data is coming in a bit at a time. If you have data in memory or arriving in a wider path, table lookup can be very useful. You can choose your sizes to give a balance between speed and size. For example, you could use 4-bit in, 32-bit out tables and run 4 bits at a time. (Such a solution can be pipelined for greater throughput.)
Reply to
David Brown
So the "brute force" table is even larger.
I don't agree. Those table methods described in all those papers you find are tuned for software solutions, not hardware. It's quite easy to handle one-bit, or N-bits at a time in hardware.
Code up a simple amount of logic to shift one bit at a time - in whatever language.
next_crc = shift_crc( current_crc, new_data_bit_in );
The shift_crc function is very simple to implement in verilog/vhdl.
Now for N bits at a time, stick a 'for' loop around that function call... Done. The for loop (as always in hardware) describes parallel hardware, not sequential operation. And it works to do exactly what is desired. You get a clear description of what's happening in shockingly few lines of code. It reproduces what all those online CRC generators spit out as a glob of random XOR code....
If that's not fast enough, then look at pipelining it. Table methods are hardly ever the right solution for CRCs in hardware.
Burning even one block memory for a CRC calculation in hardware just seems absurdly excessive to me. But maybe your designs have a lot of spare block memories, (and few LUTs available).
Regards,
Mark
Reply to
gtwrek
Example:
Ethernet CRC generator code is (
formatting link
):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Copyright (C) 1999-2008 Easics NV. -- This source file may be used and distributed without restriction -- provided that this copyright statement is not removed from the file -- and that any derivative work contains the original copyright notice -- and the associated disclaimer.
--
-- THIS SOURCE FILE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS 
-- OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Adam Górski
No, they are not.
Let's take the simple case of 8-bit CRC, with data coming in 8-bit lumps. This is the C code for it:
static const uint8_t crcTable[256] = { 0x00, 0x8d, 0x97, 0x1a, 0xa3, 0x2e, 0x34, 0xb9, // ... }
uint8_t calcCrc(uint8_t crc, const uint8_t * p, size_t n) { while (n--) { crc = crcTable[crc ^ *p++]; } return crc; }
In hardware terms, that means you take your incoming 8-bit data, xor it with your 8-bit current crc, then use that as the address for the lookup in your 256-entry (8-bit address, 8-bit data) table. The value from the table is the new crc to use for the next round of 8-bit data.
The table is 256 bytes - 2K bits, if you prefer. Not 2^16.
I suspect that what you are missing in your understanding here is that you do not need a table that combines the current crc and the incoming byte independently - /that/ would need a 2^16 entry table. You take advantage of the way the CRC is defined to combine the parts with xor (using plain logic) first.
If you have a wider CRC and data coming in as 8-bit lumps, you need more than one 256-entry table and you combine the steps with xor's. So for a 32-bit CRC, you can use 4 256-entry, 8-bit wide lookup tables. The four lookups and the xors between them can easily be pipelined.
You can reduce the depth of the pipelines by having bigger tables - 2^16 entry tables will half the pipeline depth, but is unlikely to be worth it due to the size of the tables. You can also use smaller tables and more steps, but 8-bit lookups often work well. It is also possible to take advantage of wider tables if your incoming data is in wider batches.
I haven't looked at the particular papers here. One-bit CRC hardware is, as you say, quite easy to make and it is fine if your data is coming in 1 bit at a time. But it is much slower if the data is coming in parallel bunches as is often the case for high-speed serial lines. If you have 1 GBit Ethernet, it is far easier to handle data that is 8-bit wide at 125 MHz than data that is 1-bit wide at 1 GHz.
Reply to
David Brown
In FPGA, almost all methods are table methods. But not always the same ones as software.
Reply to
mac
(Your quoting is jumbled. You posted a follow-up to my post, but quoted from gtwrek's post. And you failed to give proper attributions. Please try to get this right - it is not hard, it is common courtesy, and it makes newsgroup threads much easier to follow. Thanks.)
Reply to
David Brown

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.