microblaze question

I'm investigating if the microblaze is an option for a project where physical space is extremely limited. Perhaps somebody can answer the following:

1.Is it possible to use the microblaze in a spartan3E 500? If yes, how much will it eat from this device? 2.if yes, is it possible to use the microblaze without any other memory chips (except one serial bootrom) and still running a standalone program which is not super large and does not need lots of memory? Thanks taco
Reply to
taco
Loading thread data ...

If you need a real small CPU, take a look at

ftp://137.193.64.130/pub/mproz/mproz3_e.pdf

Only a few dozen flip-flops and a few hundred gates.

Reply to
Herbert Kleebauer

i have a microblaze in a spartan 3e 250 and it takes about 50%

yes. you can run from block ram. you can't include a bunch of libraries (for example, printf won't fit).

alan nishioka snipped-for-privacy@nishioka.com

Reply to
Alan Nishioka

Mmm, and only to be programmed in assembler, I assume. Picoblaze is even smaller... Right now I'm running an opencore 8051 which works fine and can be programmed in C, but for the project I'm doing it could be that this runs too slow and cannot handle to dataflow entering a FIFO. microblaze would certainly solve it unless I have to add hardware. Thanks anyway. Taco

Reply to
taco

Thanks a lot, that's exactly what I needed to know. taco

Reply to
taco

What is the complexity of your code?

If you want to minimize the code to fit inside block RAMs the 8051 might not be your best choice. You can find some comparison data on my proc4 web page:

formatting link

As a note, a MCU based on proc4 core fits in a spartan3 50 (i.e. the smallest) using only the internal RAM, making use of [almost] all pins (as I/Os).

-- mmihai

Reply to
mmihai

formatting link

I took a quick look at your webpage [1] and have a few questions:

Do you have a C-compiler for your processor? (You only say that it is programmable in a high-level language on your webpage.)

Do you know if commercial compilers for Z80 and 8051 will produce better results than sdcc?

I also note that the 8051 results were done with 6 clocks per machine cycle. AFAIK there are much faster 8051 cores available.

/Andreas

[1] Initially I expected something to download there but I guess I was somewhat too optimistic there... still an interesting page though.
Reply to
Andreas Ehliar

Yeah, same question. I think this is not the case and if it's not a standard high level language, moving to a different processor is not very easy.

The answer is yes. The Keil compiler produces better optimized code for

8051.

Mmm. to get the graphs in some better direction? Taco

Reply to
taco

No, it's not C ...

I don't have access to comercial compilers for Z80/8051.

Yes, I know. The 8051 simulator I've used ( 8051sim) computes the cycles based on the original timing. I saw 2X cores which are just twice faster. The one called "single cycle" do not execute all the instruction in a single cycle (i.e. timing is dependent on the instruction, I think I saw 1-4) so you really need a core simulator.

-- mmihai

Reply to
mmihai

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.