Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary
- Subject
- Posted on
- Non-binary NCO Modulus
- 09-15-2020
posted on
September 15, 2020, 8:12 pm
September 15, 2020, 8:12 pm
I recall digging deeply into NCO design some years ago. I am trying to rem
ember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a non-
binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. This
is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up with
a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced opti
mally simple implementation.
elsif (rising_edge(Clk)) then
if (PWM_Clk) then
if (NCO_Accum - Phase_Step < 0) then
NCO_Accum := NCO_Accum - Phase_Step;
else
NCO_Accum := NCO_Accum - Phase_Step + NCO_Mod;
end if;
end if;
end if;
I use the condition (NCO_Accum - Phase_Step < 0) in the IF because it in th
eory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
I can't recall the detail, but I want to say someone had a solution that co
uld do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not remembe
ring right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of the cri
tical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two adders
(subtractors).
Maybe it is the sum of the step size and the modulus which is then muxed wi
th the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinking of
. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for the
conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional I
guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just tryin
g to remember how it all went.
ember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a non-
binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. This
is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up with
a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced opti
mally simple implementation.
elsif (rising_edge(Clk)) then
if (PWM_Clk) then
if (NCO_Accum - Phase_Step < 0) then
NCO_Accum := NCO_Accum - Phase_Step;
else
NCO_Accum := NCO_Accum - Phase_Step + NCO_Mod;
end if;
end if;
end if;
I use the condition (NCO_Accum - Phase_Step < 0) in the IF because it in th
eory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
I can't recall the detail, but I want to say someone had a solution that co
uld do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not remembe
ring right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of the cri
tical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two adders
(subtractors).
Maybe it is the sum of the step size and the modulus which is then muxed wi
th the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinking of
. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for the
conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional I
guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just tryin
g to remember how it all went.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
wrote:
member the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a non-
binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. This i
s the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up with a
really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced optima
lly simple implementation.
theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not rememb
ering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of the cr
itical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two adders
(subtractors).
with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinking o
f. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for the
conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional I g
uess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just trying t
o remember how it all went.
By "non-binary" I guess you mean not a power-of-2. The important ratio is
Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a power of 2
. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the accumul
ator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a 16-bit
accumulator, then, in Verilog:
parameter Phase_Step = 2**16*7/22; // Returns floor of result
reg [15:0] NCO_Accum; // phase vector; multiply by 2*Pi/2**16 to get radian
s
always@(posedge clk) NCO_Accum <= NCO_Accum + Phase_Step; // NCO_Mod =
2**16
Then you can use the rising edge of the MSB of NCO_Accum as a clk enable wi
th a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
Am 16.09.20 um 18:17 schrieb Kevin Neilson:
Stanford once had a BCD DDS. It had the advantage that you can get
EXACTLY 10 MHz from a 100 MHz clock, and that the frequencies are
just like dialed in.
I have put a sinetab on opencores some years ago, that could
be changed to BCD or whatever quite easily.
cheers, Gerhard
Stanford once had a BCD DDS. It had the advantage that you can get
EXACTLY 10 MHz from a 100 MHz clock, and that the frequencies are
just like dialed in.
I have put a sinetab on opencores some years ago, that could
be changed to BCD or whatever quite easily.
cheers, Gerhard
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
te:
is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a power
of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the acc
umulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a 16
-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
dians
= 2**16
e with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
I used a partly non-binary NCO in a program I wrote some years ago. On ret
urning to the code I couldn't figure out what I was doing. It had to do wi
th getting the sample rate to exactly the right number from a clock or some
thing. Heck, I still don't recall, but it looked weird to program the step
size. In essence it was split into two parts, an upper binary part and a
lower non-binary part. Maybe it was so the top two bits were binary to all
ow folding of the sine table.
This project uses a sawtooth wave, so I can use the phase output directly w
ith no sine lookup. Great! They say it will sound like an oboe. The samp
le files do sound like that.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-4, Kevin Neilson wrote:
om wrote:
remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a no
n-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. This
is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up with
a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced opti
mally simple implementation.
n theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
t could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not reme
mbering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of the
critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two adder
s (subtractors).
d with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinking
of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for th
e conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional I
guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just trying
to remember how it all went.
s Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a power of
2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the accum
ulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a 16-b
it accumulator, then, in Verilog:
ans
= 2**16
with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
For various reasons the step size is defined rather than being an arbitrary
value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So outpu
tting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
I'm generating a sawtooth waveform using a PWM output. The PWM is set for
0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumulator o
utside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to 1023,
other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000 or 32
,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phase step
is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
I don't know who will take over this code at some point so I want to make i
t easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less confusing
than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024. It
also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a Hz res
olution.
I was just trying to remember if I am missing something simple for using no
n-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
om wrote:
remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a no
n-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. This
is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up with
a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced opti
mally simple implementation.
n theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
t could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not reme
mbering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of the
critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two adder
s (subtractors).
d with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinking
of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for th
e conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional I
guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just trying
to remember how it all went.
s Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a power of
2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the accum
ulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a 16-b
it accumulator, then, in Verilog:
ans
= 2**16
with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
For various reasons the step size is defined rather than being an arbitrary
value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So outpu
tting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
I'm generating a sawtooth waveform using a PWM output. The PWM is set for
0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumulator o
utside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to 1023,
other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000 or 32
,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phase step
is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
I don't know who will take over this code at some point so I want to make i
t easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less confusing
than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024. It
also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a Hz res
olution.
I was just trying to remember if I am missing something simple for using no
n-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
onsdag den 16. september 2020 kl. 19.47.03 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
e:
.com wrote:
o remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a
non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. Th
is is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up wi
th a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced op
timally simple implementation.
in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
hat could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not re
membering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of th
e critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two add
ers (subtractors).
xed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinki
ng of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for
the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional
I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just tryi
ng to remember how it all went.
is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a power
of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the acc
umulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a 16
-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
dians
= 2**16
e with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
ry value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So out
putting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
r 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumulator
outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to 102
3, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000 or
32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phase st
ep is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less confusin
g than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024. I
t also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a Hz r
esolution.
non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
what the point of the non binary numbers? upper ten bits out of the
+10bit bit phase accumulator, into 10bit pwm, done
e:
.com wrote:
o remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have a
non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this. Th
is is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up wi
th a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced op
timally simple implementation.
in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
hat could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not re
membering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of th
e critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two add
ers (subtractors).
xed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thinki
ng of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain for
the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditional
I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just tryi
ng to remember how it all went.
is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a power
of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the acc
umulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a 16
-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
dians
= 2**16
e with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
ry value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So out
putting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
r 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumulator
outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to 102
3, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000 or
32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phase st
ep is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less confusin
g than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024. I
t also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a Hz r
esolution.
non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
what the point of the non binary numbers? upper ten bits out of the
+10bit bit phase accumulator, into 10bit pwm, done
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
.com wrote:
ote:
il.com wrote:
to remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I have
a non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this.
This is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come up
with a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produced
optimally simple implementation.
it in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
that could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm not
remembering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part of
the critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two a
dders (subtractors).
muxed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm thin
king of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain fo
r the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the condition
al I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just tr
ying to remember how it all went.
io is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a powe
r of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the a
ccumulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using a
16-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
radians
od = 2**16
ble with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
rary value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So o
utputting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
for 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumulat
or outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to 1
023, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000 o
r 32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phase
step is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
ke it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less confus
ing than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024.
It also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a Hz
resolution.
g non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
The math. I need the frequency of the clock to be a multiple of 1 kHz so I
can time 1 ms and also keep the step size a multiple of 1 Hz, or binary fr
action actually. So it has to have a factor of 1000 no matter what. Add i
n the 1k count for the PWM and the 1k count for the top of the phase accumu
lator to drive the PWM and you need a frequency of 125 * 2^20 (131.072 MHz)
to be able to produce a 1 ms enable strobe for other parts of the circuit.
Too high.. I could cut the PWM to 9 bits and use a 32.768 MHz clock. It
would give a 64 kHz sample clock, but I think that's ok.
The phase accumulator has to be a lot more than 10 bits to get enough resol
ution to be accurate. Those are bits of added resolution at the low end an
d other than wanting to make the step size a simple binary multiple of 1 H
z, not a factor.
So the PWM can be binary 9 bits binary. The phase accumulator does need to
have a non-binary factor to get the 1 Hz resolution though. That is what
I did on the other NCO with the split radix. Hmmm... this may require an e
ven more complex phase accumulator because the upper part will be binary, t
he middle have 125 in it and the bottom binary again. lol
Maybe I should just stick to having a non-binary modulus. It's not really
hard at all. I was just trying to remember some "trick" someone had posted
about this some 10 years ago.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
torsdag den 17. september 2020 kl. 19.58.57 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
il.com wrote:
wrote:
mail.com wrote:
ng to remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I hav
e a non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this
. This is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come u
p with a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produce
d optimally simple implementation.
e it in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
on that could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm no
t remembering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part o
f the critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two
adders (subtractors).
n muxed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm th
inking of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain
for the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditi
onal I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just
trying to remember how it all went.
atio is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a po
wer of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the
accumulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using
a 16-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
t radians
_Mod = 2**16
nable with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
itrary value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So
outputting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
t for 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumul
ator outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to
1023, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000
or 32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phas
e step is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
make it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less conf
using than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024
. It also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a
Hz resolution.
ing non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
I can time 1 ms and also keep the step size a multiple of 1 Hz, or binary
fraction actually. So it has to have a factor of 1000 no matter what. Add
in the 1k count for the PWM and the 1k count for the top of the phase accu
mulator to drive the PWM and you need a frequency of 125 * 2^20 (131.072 MH
z) to be able to produce a 1 ms enable strobe for other parts of the circui
t. Too high.. I could cut the PWM to 9 bits and use a 32.768 MHz clock.
It would give a 64 kHz sample clock, but I think that's ok.
olution to be accurate. Those are bits of added resolution at the low end
and other than wanting to make the step size a simple binary multiple of 1
Hz, not a factor.
to have a non-binary factor to get the 1 Hz resolution though. That is wha
t I did on the other NCO with the split radix. Hmmm... this may require an
even more complex phase accumulator because the upper part will be binary,
the middle have 125 in it and the bottom binary again. lol
y hard at all. I was just trying to remember some "trick" someone had post
ed about this some 10 years ago.
by why it exactly 1Hz important?
il.com wrote:
wrote:
mail.com wrote:
ng to remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I hav
e a non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement this
. This is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come u
p with a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produce
d optimally simple implementation.
e it in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
on that could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm no
t remembering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part o
f the critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the two
adders (subtractors).
n muxed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm th
inking of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chain
for the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the conditi
onal I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am just
trying to remember how it all went.
atio is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a po
wer of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want the
accumulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm using
a 16-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
t radians
_Mod = 2**16
nable with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
itrary value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined. So
outputting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
t for 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accumul
ator outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0 to
1023, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*1000
or 32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the phas
e step is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
make it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less conf
using than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/1024
. It also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of a
Hz resolution.
ing non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
I can time 1 ms and also keep the step size a multiple of 1 Hz, or binary
fraction actually. So it has to have a factor of 1000 no matter what. Add
in the 1k count for the PWM and the 1k count for the top of the phase accu
mulator to drive the PWM and you need a frequency of 125 * 2^20 (131.072 MH
z) to be able to produce a 1 ms enable strobe for other parts of the circui
t. Too high.. I could cut the PWM to 9 bits and use a 32.768 MHz clock.
It would give a 64 kHz sample clock, but I think that's ok.
olution to be accurate. Those are bits of added resolution at the low end
and other than wanting to make the step size a simple binary multiple of 1
Hz, not a factor.
to have a non-binary factor to get the 1 Hz resolution though. That is wha
t I did on the other NCO with the split radix. Hmmm... this may require an
even more complex phase accumulator because the upper part will be binary,
the middle have 125 in it and the bottom binary again. lol
y hard at all. I was just trying to remember some "trick" someone had post
ed about this some 10 years ago.
by why it exactly 1Hz important?
Re: Non-binary NCO Modulus
On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 2:44:04 PM UTC-4, lasselangwad...@gmail.
com wrote:
mail.com wrote:
n wrote:
@gmail.com wrote:
ying to remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I h
ave a non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement th
is. This is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come
up with a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produ
ced optimally simple implementation.
use it in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
tion that could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm
not remembering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part
of the critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the t
wo adders (subtractors).
hen muxed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm
thinking of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chai
n for the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the condi
tional I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am jus
t trying to remember how it all went.
ratio is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a
power of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want t
he accumulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm usin
g a 16-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
get radians
CO_Mod = 2**16
enable with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
rbitrary value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined.
So outputting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
set for 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accum
ulator outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0
to 1023, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*10
00 or 32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the ph
ase step is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
o make it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less co
nfusing than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/10
24. It also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of
a Hz resolution.
using non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
so I can time 1 ms and also keep the step size a multiple of 1 Hz, or binar
y fraction actually. So it has to have a factor of 1000 no matter what. A
dd in the 1k count for the PWM and the 1k count for the top of the phase ac
cumulator to drive the PWM and you need a frequency of 125 * 2^20 (131.072
MHz) to be able to produce a 1 ms enable strobe for other parts of the circ
uit. Too high.. I could cut the PWM to 9 bits and use a 32.768 MHz clock.
It would give a 64 kHz sample clock, but I think that's ok.
esolution to be accurate. Those are bits of added resolution at the low en
d and other than wanting to make the step size a simple binary multiple of
1 Hz, not a factor.
d to have a non-binary factor to get the 1 Hz resolution though. That is w
hat I did on the other NCO with the split radix. Hmmm... this may require
an even more complex phase accumulator because the upper part will be binar
y, the middle have 125 in it and the bottom binary again. lol
lly hard at all. I was just trying to remember some "trick" someone had po
sted about this some 10 years ago.
Ease of use and the ability to get exact results. Use some integer ratio s
tep size to Hz ratio and more bits are needed to get close to the desired r
esults.
Is that really an issue? The NCO is not hard to design. In fact it is don
e. I was just trying to find out if there are better ways of expressing th
e design.
Here's a trade off I have no insight to resolve. I can clock at 32.0 MHz w
ith a 1,000 modulus PWM clocked at 32,000 SPS or I can go with a 32.768 MHz
clock and have the option of a 512 modulus PWM clocked at 64,000 Hz SPS.
Not sure which is better for the quality of the reproduced signal. Probabl
y close to a wash.
33,554,432 Hz can give a 1024 modulus PWM at 32,768 SPS, but won't give a 1
ms enable with any divisor. I suppose I could pick a divisor to get reaso
pm. That's about twice the error of the off divisor. I guess I'm trying t
o be a bit too precise with the numbers.
com wrote:
mail.com wrote:
n wrote:
@gmail.com wrote:
ying to remember the dirty details of what I had learned. In particular I h
ave a non-binary modulus. I'd like to find the simplest way to implement th
is. This is the best I can think of now, but I want to say someone had come
up with a really nice way to code this that was optimally simple and produ
ced optimally simple implementation.
use it in theory can use the same hardware as the subtractor borrow out.
tion that could do this with one adder, but maybe with a mux. Or maybe I'm
not remembering right and it was a mux with another adder that was not part
of the critical timing path. I just can't see how to do this without the t
wo adders (subtractors).
hen muxed with the step size before the subtraction. I bet that's what I'm
thinking of. I believe that will mess up the idea of sharing the carry chai
n for the conditional logic. I need to pull the difference out of the condi
tional I guess. I don't really need speed, so that's not an issue. I am jus
t trying to remember how it all went.
ratio is Phase_Step/NCO_Mod, so there's no reason that NCO_Mod can't be a
power of 2. Just change Phase_Step accordingly. For example, say I want t
he accumulator phase vector to rotate at a rate of 7/22 * Fclk and I'm usin
g a 16-bit accumulator, then, in Verilog:
get radians
CO_Mod = 2**16
enable with a frequency of Fclk*7/22.
rbitrary value. But more importantly, the output value range is defined.
So outputting 2^n-1 is not a valid value.
set for 0 to 999. This means I can't output any value from the phase accum
ulator outside this range. If I make the PWM a 10 bit binary counter of 0
to 1023, other constraints then make the master clock frequency 2^n*1024*10
00 or 32,768,000 with a sample rate of 32000. Yes, this can work if the ph
ase step is not a integer divisor of 1, but I prefer to not do that.
o make it easy to use. I don't think using a non binary modulus is less co
nfusing than non integer step sizes. The ratios would be more like 1000/10
24. It also approximates the required step values well using an eighth of
a Hz resolution.
using non-binarly moduli. Is that a word, moduli?
so I can time 1 ms and also keep the step size a multiple of 1 Hz, or binar
y fraction actually. So it has to have a factor of 1000 no matter what. A
dd in the 1k count for the PWM and the 1k count for the top of the phase ac
cumulator to drive the PWM and you need a frequency of 125 * 2^20 (131.072
MHz) to be able to produce a 1 ms enable strobe for other parts of the circ
uit. Too high.. I could cut the PWM to 9 bits and use a 32.768 MHz clock.
It would give a 64 kHz sample clock, but I think that's ok.
esolution to be accurate. Those are bits of added resolution at the low en
d and other than wanting to make the step size a simple binary multiple of
1 Hz, not a factor.
d to have a non-binary factor to get the 1 Hz resolution though. That is w
hat I did on the other NCO with the split radix. Hmmm... this may require
an even more complex phase accumulator because the upper part will be binar
y, the middle have 125 in it and the bottom binary again. lol
lly hard at all. I was just trying to remember some "trick" someone had po
sted about this some 10 years ago.
Ease of use and the ability to get exact results. Use some integer ratio s
tep size to Hz ratio and more bits are needed to get close to the desired r
esults.
Is that really an issue? The NCO is not hard to design. In fact it is don
e. I was just trying to find out if there are better ways of expressing th
e design.
Here's a trade off I have no insight to resolve. I can clock at 32.0 MHz w
ith a 1,000 modulus PWM clocked at 32,000 SPS or I can go with a 32.768 MHz
clock and have the option of a 512 modulus PWM clocked at 64,000 Hz SPS.
Not sure which is better for the quality of the reproduced signal. Probabl
y close to a wash.
33,554,432 Hz can give a 1024 modulus PWM at 32,768 SPS, but won't give a 1
ms enable with any divisor. I suppose I could pick a divisor to get reaso
pm. That's about twice the error of the off divisor. I guess I'm trying t
o be a bit too precise with the numbers.
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Site Timeline
- » Can a Verilog function take a boolean argument?
- — Next thread in » Field-Programmable Gate Arrays
- » Gowin FPGA Oddities
- — Previous thread in » Field-Programmable Gate Arrays
- » How powerful is Verilog at using parameters to specify designs?
- — Newest thread in » Field-Programmable Gate Arrays
- » Sterowanie oĹwietleniem terenu
- — The site's Newest Thread. Posted in » Electronics (Polish)