I'm developing a redundant design in ISE of Xilinx. When I simulate a design the tool shows the following message :
Unit : instances , of unit are equivalent, second instance is removed.
I need that the tool doesn't remove the redundant logic. I want to compare for exemplo a protected block with a umprotected block. I turn off some features the tool but it did not efect.
I would like to know if there is option or some thing in ISE that allows a redundant logic in a design because it is essential for me.
Sorry (bad english)
thank you ..
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
M
Marlboro
N
Nicolas Matringe
Marlboro a =E9crit :
This is utterly wrong (besides, never rely too much on the tool's smartness). The tool simply sees that the two logic constructs have the same inputs and the same behaviour so it removes one of them. I haven't used ISE in some time but I know for sure that there is an option somewhere to keep it from removing redundant or equivalent logic. Or maybe it is an attribute. Search for "preserve" in the documentation.
Nicolas
M
Marlboro
What's about the output? If you don't have an output then the tool knows that you not gonna use it. As a result, it will remove the redundance. Sometimes I ran into this too, what I did was making up a dummy output for the second logic
That rings a bell
A
Austin
Look up the keywords:
SAVE KEEP
If two identical blocks (including inputs) have each an output, if recognised, the logic is removed for one, and both outputs are driven from the remaining block.
Why would you want to have two blocks that did exactly the same thing?
With fully buffered interconnect, there is no delay penalty.
Austin
N
Nicolas Matringe
Marlboro a =E9crit :
it
Ah sorry, in that case this is perfectly right. But I think the OP was talking about replicated logic with its outputs used.
Nicolas
S
Symon
To detect and/or mitigate against SEUs? Cheers, Syms.
A
Austin
In which case, you should either use the TMR Tool(tm), or be very very careful (not recommended without help from Xilinx). Many people have tried to perform manual methods to perform such mitigation, but without knowledge of how the tools work, and how the hardware actually works (not the fantasy presented by FPGA Editor), they all fail miserably.
Even the experts can make mistakes, and find their design has worse performance than an unmitigated one (adding anything at all, increases the failure rate, unless done properly).
If anyone is serious about mitigation (in spite of the excellent SEU FIT rates -- 10 to 30 times BETTER than an equivalent 90 or 65nm ASIC or ASSP*), then I suggest you work with your disti or Xilinx FAE, who knows how to do it.
Austin
Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. At SELSE II (2006), the industry consensus was ~1000 FIT/Mb for logic AND SRAM at
90nm and below for ASIC and ASSP. We publish our FIT rates. And you can see them anytime. If you really want FIT rates in the single digits, you have techniques in our FPGAs to get there (TMR, ECC, etc.).
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.