[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fw: a VHDL puzzle
[snipped much detail about getting priority decoders in
rtl, rather than muxes]
> IT IS VERY NATURAL TO ME THAT vhdl SHOULD INCLUDE A STATEMENT STRUCTURE
> TO GENERATE THE BASIC LOGIC EQUATIONS WITH MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONDITIONS
> FOR HARDWARE DESIGN: OR and AND EQUATIONS WITHOUT ANY HUSSLE.
Yup. It's a big problem. Same thing with verilog.
Lots of gates generated where they're not needed.
Here's my favorite way to "do a reasonable thing" in verilog.
Assume you have mutually exclusive selects (one-bit) A,B,C,D
and they control 32 bit data onto a 32-bit output.
Note, this will propagate X's correctly, unlike some
other verilog behavioral code constructs.
assign data[31:0] =
(A==1'b1) ? (data_in_A[31:0] : 32'b0) |
(B==1'b1) ? (data_in_B[31:0] : 32'b0) |
(C==1'b1) ? (data_in_C[31:0] : 32'b0) |
(D==1'b1) ? (data_in_D[31:0] : 32'b0) ;
The control equations can be arbitrarily complex, if you don't have
single bit contorl signals.
Clumsy. But I share you pain at the rtl languages actually causing
problems, rather than solving them.
It usually pays to also have a monitor to check that the controls really are
if (A + B + C + D !==1'b1) begin ....error message.... end
This enforces one-hot-ness. Sometimes you don't need that...so you can do
if ((A + B + C + D !==1'b1) & (A + B + C + D != 1'b0)) begin ....error message.... end
To just check "not more than one selected".
Remember, we're not just talking about "synthesizing" with knownledge
of mutually exclusivity, but we want the rtl to simulate logically like
the final gate result. That's why use of case statements is rough in rtl,
(first case is executed only).
And nested if/else produces a priority encoder.
A slightly different definition for "case" would have done the trick.
But you really want both cases. :)