Forum Discussion
The best would be to be able to change the BSP from 32 individual mem interfaces to one single Access...
In the BSP for the Stratix SX I have 1 Memory Interface which goes to 2 DDR4 Banks.
<!-- DDR4-2666 -->
<global_mem name="DDR" max_bandwidth="42656" interleaved_bytes="1024" config_addr="0x018">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_mem2" type="slave" width="512" maxburst="16" address="0x000000000" size="0x200000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6"/>
<interface name="board" port="kernel_mem3" type="slave" width="512" maxburst="16" address="0x200000000" size="0x200000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6"/>
</global_mem>
In the Stratix MX i have 32 Interfaces which go to 32 Memory Interfaces....
// board_spec.xml
<global_mem name="HBM0" max_bandwidth="16000" interleaved_bytes="512" config_addr="0x018">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_0" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x0" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
</global_mem>
<global_mem name="HBM1" max_bandwidth="16000" interleaved_bytes="512" config_addr="0x100">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_1" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x10000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
</global_mem>
<global_mem name="HBM2" max_bandwidth="16000" interleaved_bytes="512" config_addr="0x104">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_2" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x20000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
</global_mem>
<global_mem name="HBM3" max_bandwidth="16000" interleaved_bytes="512" config_addr="0x108">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_3" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x30000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
</global_mem>
......
<global_mem name="HBM31" max_bandwidth="16000" interleaved_bytes="512" config_addr="0x178">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_31" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x1f0000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
</global_mem>
which is on one side OK for a lot of sollutions. but not usefull in my Sollution.
I tried to change it in the boardspec but without luck.
I know i need to adjust the BSP in Quartus too but wasn't able to.....
<global_mem name="HBM0" max_bandwidth="512000" interleaved_bytes="128" config_addr="0x018">
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_0" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x0" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_1" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x10000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_2" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x20000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
......
<interface name="board" port="kernel_slave_31" type="slave" width="256" maxburst="16" address="0x1f0000000" size="0x10000000" latency="240" waitrequest_allowance="6" bsp_avmm_write_ack="1"/>
</global_mem>
I know this BSP exists already somewhere.
Where did get the this BSP ?
- TLeng25 years ago
New Contributor
I got the BSP in January from Intel.
We bought the Stratix MX Card with it.
At this point the OpenCL was still on intels roadmap.
Now it isnt anymore and it seems that we spent 50K$ for Developmentkits for nothing
- jomarm103 years ago
New Contributor
Hi,
I am facing the same issue. We have the same S10MX board and the same BSP... we need bigger buffers.
We made some failed attempts to group them.
All we get is
Error (13224): Verilog HDL or VHDL error at lsu_token_ring.sv(207): $fatal : lsu_ic_top ring interconnect: Multiple write rings are not supported when using BSP_AVMM_WRITE_ACK
Error (16185): Can't elaborate user hierarchy "freeze_wrapper_inst|pr_region_inst"
Error (16186): Can't elaborate top-level user hierarchyDid you find any solution to this?
Best Regards.