Hello, is it possible to synthesize the "monitors" on the altera fpgas'. There are Monitor IPs such as Avalon MM Monitor. Can I synthesize such "Monitors"?

--- Quote Start --- is it possible to synthesize the "monitors" on the altera fpgas'. There are Monitor IPs such as Avalon MM Monitor. Can I synthesize such "Monitors"? --- Quote End --- No. The monitors are there to generate assertion messages regarding Avalon-MM bus protocol violations. Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave. I came across some papers which discussed about developing monitors in SVA [System Verilog Assertion Language] and it stated that these monitors can be synthesized. "This paper presents one implementation of the Open Control Protocol (OCP) monitoring on the synthesized FPGA design using the implemented library of Synthesizable SystemVerilog Assertions (SSVA). The SSVA library is developed using the layer structure of SystemVerilog assertions. It is used in implementation of the monitors for two profiles of the OCP. SSVA library and OCP monitors are then functionally verified in simulator using the test case of the processor-memory communication. The test case is then synthesized on CHIPit Platinum Edition FPGA. The implemented library and monitors can be used in many commercial and educational projects due to their simplicity and low FPGA area usage."

--- Quote Start --- I came across some papers which discussed about developing monitors in SVA [System Verilog Assertion Language] and it stated that these monitors can be synthesized. --- Quote End --- Have a look at the source code. I think you'll find it wrapped in synthesis off/on blocks so that Quartus never even sees the code. That's certainly the case for the Avalon-MM master BFM component. The complication regarding synthesized assertions, is that an assertion needs some method of reporting failures, so a synthesizeable assertion checker would need an Avalon-MM interface with a block of control/status registers so that you could check for assertion failures, and clear error counters. But if your transaction just locked up the Avalon-MM bus, how would you read that register? You really don't want your transactions to fail in real hardware. That is what verification testing is for in the simulator :) Cheers, Dave

Monitors can be synthesized but not recommended right?. I will do some reading and get back to you about this. I have just started Qsys a few weeks ago, apart from the tutorials provided by qsys are there any other online tutorials/ good books about qsys. Thank you, Aditya

--- Quote Start --- Monitors can be synthesized but not recommended right? --- Quote End --- You're missing the point. The task of a monitor is to confirm that components adhere to the bus protocol specification. If a component will violate the bus specification, then its likely the bus will lock-up, and your system will freeze. Sure you can have a watch-dog reset the bus, and perhaps have a 'reset reason' and a backtrace. But all this can be reproduced in the simulation much easier. You setup randomized bus transactions, and code coverage, etc., and make sure things are well tested. Then you can synthesize. --- Quote Start --- I will do some reading and get back to you about this. --- Quote End --- Sure. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the question is what use are they? Feel free to come up with a good reason :) --- Quote Start --- I have just started Qsys a few weeks ago, apart from the tutorials provided by qsys are there any other online tutorials/ good books about qsys. --- Quote End --- You will learn best by building components, constructing _hw.tcl files, and synthesizing them. The nice thing about this approach is that you can get Quartus to generate an _hw.tcl file for some simple components, and then read the documentation about the settings. Things will make much more sense then. The Quartus handbook has chapters on Qsys. I think alot of the component stuff is the same as the SOPC Builder stuff, so you can look at that manual too. The Qsys tutorial has layers of hierarchy, since Altera wants to show off the new features of Qsys relative to SOPC Builder. Rather than using that to learn from, try to create a design with an Avalon-MM BFM master, and an Avalon-MM slave registers interface; don't use the PIO core, write your own. Then write a SystemVerilog testbench to generate read/write transactions to your registers. You can add an Avalon-MM monitor into your testbench, and then generate transactions that violate the bus specification, eg. perform a read or write with invalid byte enables and see the assertion failure messages. You must have a tool that supports System Verilog Assertions (SVA), like the full version of Modelsim, otherwise you will not get the SVA messages. Cheers, Dave

Question about Monitor | Altera Community

117 Replies

Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
Hello Dave,

Is my problem still unclear? Should I re-frame my question?

Thanks,
Aditya
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
I'm guessing bidirectional pins can't be virtual. A virtual pin routes inside the FPGA and never goes to an I/O. A bidir has a tri-state component that only exists in the I/O. I'm not sure how that would be virtual unless the tri-state was ripped out. I'm guessing the virtual assignment is ignored for those I/O.
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
So, if a module [let this be sub-module that connects other modules] has "bidirectional pins" do they automatically get a pin location on the FPGA? What if I want to use the bidirectional pins to connect other modules?
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
There are no internal tri-states. Synthesis can sometimes recode bidirectionals into muxing logic, assuming the solution is obvious. It's generally advised to avoid internal tri-states, since they don't really exist in hardware.
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
Thanks Rysc.
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
Hi Aditya,

--- Quote Start ---

Is my problem still unclear? Should I re-frame my question?

--- Quote End ---
Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm traveling, and only have sporadic internet access.

Its not clear to me why you want to use virtual pins. I have never found a need to use them. Its quite possible that the problems you are having are related to trying to use a feature for other than it was intended.

Rather than use bidirectional signals in components, you should use three ports; data_out, data_in, and data_oe, and then at the top-level design, use these three signals to implement a tri-state bus. Since these three signals (or ports) are unidirectional, you should be able to make them virtual.

Note, these unidirectional ports/signals can be connected to 'fake external devices' internal to the FPGA, where the fake devices can implement what you expect your external device to do. Using these fake devices, you can probably eliminate the need for virtual pins.

Cheers,
Dave
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
Thanks :-)
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
I looked at my private sent message. I said Zero, but I did send you one message, So I am posting it here again since I was not sure whether you had actually received the message.

My message:

I used Timing Optimization Advisor[TOA] to tweak my design. The results were not consistent. [some times the teaks seems to work and some times it doesn't. Some times there are variations in the normal cases[with no tweaks] that outperforms the cases with tweaks]

Here are my observations:

observation 1:

Some of the settings after following the TOA suggestions looked like this:

restructure multiplexers: OFF
state machine encoding: One Hot
smart compilation: ON.

In spite of this the Fmax did not exceed one of the cases when I hadn't followed the TOA suggestions.

observation 2:

The compilation time did not change after switching the "Smart Compilation" option to ON. But in one case it reduced from 12min to 8 min.

Are these options reliable? Looks like the randomness that occurs during the compilation is very dominant. Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks,
AA
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
--- Quote Start ---

I used Timing Optimization Advisor[TOA] to tweak my design. The results were not consistent. [some times the teaks seems to work and some times it doesn't. Some times there are variations in the normal cases[with no tweaks] that outperforms the cases with tweaks]

--- Quote End ---
I do not use these tools. However, a general recommendation would be to only use them when optimizing individual components, not an entire design. You may have a single poorly designed component that is affecting the entire design. Determine if all components need to run at the same clock rate, or whether the design can be arranged to have slower peripherals separated into another part of the design, and then access those components via a clock-crossing bridge.

Cheers,
Dave
Altera_Forum
Honored Contributor
15 years ago
Thanks Dave.

Forum Discussion

Question about Monitor

117 Replies

Recent Discussions

Is MT25QL256ABA8E12-1SIT TR Compatible with a Cyclone V SE FPGA/SoC?

MAX 10. No 3.0 V Schmitt Trigger I/O standard

intel_onchip_Memory II RAM: r/w doesn t work from FPGA but from HPS

Power Rating Required for RZQ Resistor on Cyclone V SE

Arria 10: Remote Update may brick FPGA and Factory Fallback won't work