Forum Discussion

Altera_Forum's avatar
Altera_Forum
Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
16 years ago

SRAM interface timing discrepancy from Quartus-II 7.0 and 9.0

I have a design which contains an SRAM interface with the default PLL phase shift, -4.8ns for this SRAM. It was compiled by Quartus-II 7.0 and it works perfectly on my target board with an EP2C20F484C7. Recently, I updated the design software to Quartus-II 9.0 SP1, the same design was compiled successfully. However, the design didn't work on my target board. The NIOS-II didn't start. The debugger stopped before my application code. It took a while for me to find what causes the problem. I found that it was caused by SRAM interface timing from Quartus-II 9.0 SP1. When I reduce the PLL phase shift to -4.5ns, it starts to work while in Quartus-II 7.0, it can work when the PLL phase shift is set upto -6.7ns. Although this problem has been resolved, I want to know if there are other discrepancies or any implications. Many thanks.

13 Replies

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    looks like you haven't optimised the sdram IF timing window, so it is edgy. try heating up your board with a hair dryer or cool it down with freezing spray and see what happens.

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    Kaz,

    Thank you very much indeed for your looking into my problem.

    It is SRAM not SDRAM. The compiled design by Quartus-II 7.0 worked on the same target board at almost the same time as the design by Quartus-II 9.0SP1. I would say that any difference of physical conditions can be ruled out.

    Best regards,

    BC
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    even with SRAM, if your phase shift might be a problem then heat the target up and also cool it down. if your target has temperatur problems then you should recheck for setup and hold time. if your design is cooled down, the fpga gets faster and the hold time becomes more critical. also check your quartus settings fast input out registers and other stuff.

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    It might affect timing a little bit by heating up and then cooling down the board. I don't think that it can cause as much difference as 2ns. My target boards are in production and don't have temperature problem.

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    hmmm i had different experiences.

    startung with quartus 4.2 the product family design was finished in quartus 7.2

    with quartus 8 some of these targets were not working properly and the more the enviromental temperature differs from 25 degree celcius the more worse these targets were and some others started to fail too.

    at the end, i had to recalculate the pll phase again with newer reported values and all targets were working again as expected.

    up to quartus 7.2 no change needed in phase shift, from quartus 8 and never the new calculated values must be used.
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    Hi Michael,

    Thank you so much for you sharing your experience with me. Really appreciated.

    I started from Quartus-II 5.0 more than 4 years ago. Every time when I upgraded Altera design software, I always had different issues. Up to Quartus-II 7.0, I did not want to take risk to upgrade it 7.2 becuase it is not backwards compatible. Now, I am going to start a new design and ideally I can use the latest design software. I upgraded it to 9.0 SP1 and tried to the existing design. Then I found the problem.

    I agree with your "from quartus 8 and never the new calculated values must be used." Beyond this, I have lots of other timings as well in my design. Should I re-calculate all the timings, verify and validate all of them?

    Best regards,

    BC
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    well, i had recalculated _ALL_ timings and also verified them with a LeCroy Scope in real life target. as nearly all fpga's here rely on the same sources and use the same software binary, i had to do this a dozend times.

    also check your quartus settings. for the sdram if here, i rechecked that fast input outregisters and other settings are as needed. and i guess you have checked the pin output current settings to prevent over and undershots. thats why i checked it with a very fast scope
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    The oscilloscope I have been using is LeCroy WaveRunner 6050A, 500MHz. If necessary, I will verify and validate them. Do you think that the SSRAM interface with SOPC 9.0SP1 is significantly different from the SSRAM interface with SOPC 7.0? Many thanks.

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    sorry i have no information about that

    so just check that and you know you haven't missed to check the settings.

    i had verfied that all projects don't miss the quartus settings i had to setup to gain the needed setup that the design runs, after updateding to Q8.1
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    16 years ago

    I treied a very simple example with absolutely necessary components and I am sure that the settings are the same for Quartus-II 7.0 and Quartus-II 9.0. But timings are different from Quartus-II 7.0 and Quartus-II 9.0SP1. Thank you very much.