Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DRP addresses in drp_decl are too narrow #150

Closed
jhegeman opened this issue Jan 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

DRP addresses in drp_decl are too narrow #150

jhegeman opened this issue Jan 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@jhegeman
Copy link
Contributor

jhegeman commented Jan 9, 2020

The DRP address width is defined as nine bits:
https://github.com/ipbus/ipbus-firmware/blob/master/components/ipbus_slaves/firmware/hdl/drp_decl.vhd#L41

However, there are many DRP ports around that are wider. For example the GTY common DRP addresses are ten bits (see table 2-24 in https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/ip_documentation/gtwizard_ultrascale/v1_1/pg182-gtwizard-ultrascale.pdf). Under certain conditions these addresses are actually generated with a 16-bit width, but that may be a Vivado issue.

Could we please just bump this address width definition to 16 bits everywhere, and trust the optimiser to get rid of any unused bits?

@jhegeman
Copy link
Contributor Author

jhegeman commented Jan 11, 2020

Ok, after a bit of digging, and reading the latest version of the documentation (https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/ip_documentation/gtwizard_ultrascale/v1_7/pg182-gtwizard-ultrascale.pdf, table 2-24), it turns out that the UltraScale+ GTH and GTY indeed have 16-bit COMMON DRP addresses.

I'll generate a pull request preparing for an expansion of the DRP address in drp_decl.vhd.

@jhegeman
Copy link
Contributor Author

This was handled in PR #153.

@tswilliams tswilliams added this to the Release 1.7 milestone Jan 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants