FPGA Central - World's 1st FPGA / CPLD Portal

FPGA Central

World's 1st FPGA Portal

 

Go Back   FPGA Groups > NewsGroup > FPGA

FPGA comp.arch.fpga newsgroup (usenet)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2006, 05:27 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

I still have not completely figured out the pull up resistors on the
Spartan 3 chips. It would appear that the data sheet has never been
thoroughly reviewed for omissions and errors. Some of the information
that should be clearly indicated in any number of places is missing
and/or misleading.

"A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
I/Os during configuration." Does this include the dedicated
configuration signals? How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
Or is it just the User IO?

I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...

"The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
value on the HSWAP_EN pin."

What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean??? Why would TDO have
(or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?

Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
part that has been in full production for so long? They just updated
the Spartan 3 data sheet this month! Why wasn't the information that
they know is lacking included? I say they know info is lacking because
you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.

I may put up a web page detailing all the short comings in the Spartan
3 devices and documentation.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2006, 06:06 PM
Austin Lesea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Rick,

Why not just email all of this to Steve Knapp directly? Or me or Peter
for Virtex parts?

Seems that if you'd like to help us by pointing out anything confusing
or inconsistent, you could get it to the right party in one step.

I agree with you that answers should be scrubbed for any update to a
document. It is the little things that drive us all crazy.

Austin


rickman wrote:
> I still have not completely figured out the pull up resistors on the
> Spartan 3 chips. It would appear that the data sheet has never been
> thoroughly reviewed for omissions and errors. Some of the information
> that should be clearly indicated in any number of places is missing
> and/or misleading.
>
> "A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
> I/Os during configuration." Does this include the dedicated
> configuration signals? How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
> Or is it just the User IO?
>
> I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
>
> "The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
> HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
> pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
> value on the HSWAP_EN pin."
>
> What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean??? Why would TDO have
> (or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?
>
> Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
> part that has been in full production for so long? They just updated
> the Spartan 3 data sheet this month! Why wasn't the information that
> they know is lacking included? I say they know info is lacking because
> you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.
>
> I may put up a web page detailing all the short comings in the Spartan
> 3 devices and documentation.
>

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2006, 09:18 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

I *didn't* address the message to anyone at Xilinx. This was an open
message to everyone who uses Xilinx parts and might have something to
comment about it. If you review the other thread on the documentation
shortcomings of the Spartan 3 parts, you will see that at least one
poster has encountered such signficantly difficult to resolve issues
that they consider the solution to be proprietary information.

You are a big proponent of how good a job Xilinx does on support.
Instead of asking why I posted the message, have you considered asking
why a significant issue such as 1 kohm pullup resistors on the
configuration pins remains largely undocumented? It was only after I
found that confusing sentence shown below that I realized that these
resistors are also on the JTAG pins. I have been asked repeatedly why
I did not use a pull down resistor on JTAG my board like the other
designs here use. My answer was that this is what I am used to using.
I nearly changed the design since I had no strong conviction either
way. Now I realize that if I had used a pull down of typical 1 to 4.7
kohms, the circuit would not have worked at all being biased in an
undefined region.

Come on Austin. Don't shoot the messenger! Listen to the message and
work on your internal processes. If it was important enough to create
an answer record and was not in the data sheet, someone should have
made sure that it found its way into the data sheet in a clear and
accessible manner.

BTW, I still don't know if the configuration pullup resistors are
disabled by the HSWAP_EN signal. Anyone out there know the answer? I
really don't know if Xilinx does. I would love to see a clear and
comprehensive table covering all the pins.



Austin Lesea wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Why not just email all of this to Steve Knapp directly? Or me or Peter
> for Virtex parts?
>
> Seems that if you'd like to help us by pointing out anything confusing
> or inconsistent, you could get it to the right party in one step.
>
> I agree with you that answers should be scrubbed for any update to a
> document. It is the little things that drive us all crazy.
>
> Austin
>
>
> rickman wrote:
> > I still have not completely figured out the pull up resistors on the
> > Spartan 3 chips. It would appear that the data sheet has never been
> > thoroughly reviewed for omissions and errors. Some of the information
> > that should be clearly indicated in any number of places is missing
> > and/or misleading.
> >
> > "A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
> > I/Os during configuration." Does this include the dedicated
> > configuration signals? How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
> > Or is it just the User IO?
> >
> > I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
> >
> > "The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
> > HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
> > pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
> > value on the HSWAP_EN pin."
> >
> > What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean??? Why would TDO have
> > (or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?
> >
> > Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
> > part that has been in full production for so long? They just updated
> > the Spartan 3 data sheet this month! Why wasn't the information that
> > they know is lacking included? I say they know info is lacking because
> > you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.
> >
> > I may put up a web page detailing all the short comings in the Spartan
> > 3 devices and documentation.
> >


Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2006, 10:24 PM
Austin Lesea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Rick!

Back off -- I am on your side.

I am just asking that you send comments to the appropriate person in
Xilinx (too).

Go ahead and post (it is your time, and your effort). I don't have a
problem with that. But, if you post something that can be fixed, at
least give us the oppostunity to fix it. If we screw up, then OK,
scream and rant, and do whatever makes you feel better.

Its a big company, with many products, and millions (literally) words of
documentation.

I didn't say we were perfect. In fact I said we were imperfect, and
looking for ways to get better.

I have spent about two hours today trying to identify where in the
process APD and GPD could do better. I am still trying to find the best
way to attack the problems, and provide the best solutions. It has long
been an issue with me that tech answers should automatically feed back
into documents, and then have a sunset so they go away after a suitable
time when the docs now have the info (OK to have both for awhile).

That is my job (as a principal engineer) here at Xilinx: to be an agent
for change (for the better). It is in my job description.

So, I really appreciate that you post (it directly helps me to fufill my
job responsibilities), but if I don't have to go to the newsgroup to
read it, it makes it even easier for me. OK if you don't. I am just
asking (nicely).

Thanks for today's tough task, by the way.

As for "the answer" I can't do that in Spartan land, as I have no easy
access to the chip schematics like I do for Virtex. If it was Virtex
X+1, I just go to the schematics and dig for awhile. Sorry I can't do
that for you on this one,

Austin

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2006, 11:09 PM
Antti Lukats
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

"rickman" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected] ps.com...
>I still have not completely figured out the pull up resistors on the
> Spartan 3 chips. It would appear that the data sheet has never been
> thoroughly reviewed for omissions and errors. Some of the information
> that should be clearly indicated in any number of places is missing
> and/or misleading.
>
> "A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
> I/Os during configuration." Does this include the dedicated
> configuration signals? How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
> Or is it just the User IO?
>
> I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
>
> "The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
> HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
> pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
> value on the HSWAP_EN pin."
>
> What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean??? Why would TDO have
> (or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?
>
> Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
> part that has been in full production for so long? They just updated
> the Spartan 3 data sheet this month! Why wasn't the information that
> they know is lacking included? I say they know info is lacking because
> you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.
>
> I may put up a web page detailing all the short comings in the Spartan
> 3 devices and documentation.
>

Rick

TDO is not is not full-time output (or at least doesnt have to be) TDO is
driven when JTAG TAP is in 'shift' states and tri-stated otherwise so a
pullup makes sense

Antti




Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2006, 02:53 AM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

I found the missing info. Instead of putting the details along with
the other details in the pin descriptions, the pull ups are mentioned
in the section header which I did not read. That seems to be the only
info in the section header, the pull ups. The pins I was researching
were on the following page and so the header was not apparent.

The confusing sentance still stands however. Whatever the words mean,
I assume it is simply saying that there are pull up resistors on all of
the configuration pins regardless of the state of the HSWAP_EN pin.

I don't know what to make of you Austin. You certainly don't come
across as a people person. But thanks for the permission to post here.
;^)

Just FYI, I have to fight just as hard in the company where I work to
get people to produce decent documentation. It's not that it should
always be perfect... we're all human. But so many people don't feel
documentation matters much. They think it is all about the product.
But people's lives depend on our products and I am taking that very
seriously.

As to this issue, it almost cost me a pointless board spin; not life
threatening, but certainly that could be career threatening.

As to contacting Steve, I have done that. I hope that the pull up
issue becomes more widely understood. The combination of poorly
documented pull ups and the stiff value of these pull ups in the
Spartan 3 devices can make a lot of trouble for a lot of designs.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2006, 03:53 AM
Austin Lesea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Rick,

Well, I hope you keep up the comments.

I am seriously trying to improve the documentaion process.

If we explain it right the first time, we get less confusion, and we get
to market faster.

Really very simple, and very self serving: the better the docs, the
less time wasted, and the faster our customers either gain success, or
fail. The faster money changes hands. The faster we succeed (or fail
to succeeed).

It is so simple, yet so many (most) companies get it wrong.

Just make it simple to succeed, and don't get in the way, or make things
any tougher than they already are.

As for my personality, my wife thinks I am completely impossible ('how
can anyone work for you?'). My staff thinks I am the best boss they
every had ('how can your boss deal with you?'). My supervisors love
that I always come to them with a solution to the problem ('how do you
keep your people so happy?'). My (totally grown) kids claim I am
totally mad, and can not be trusted even for a moment ('that's not
fair!'). My grandchildren sense I can be completely trusted to see to
their well being and happiness (which I can be).

So, I have a personality: guilty as charged. Member of the human race.

Austin
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2006, 12:31 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

As long as you brought up your personality, I'll just say that I
remember reading about someone who reminds me of you, Napoleon. He
thought a lot of himself too.

Austin Lesea wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Well, I hope you keep up the comments.
>
> I am seriously trying to improve the documentaion process.
>
> If we explain it right the first time, we get less confusion, and we get
> to market faster.
>
> Really very simple, and very self serving: the better the docs, the
> less time wasted, and the faster our customers either gain success, or
> fail. The faster money changes hands. The faster we succeed (or fail
> to succeeed).
>
> It is so simple, yet so many (most) companies get it wrong.
>
> Just make it simple to succeed, and don't get in the way, or make things
> any tougher than they already are.
>
> As for my personality, my wife thinks I am completely impossible ('how
> can anyone work for you?'). My staff thinks I am the best boss they
> every had ('how can your boss deal with you?'). My supervisors love
> that I always come to them with a solution to the problem ('how do you
> keep your people so happy?'). My (totally grown) kids claim I am
> totally mad, and can not be trusted even for a moment ('that's not
> fair!'). My grandchildren sense I can be completely trusted to see to
> their well being and happiness (which I can be).
>
> So, I have a personality: guilty as charged. Member of the human race.
>
> Austin


Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2006, 04:27 PM
Austin Lesea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Rick,

Thanks for the compliment.

Austin

rickman wrote:

> As long as you brought up your personality, I'll just say that I
> remember reading about someone who reminds me of you, Napoleon. He
> thought a lot of himself too.
>
> Austin Lesea wrote:
>
>>Rick,
>>
>>Well, I hope you keep up the comments.
>>
>>I am seriously trying to improve the documentaion process.
>>
>>If we explain it right the first time, we get less confusion, and we get
>>to market faster.
>>
>>Really very simple, and very self serving: the better the docs, the
>>less time wasted, and the faster our customers either gain success, or
>>fail. The faster money changes hands. The faster we succeed (or fail
>>to succeeed).
>>
>>It is so simple, yet so many (most) companies get it wrong.
>>
>>Just make it simple to succeed, and don't get in the way, or make things
>>any tougher than they already are.
>>
>>As for my personality, my wife thinks I am completely impossible ('how
>>can anyone work for you?'). My staff thinks I am the best boss they
>>every had ('how can your boss deal with you?'). My supervisors love
>>that I always come to them with a solution to the problem ('how do you
>>keep your people so happy?'). My (totally grown) kids claim I am
>>totally mad, and can not be trusted even for a moment ('that's not
>>fair!'). My grandchildren sense I can be completely trusted to see to
>>their well being and happiness (which I can be).
>>
>>So, I have a personality: guilty as charged. Member of the human race.
>>
>>Austin

>
>

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2006, 01:49 AM
Steve Knapp (Xilinx Spartan-3 Generation FPGAs)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

rickman wrote:

[... snip ...]

> "A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
> I/Os during configuration." Does this include the dedicated
> configuration signals? How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
> Or is it just the User IO?


First, some background. On Spartan-3, the dedicated configuration
pins, like CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0, and HSWAP_EN itself, all
have an internal pull-up resistor to VCCAUX that is active during
configuration, regardless of HSWAP_EN. After configuration, these pins
have a bitstream generator option that defines their respective
behavior.

All other pins have optional pull-up resistors, controlled by the
HSWAP_EN pin. When HSWAP_EN=0, these pull-ups are enabled to their
respective I/O Bank voltage supply (such as VCCO_0, VCCO_1, etc.).

> I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
>
> "The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
> HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
> pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
> value on the HSWAP_EN pin."
>
> What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean??? Why would TDO have
> (or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?


What the who!?! I think the intention was that the "pull-up resistor
connects to VCCAUX", _not_ HSWAP_EN. I'll see that we get that one
fixed ASAP!

> Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
> part that has been in full production for so long? They just updated
> the Spartan 3 data sheet this month! Why wasn't the information that
> they know is lacking included? I say they know info is lacking because
> you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.


The updates happen periodically. As various issues are reported by the
Xilinx Technical Support team, we update the documentation to make sure
that you don't bump into any known landmines (okay, not a Marketing
term). The latest updated changed maybe 0.1% of the verbage. We
incorporate the latest learning, new ideas, and latest information.
Believe me, we want to make your design experience as pleasant and
trouble-free as possible.

I encourage active feedback. If something is confusing, please let us
know, as it will likely be confusing to others. Most of our best
product and documentation ideas come from Xilinx users! Feel free to
E-mail me directly for Spartan documentation or use the Feedback link
from the Xilinx web site.
http://www.xilinx.com/askx/feedback.htm

---------------------------------
Steven K. Knapp
Applications Manager, Xilinx Inc.
General Products Division
Spartan-3/-3E FPGAs
http://www.xilinx.com/spartan3e
E-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------
The Spartan(tm)-3 Generation: The World's Lowest-Cost FPGAs.

Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2006, 03:10 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Steve Knapp (Xilinx Spartan-3 Generation FPGAs) wrote:
> I encourage active feedback. If something is confusing, please let us
> know, as it will likely be confusing to others. Most of our best
> product and documentation ideas come from Xilinx users! Feel free to
> E-mail me directly for Spartan documentation or use the Feedback link
> from the Xilinx web site.
> http://www.xilinx.com/askx/feedback.htm


You might also try educating your FAEs. I specifically asked my local
FAE about using resistors to set the mode pins ("Why do the app notes
show direct connections to Vcc and Gnd, will resistors work ok?") and
he said that we could use 4.7 kohm resistors. Clearly this is not a
correct answer. Based on his reply I almost commited to a design that
would not have worked.

Like I said in my email, the info is mostly in the data sheet. But
there are many places where it seems to contradict itself and is so
scattered around that it would take a hour or more of intensive
searching to find all the relevant info. I actually sat down earlier
and did a search on "pull-up" trying to find all the info on the
pullups and the configuration pins. Even then I missed a few items
like the *only* place in the document where pull-ups on the mode pins
are mentioned, in the header for the pin description section that
covers the configuration pins.

I am asking that you not wait until a frustrated user reports your
mistakes. I am asking that you have someone look at what it takes to
find all the info that an engineer needs to configure these parts and
make the info consistent and more usable.

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2006, 09:27 PM
Michael Hennebry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

rickman wrote:

> I am asking that you not wait until a frustrated user reports your
> mistakes. I am asking that you have someone look at what it takes to
> find all the info that an engineer needs to configure these parts and
> make the info consistent and more usable.


Documentation by the designer is notoriously awful,
but to start with, the designer is who is available.
It takes a truly wonderful designer to put himself in the
position of someone encountering his design for the first time.
Just ask the people trying to use my documentation.
Input from frustrated users is necessary.
I don't have the information to know whether the documentation
for this part is as good as it could be given the user input.

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2006, 01:29 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Michael Hennebry wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
> > I am asking that you not wait until a frustrated user reports your
> > mistakes. I am asking that you have someone look at what it takes to
> > find all the info that an engineer needs to configure these parts and
> > make the info consistent and more usable.

>
> Documentation by the designer is notoriously awful,


Wouldn't that depend on the designer???

> but to start with, the designer is who is available.
> It takes a truly wonderful designer to put himself in the
> position of someone encountering his design for the first time.


No, it just takes someone who is familiar with the process of
documentation. One of the big problems with documentation is that they
let amateurs do it. By amateurs, I mean they teach designers how to
design, but not how to document. I have worked places where the
documentation was done by a separate group of documentation experts.
They did not have the detailed technical knowledge of the designer, but
they knew the process and had the designer as a resource to draw on.

Other companies are engineering focused and so document from the
perspective of an engineer who often, by the time the documentation is
being done, is getting tired of the program and doesn't like
documentation anyway. The result is a poor document with little peer
review (or review by peers who also don't get it).

> Just ask the people trying to use my documentation.
> Input from frustrated users is necessary.


Only necessary if produce poor documentation in the first place.

> I don't have the information to know whether the documentation
> for this part is as good as it could be given the user input.


It is pretty obvious that they dropped the ball in a couple of
respects. Even once the document was published, there were calls into
support about some of the configuration issues which resulted in an
answer record a year ago. Clearly someone at Xilinx knew that there
was a shortcoming in the documentation to have produced this. But that
shortcoming was never corrected in the data sheet. Lack of internal
communication perhaps? One group pointing out a problem and another
group in denial? I can't say. I just know I had a very hard time
finding all the data on configuring the parts and I am still not sure I
have it right.

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2006, 01:06 AM
RobJ
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Rickman -

I have no bones to pick with you and I should know better than to dive into
this pissing match between you and Austin, but from your posts on this group
you come of to me as a perpetually exasperated and pissed off person who is
probably not a barrel of laughs to be around. Case in point is all of your
ranting posts about those darn S3 pullups. I don't have a problem with you
being a little pissy now and then, but I do have a problem with you taking
shots at anyone else's personality. Those in glass houses, bro'. By the way,
I disagree with your assessment of Austin's on-line personality. He gets
passionate, but unlike you is almost always curteous (except with Leventis
from Altera).

Rob

"rickman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> As long as you brought up your personality, I'll just say that I
> remember reading about someone who reminds me of you, Napoleon. He
> thought a lot of himself too.
>
> Austin Lesea wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> Well, I hope you keep up the comments.
>>
>> I am seriously trying to improve the documentaion process.
>>
>> If we explain it right the first time, we get less confusion, and we get
>> to market faster.
>>
>> Really very simple, and very self serving: the better the docs, the
>> less time wasted, and the faster our customers either gain success, or
>> fail. The faster money changes hands. The faster we succeed (or fail
>> to succeeed).
>>
>> It is so simple, yet so many (most) companies get it wrong.
>>
>> Just make it simple to succeed, and don't get in the way, or make things
>> any tougher than they already are.
>>
>> As for my personality, my wife thinks I am completely impossible ('how
>> can anyone work for you?'). My staff thinks I am the best boss they
>> every had ('how can your boss deal with you?'). My supervisors love
>> that I always come to them with a solution to the problem ('how do you
>> keep your people so happy?'). My (totally grown) kids claim I am
>> totally mad, and can not be trusted even for a moment ('that's not
>> fair!'). My grandchildren sense I can be completely trusted to see to
>> their well being and happiness (which I can be).
>>
>> So, I have a personality: guilty as charged. Member of the human race.
>>
>> Austin

>



Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2006, 05:28 AM
John_H
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

RobJ wrote:
> Rickman -
>
> I have no bones to pick with you and I should know better than to dive into
> this pissing match between you and Austin, but from your posts on this group
> you come of to me as a perpetually exasperated and pissed off person who is
> probably not a barrel of laughs to be around. Case in point is all of your
> ranting posts about those darn S3 pullups. I don't have a problem with you
> being a little pissy now and then, but I do have a problem with you taking
> shots at anyone else's personality. Those in glass houses, bro'. By the way,
> I disagree with your assessment of Austin's on-line personality. He gets
> passionate, but unlike you is almost always curteous (except with Leventis
> from Altera).
>
> Rob


I was actually pleasantly impressed with how civil both parties have
been in this discussion. It's tough being chewed at by anal design
reviewers nitpicking every aspect of your design which requires an
official point-by-point follow up afterward to maintain ISO9001
compliance. Yeesh!

I still haven't seen definitive answers for rickman's specific issue
which should be able to be answered by the data sheet or supporting
literature. It's a difficult situation for all parties involved.

I appreciate the restraint shown by all.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2006, 04:42 PM
Austin Lesea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

John,

I have no issues with Rick - I understand his frustration, and I share
it. Please do not think poorly of him. Xilinx did not do him a
service, and he feels compelled to share his experience here. OK. At
least Steve got it, and fixed it (which is what counts). For every
verbal complaint, there are at least ten others too busy to complain (a
basic rule of customer support).

I am actively working every day to improve Xilinx communications to our
customers because it is just darned good business to do so: faster it
works, faster we get orders. Just that simple.

But, let us go back to history...

Napoleon was a great leader, and a visionary. Parks, forests, roads,
and many other things people take for granted in Europe were done by his
command. The fact that he lost his last battle has left him judged
rather poorly by the English dominated history books. If he would have
won, the books would vilify the losers!

History is written by the winners. A good historian recognizes this,
and attempts to place themselves in the loser's shoes, and read all
original accounts, and tries to feret out what facts they can.

To accuse me of being as arrogant as Napoleon was obviously designed to
tweak my nose - I know that. But in the Zen tradition, I thank Rick for
his gift of Napoleon, and appreciate it all the more for its wisdom.

Merci beaucoup M. Rickman, je vous remercie pour votre compliment.

Reflecting on world history,

Austin
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2006, 05:48 PM
David Brown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Austin Lesea wrote:
> John,
>
> I have no issues with Rick - I understand his frustration, and I share
> it. Please do not think poorly of him. Xilinx did not do him a
> service, and he feels compelled to share his experience here. OK. At
> least Steve got it, and fixed it (which is what counts). For every
> verbal complaint, there are at least ten others too busy to complain (a
> basic rule of customer support).
>
> I am actively working every day to improve Xilinx communications to our
> customers because it is just darned good business to do so: faster it
> works, faster we get orders. Just that simple.
>
> But, let us go back to history...
>
> Napoleon was a great leader, and a visionary. Parks, forests, roads,
> and many other things people take for granted in Europe were done by his
> command. The fact that he lost his last battle has left him judged
> rather poorly by the English dominated history books. If he would have
> won, the books would vilify the losers!
>
> History is written by the winners. A good historian recognizes this,
> and attempts to place themselves in the loser's shoes, and read all
> original accounts, and tries to feret out what facts they can.
>


"History will treat me kindly, for I intend to write it"
Winston Churchill.

But I'm not sure the vilification of the loser was unjust that time.

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 12:29 AM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Regarding Napoelon:
France loves him, although he caused misery and the death of hundreds
of thousands of her sons.
The Germans hate him for beating their armies, although he also
terminated the Middle Ages and laid the beginning of the foundation of
the modern German state and its secular laws.

For better or worse, Napoleon left an enormous, and largely positive
heritage.
(I grew up in a house that Napoleon rode by on his way to Moscow...
History is everywhere in Europe.)
Peter Alfke

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 10:27 AM
Ulf Samuelsson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Michael Hennebry wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> I am asking that you not wait until a frustrated user reports your
>> mistakes. I am asking that you have someone look at what it takes to
>> find all the info that an engineer needs to configure these parts and
>> make the info consistent and more usable.

>
> Documentation by the designer is notoriously awful,
> but to start with, the designer is who is available.
> It takes a truly wonderful designer to put himself in the
> position of someone encountering his design for the first time.
> Just ask the people trying to use my documentation.
> Input from frustrated users is necessary.
> I don't have the information to know whether the documentation
> for this part is as good as it could be given the user input.


If they guy making development board for a part would not have
access to anything except the datasheet, then maybe there would be
improvements.

Documentation is improved if it can be measured against a standard
on what the documentation should contain.


--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
[email protected]
This message is intended to be my own personal view and it
may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB


Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2006, 01:12 AM
John Larkin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

On 24 Apr 2006 09:27:02 -0700, "rickman" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
>
>"The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
>HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
>pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
>value on the HSWAP_EN pin."



It's stunning how bad IC documentation is, and not just Xilinx. The
use of the passive voice ("the enable input, when asserted..." Who
the hell pulls it high, or maybe low, me or the chip?) and the
persistant refusal to distinguish between levels and edges are two
especially annoying lapses. The guys who do mixed-level stuff, like
serial ADCs, are extra bad.

Who *writes* this stuff?

John


Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2006, 01:43 AM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Who writes this stuff?
I can speak from personal experience: When I arrived at Xilinx in 1988
I shuddered at the poor organization of the very first Data Book. And I
volunteered to create a new one from scratch. And that's what I did,
for 5 years in a row. I did not perform the measurements, but I either
wrote or edited every single word and every comma, semicolon and
hyphen.( I am hot on hyphens...)
The advantage of a start-up is that the company can hire overqualified
people to do mundane jobs, and do them very well. With over 30 years
of engineering experience, I just rolled up my sleeves and dug into it.
(The stock options were a nice motivator...)
I disagree with the statement that engineers cannot write, and that the
job has to be delegated to tech writers. For that's what you get in a
more mature company, where the really savvy engineers are up to their
ears in design, if they have not yet been promoted to a managerial
position.
The tech writers know their grammar and spelling, and the Chicago Book
of Style, but they usually have never been working engineers.
So you get good grammar, but not necessarily good sense. Sometimes not
even good grammar...
Excellent documentation is rarely elevated to a top priority. That is a
sad fact. No need to convince me or Austin or Steve Knapp about the
errors of that reasoning. We know and we try our best to help out

Peter Alfke

Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2006, 12:45 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

Peter Alfke wrote:
> Who writes this stuff?
> I can speak from personal experience: When I arrived at Xilinx in 1988
> I shuddered at the poor organization of the very first Data Book. And I
> volunteered to create a new one from scratch. And that's what I did,
> for 5 years in a row. I did not perform the measurements, but I either
> wrote or edited every single word and every comma, semicolon and
> hyphen.( I am hot on hyphens...)
> The advantage of a start-up is that the company can hire overqualified
> people to do mundane jobs, and do them very well. With over 30 years
> of engineering experience, I just rolled up my sleeves and dug into it.
> (The stock options were a nice motivator...)
> I disagree with the statement that engineers cannot write, and that the
> job has to be delegated to tech writers. For that's what you get in a
> more mature company, where the really savvy engineers are up to their
> ears in design, if they have not yet been promoted to a managerial
> position.
> The tech writers know their grammar and spelling, and the Chicago Book
> of Style, but they usually have never been working engineers.
> So you get good grammar, but not necessarily good sense. Sometimes not
> even good grammar...


It has been my experience that tech writers provide a lot more than
just a grammer check. They understand how to present information in a
clear, concise and complete manner; all things that we are discussing
as being missing from the Xilinx documentation. Tech writers
understand documentation the way you understand your chips. They know
the process of taking raw input and working it into a document by
writing, reviewing, finding the holes and plugging them. Tech writers
find and fix the problems so your customers don't have to.

> Excellent documentation is rarely elevated to a top priority. That is a
> sad fact. No need to convince me or Austin or Steve Knapp about the
> errors of that reasoning. We know and we try our best to help out


That is true here as well. I am constantly being told that the
document does not need to be complete, we just need something to meet
our schedule. But just like the design, I am responsible for the
completeness and accuracy of the documentation. My last ICD was good
enough that our customer decided to use it as the governing document
for the interface and his ICD removed the related technical info and
references our document.

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2006, 04:44 PM
Austin Lesea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Spartan 3 documentation confusing...no more

Rick,

I have just checked the Spartan 3 changes, and I am pleased to see what
I think you need.

http://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/ds099.pdf

page 56, Table 32 has the ranges of pullup currents, and their
equivalent ranges in ohms.

page 97, Table 68 through page 100 Table 69 has the definitions of the
pins, with a statement of when the pullups are active, and when it matters.

page 109, Table 74 reinforces the definition of the pins, and the pullups.

Do you agree?

My only complaints are that 'pullup' and 'pull-up' are both used, so
searching for "strength" needed 'pull-up' and searching for "definition"
needed 'pullup.' And W is used instead of omega (for ohms) in four
places (describing pullup for DONE, etc.).

I hope this will allow everyone to go back to work, now that they have
the pull-up (pullup) resistors fully specified for 1.14 to 3.45 volts
(as active devices, their strength varies with supply voltage).

If anyone at your place of work is still unhappy/uncomfortable with your
design choices, I would be happy to remind them (in writing) that the
data sheet (product specification, combined with the encrypted spice
models, IBIS models, and speeds files) are the controlling documents,
and that what may be suggested by the hotline, or by a FAE (or even by
me!) may not be the most optimal solution (anything that is not in
writing and approved by Xilinx may have been subject to
mis-interpretation, or may be in error), and that good engineering
judgement combined with observance of the data sheet and other
specifications I have listed above is what actually matters (in a
practical and legal sense).

Austin
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2006, 11:25 AM
David Brown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...

John Larkin wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 09:27:02 -0700, "rickman" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
>>
>> "The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
>> HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
>> pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
>> value on the HSWAP_EN pin."

>
>
> It's stunning how bad IC documentation is, and not just Xilinx. The
> use of the passive voice ("the enable input, when asserted..." Who
> the hell pulls it high, or maybe low, me or the chip?) and the
> persistant refusal to distinguish between levels and edges are two
> especially annoying lapses. The guys who do mixed-level stuff, like
> serial ADCs, are extra bad.
>
> Who *writes* this stuff?
>
> John
>


At least it was written in the one language, rather than being
translated. The worst documentation I came across was for an ASIC made
in Germany. The original German datasheet was very poor, and had been
translated into English by someone who seemed to have little knowledge
of either German or English, and no knowledge at all of the electronics
involved. One entire chapter (the one containing all the register
settings - kind of important) was translated to the single sentence
"original German unclear".

Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2006, 02:14 PM
John_H
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...no more

I, for one, am very pleased to see the changes. The push to take care
of the nitty gritty details that really do matter is sincerely
appreciated. I saw great stuff with the Spartan3E design notes in the
data sheet and now the clarification of trivial (i.e. rudamentary)
information here in the Spartan3.

Thanks from me to the Xilinx folks that for pushed the changes.

- John Handwork


Austin Lesea wrote:
> Rick,
>
> I have just checked the Spartan 3 changes, and I am pleased to see what
> I think you need.
>
> http://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/ds099.pdf
>
> page 56, Table 32 has the ranges of pullup currents, and their
> equivalent ranges in ohms.
>
> page 97, Table 68 through page 100 Table 69 has the definitions of the
> pins, with a statement of when the pullups are active, and when it matters.
>
> page 109, Table 74 reinforces the definition of the pins, and the pullups.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> My only complaints are that 'pullup' and 'pull-up' are both used, so
> searching for "strength" needed 'pull-up' and searching for "definition"
> needed 'pullup.' And W is used instead of omega (for ohms) in four
> places (describing pullup for DONE, etc.).
>
> I hope this will allow everyone to go back to work, now that they have
> the pull-up (pullup) resistors fully specified for 1.14 to 3.45 volts
> (as active devices, their strength varies with supply voltage).
>
> If anyone at your place of work is still unhappy/uncomfortable with your
> design choices, I would be happy to remind them (in writing) that the
> data sheet (product specification, combined with the encrypted spice
> models, IBIS models, and speeds files) are the controlling documents,
> and that what may be suggested by the hotline, or by a FAE (or even by
> me!) may not be the most optimal solution (anything that is not in
> writing and approved by Xilinx may have been subject to
> mis-interpretation, or may be in error), and that good engineering
> judgement combined with observance of the data sheet and other
> specifications I have listed above is what actually matters (in a
> practical and legal sense).
>
> Austin

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confusing precedence SVA Rob Dekker Verilog 3 11-20-2006 12:37 PM
To Xilinx: Problem with Digilent Spartan III Starter Kit Documentation Rob Gaddi FPGA 2 05-13-2005 05:46 PM
confusing wordcount in virtex2pro-bitstream Patrick Siegel FPGA 0 01-18-2005 04:08 PM
Confusing Xilinx Webpack warning Prasanth Kumar FPGA 2 08-08-2003 01:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2008 @ FPGA Central. All rights reserved