LabVIEW FPGA Idea Exchange

Community Browser
Top Authors
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

Visually detecting the presence of CDC (Clock Domain Crossing) in LV code is only semi-intuitive. It is required to check the set clock of the SCTL and / or follow the wire to the clock constant / control in order to understand in which clock domain the code is running.

 

I suggest having the option to automatically colour the background of the SCTL according to the clock being used.

Obviously, this won't work well over VI borders, but at least the option to have it vivible on the same diagram is already a nice step towards better visibility of this really important part of LabVIEW FPGA programming.

 

An option to actually couple a colour with any given clock constant / control for SCTLs would be an addition I personally would very much appreciate.

 

Intaris_0-1716558682629.png

 

Yes, these colours are probably a bit extreme, but given the fact that I'm dealing with so many individual processes, it is preferable to having to constantly follow all the wires or investigate all of the SCTL settings.

 

Hi,

 

I'd like to request that NI enables the use of Xilinx XPM Macros in Component Level IP (CLIP) and Socketed CLIP and custom user IP:

 

Xilinx recomments XPM macros for Clock Domain Crossing (CDC) and FIFO / Memory instantiation because they are more easily reconfigured / managed than classical IP and (especially in case of CDCs) auto-generate timing constraints to ease getting a correctly constrained design.

 

XPM Macros are available for all current Xilinx/AMD devices (7-Series to Versal):

XPM Macros in 7-Series Libraries:

https://docs.amd.com/r/2021.1-English/ug953-vivado-7series-libraries/Xilinx-Parameterized-Macros 

XPM Macros in UltraScale Libraries:

https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug974-vivado-ultrascale-libraries/Xilinx-Parameterized-Macros 

XPM Macros in Versal (Premium/AI) Libraries:

https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1344-versal-architecture-libraries/Xilinx-Parameterized-Macros 

https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1485-versal-architecture-premium-series-libraries/Xilinx-Parameterized-Macros 

https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1353-versal-architecture-ai-libraries/Xilinx-Parameterized-Macros 

 

Unfortunately, XPM macros are only available in SystemVerilog at lowest level, although VHDL instantiation templates do exist (see documentation above).

AMD/Xilinx seems to have no plans to add pure VHDL XPM Macros:

https://support.xilinx.com/s/question/0D52E00006hpeAySAI/no-vhdl-simulation-models-for-xpms-?language=en_US 

Excerpt:

graces (AMD) on 2017-12-07
There's no plan to support VHDL model for XPM in future releases.

 

graces (AMD) on 2017-12-14

The Xilinx direction for any new development is in Verilog. It can be overridden with business justification though.

 

If you have a strong demand, I'd suggest that you open a Service Request with Technical Support and get a CR filed. The SR will be linked to the CR. If quite a few SRs are linked to the CR, the chance to get it implemented will be larger.

 

Since NI does not document that the FPGA module does not play nicely with CLIP that uses XPM macros, I had to find out what is needed to get them to work:

My preliminary result is that I can get a bit file if I only change/patch the call of xelab that the FPGA module performs from

xelab.bat -m64 xil_defaultlib.conf12B308D38326465793B06F85282B8708 -L xil_defaultlib -L unisim -L unimacro -L xilinxcorelib -L secureip -snapshot my_clip_top_level_entity -dll -prj clipsyn.prj

to 

xelab.bat -m64 xil_defaultlib.conf12B308D38326465793B06F85282B8708 -L xil_defaultlib -L unisim -L unimacro -L xilinxcorelib -L secureip -L xpm -snapshot my_clip_top_level_entity xil_defaultlib.glbl -dll -prj clipsyn.prj

and add the line 

verilog xil_defaultlib "C:\NIFPGA\programs\Vivado2021_1\data\verilog\src\glbl.v"

to clipsyn.prj.

I'm using Labview 2022Q3 with the 2022Q3 FPGA module, targeting a sbRIO-9629's Artix 7 with the bundled Vivado 2021.1

So it seems all that is needed to enable the use of XPM macros in (socketed) CLIP is a configuration option that performs a simple extension of the elaboration command arguments and file list.

 

If NI decides not to support XPM macros for whatever reason, this should be documented very prominently in the CLIP sections of the user manuals. Also, NI should consider providing their own macros with the same functionality in this case, at least for CDCs.

 

Using a netlist or user IP to wrap XPM CDC macros does not work, since the design constraints are added by tcl files (partially only as exceptions), that are not retained in the netlist or IP, see

https://support.xilinx.com/s/question/0D54U00008aHc9ESAS/handleretainexport-xpm-cdc-macro-timing-constraints-for-ooc-design-exported-to-a-netlist-that-is-then-used-and-implemented-with-another-design?language=en_US 

So there is currently no workaround to use a design that depends on them.

 

Thanks for considering this.

It would be nice to have control of clock.-independent assignments of signals from I/O nodes (without synchronising registers) without having to specifically having to use a clock for the connection.

 

Intaris_0-1719315020552.png

 

 

Image says it all.

 

We have tried using a static assignment on the top-level diagram, without using a SCTL but it appears that does not work. The example links within a single CLIP, but the idea is aimed at actually doing some connections between multiple different CLIPs without the need for a specific VHDL wrapper for each individual configuration.

A smaller (and cheaper) sbRIO based on the Xilinx Zynq chip. Target size is SO-DIMM form factor (68 x 30 mm (half the area of a credit card), 200 pins). Such a board  would be OEM friendly and can be plugged into a product (rather than the current sbRIO offerings that requires the product to be developed around the sbRIO rather than the sbRIO fitting into your product). Also, a Base Board that is (only) used during development. Below is what the proposed sbRIO and Base Board would roughly look like (courtesy of Enclustra FPGA Solutions)

mars_pm3_350.jpg       mars_pm3_350.jpg

As somewhat an opposite request to this idea

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-FPGA-Idea-Exchange/Ability-to-define-datatype-of-Registers-FIFOs-from-code-without/idi-p/3123936

I would like to show some pertinent information to the configuration of certain primitives in FPGA code.

 

Intaris_0-1663335955202.png

 

The ability to turn this display on and off just like a label would be very welcome indeed. I'd always have it visible.

 

I just spent two days tracking down a bug which ended up being an under-dimensioned Block RAM instantiation (and how BRAM indexing works, just throwing bits away instead of coercing the read/write index), something whose configuration is completely hidden from view. Why can't we have some visible elements to show the size of a Block RAM and the Datatype (FXP would do for any given FXP type). Same goes for FIFOs, whether a FIFO is 16 elements or 8192 elements deep is a very important piece of information. And of course I mean only the primitives which instantiate the resources, not FP references for these items, even though the datatype of these would also be a very welcome addition.

When dragging multiple IO items from project to a block diagram, it'd be great to have them show up as a single IO node instead of multiple ones. To be backward compatible it could be something like <Shift>-drag. This improves code readibility by producing more compact code.

 

AndreasStark_0-1680632105226.png

 

Even though ibberger touched the concept in the idea , I do think that most o people uses LabVIEW under Windows environment. Compiling a FPGA VI happens all in the PC under Windows. I noticed that during this process the compiler uses only one core. Since I'm using a machine with a 4 core processor, the CPU use rarely goes above 25%.

 

My idea is to update the compiler allowing it to be multicore. The user should have the option to limit the maximum number of cores available to the compiler. This is necessary because the user may want to continue working, while the compiling process is being done in background.

Please add the ability to right-click on a Memory, Register and/or FIFO and FIND ALL instances throughout the project and/or VI hierarchy. Ideally it would be just like local and global variables (as shown) for desktop LabVIEW. 

 

FIND all instances for BRAMs.png

 

How amazing yould it be to have the ability to visualise resource usage on a FPGA target using a similar view to that shown above (courtesy of Windirstat)

 

I only recently shaved a significant portion off my FPGA usage by finding out that I had a massively oversized FIFO in my code for almost a year without noticing.  I feel that this kind of visualisation (with mouse over showing what is actually occupying the space) with differentiation between Registers, LUTs, BRAM, DSPs and so on would greatly aid those of us trying to squeeze as much as possible out of our FPGA designs.

 

I think providing this information based on the "estimated resource utilisation" i.e. before Xilinx optimises stuff away would be OK.  I'm not sure if the final resource utilisation can be mapped as accurately in this way.

 

It would also be nice to see CLIP utilisation and NI-internal utilisation at a glance as this is apparently hugely different between targets.

 

Shane.

The error "You must recompile the VI for the selected target" appears for reasons that, to me, are often obscure or even inexplicable. Recompiling is, as we know, painful. It would be good if the error message included the reason(s) for refusing the existing bitfile, since then I may be able to work out how to stop it happening.

I understand the message comes because LabVIEW decides there are "dirty dots" associated with the bitfile, what I would like the error message to tell me is which dots are dirty and why.

Allows for ILA and other debugging capabilities.

 

We need a way to simply reinterpret the bits in our FPGAs.  I currently have a situation where I need to change my SGL values into U32 for the sake of sending data up to the host.  Currently, the only way is to make an IP node.  That is just silly.  We should be able to use the Type Cast simply for the purpose of reinterpreting the bits.

The Tick Count function in LabVIEW FPGA can represent time periods with tick count accuracy of up to 2^32 clock cycles, that is (using the standard 40 MHz FPGA clock) about 107 seconds.

Sometimes I need to handle longer time spans, and I use this example.

 

I suggest to implement a built-in 64-bit tick counter.

 

 

 

64bittick.png

With availability of fast FlexRIO cards (such as NI 5761) and FPGA framegrabbers (NI 1483, PXIe-1435, NI PCIe-1433 ) data rates of 1GB/s are becoming commonplace.  However, the FPGA Module is limited to communication only with 32-bit LabVIEW. Since, typically you want to store more than 2 seconds of data in RAM,you would like to use 64-bit LabVIEW as your host application.  Unfortunately, this isn't possible yet.

 

While, I can imagine that a full blown 64-bit FPGA Module add on would be pretty difficult to build (and especially test), I believe there is a solid middle ground at this point.  I can imagine, coding and compiling the FPGA in the normal 32-bit LabVIEW environment, and then just using a 64-bit host application to Read/Write front panel controls and to read/write the DMA buffers from the FPGA.  I don't know the details, but this communication protocols could be very low hanging fruit if it's just a simple matter of recompiling a few key pieces for 64-bit operation.

 

Since the data rates passing to and from FPGAs will continue to climb, as well as the prevalence of 64-bit OS, a 64-bit version of FPGA Module is needed in the new feature pipeline.  This should also be kept in mind as other new FPGA Module features and tools are created, as planning for 64-bit compatability now will make the eventual transition to 64-bit much, much easier down the road.

Number to Boolean Array and Boolean Array to Number along with array manipulation functions (index, replace, reverse) are commonly used methods in FPGA for doing bit manipulation on arrays of integers inside SCTLs. Not having access to these functions is prohibitive and results in having to write code like this:

image.png

This becomes very unwieldy when dealing with arrays of 20+ elements. If Number to Boolean Array and Boolean Array to Number are truly no-op elements, then they (along with basic array manipulation nodes) should be added to the list of supported nodes inside for loops inside SCTLs.

I just manually transferred a fairly large LabVIEW FPGA project from one target to another (7965R to 7966R).  It would be nice to be able to click on the RIO target in the project and have an option to "Migrate to New FPGA Target" in the context menu.  The menu would open a new dialog where you could select the new RIO target and then it is automatically added to the project and populated the VIs, FIFOs, derived clocks, memory blocks, etc. from the original target.  The user can choose whether or not to delete the original RIO target.

 

This would also make it very easy for users to transfer sample code from the LabVIEW Example Finder to the correct FPGA target (insead of having the folder labeled "Move These Files").

Currently when you build a VI the bit file path is stored as relative (you can see it in the project XML). This means if you change the project location either:

 

  • Moving machines.
  • Checking in and out of source code control on different machines

You have to recompile the FPGA to use VI mode or run interactively. It seems the bitfile could be stored as a relative path like all VIs in the projects.

 

Cheers,

James

Single cycle timed loops are a huge performance enhancer in LV FPGA. We learn to use these very prolifically in and around our code to save precious FPGA space, yet the BD representation of the SCTL is the standard Timed Loop structure, with both the Left and Right "ears" visible as well as the conditional terminal.

I propose that the SCTL be given it's own representation on the block diagram, one without the "ears" and without the conditional terminal (by definition it only runs once). This will promote much cleaner looking FPGA code and more readable diagrams.

 

SCTL.PNG

Many data streams contain information for multiple channels or multiple samples. Today one must pack this data into larger integer types or interleave the data manually into multiple writes to the DMA FIFO API. It would be much simpler if the DMA natively support cluster and array data types. The local FIFO, Memory, and Register APIs already support this; extend it to DMA.

Hello,

 

This morning, after a night of FPGA compilation, i moved my Labview project path into an other location.

(Without modification of relatives path inside the project directory)

 

And then ... when i tryed to launch my FPGA main VI ... Smiley Mad the compilation started again !!!

 

I would be nice that the  "change detection mechanism" which detect if a compilation is required or not, doesn't take care of absolute paths !

 

I think that the "change detection mechanism" of FPGA code should be modified in order to only take in account the FPGA code dependencies.

 

The dependencies should not include ...

 

 

  • Absolute path references
  • disable conditional items ... if not used in the FPGA code 
  • ...
  • All things not directly needed and called by the FPGA code
  • ...
Angry Manu.net.