On Sunday 03 April 2005 15:53, Dan McMahill wrote: > I think its a tough thing to give any sort of decent coverage in > a book. One issue is there is a lot of vendor specific terminology. > "pattern" vs "footprint" vs "layout view" for example refering to > the physical view of a component. Also the type of EDA flow which > is desired or even reasonable varies _dramatically_ with the > project at at hand. I'm not even talking about the broad class of > project like board design vs ic design, but rather the gory > details of the particular project.
A good example of this is the 4-input LUT-based FPGA. Originally, this was an idea that Xilinx implimented. Later, Altera came up with their own FPGA that also was a 4-input LUT FPGA. Xilinx sued Altera for patent infringement. Altera payed $20 Million USD to Xilinix and agreed to call thier 4-input LUT-based FPGAs CPLDs. The corporate perspective is that $20 Millon USD changed hands. From a design standpoint, the outcome changed the nomenclature of two identical technologies. Regards Marvin
