Moin,
Sorry that it took me so long to respond, but
i had to restock some chocolate before i start reading :)
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:20:45 +0000
Piete Sartain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Uses a lattice chip: wtf is lattice? I'm very new to the whole
> industry, but I was taught how to use Xilinx stuff. I'm not adverse to
> trying new stuff, but, to not have crossed it's path at all ... hmm ...
> so, off I go to research it. Ok, so, I like what I see. Actually, I
> think I'd rather use that than a Xilinx but that's another story.
That's something i also worry about. Xilinx is very well known,
allmost all people i know work with it. All others work with
Altera. Which means that Lattice isn't known. But i guess they
have a very good reason to switch.
> * Some software. I don't have time to do a proper evaluation at this
> stage (heh, rather like I didn't have time to do a major evaluation of
> the V4 at the time, either!) but it looks like i can probably work out
> how to get it going with minimum of fuss.
There are plugins for Synplify and Precision RTL, so that shouldn't
be a problem.
> * General purposeness: Alright, so it's on a PCI bus. This is good. Is
> it reprogrammable via the PCI bus? I remember talk on this subject, but
> I don't remember the answer. I've searched the archive I hold locally,
> but "pci" and "programmable" doesn't bring up what I wanted - apologies.
> It's got a couple of FPGAs on it, so I could potentially invent a new
> bus scheme and program the controller, or I could use it in a different
> topology if I plug lots of them in together. I wonder what the maximum
> speed rating on those PCI pins is ... I've got a colleague working on
> parallel/distributed algorithms, using about 4 FPGAs and throwing data
> around them. His problem involves moving 32-bits of data in parallel,
> and very fast. He's complaining that LVDS might not be fast enough at
> 644MHz ... I suppose a PCI bus might be good if you could turn bus into
> point-to-point, possibly by an intermediate hardware "router" ...
> anyway, it's got *some* general use, although with the lack of other
> sockets, it's use is limited.
Yes, we have the main FPGA and a CPLD doing the PCI interface.
And yes, you can reprogramm the CPLD to build any other bus
logic you want. I don't know whether the CPLD is capable doing
LVDS (haven't checked the manual yet), but you should be able
to get to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you use a point to point connection.
> * Future proof: can I get more if we need more? Currently, yes, in the
> long run? HMm, maybe, maybe not. That's a concern. If we buy two,
> find they're really good but need 16 ... we're 14 short and you've moved
> on to OGC. My boss would not be happy purchasing this stuff from anyone
> who is not absolutely reputable, which means at least a decent corporate
> site, some phone numbers, an address, and shipping details. If you're
> planning on shipping world wide - make sure you stamp: "As an importer,
> you are responsible for any duty/tax incurred on delivery to your country."
There is (or will be) a company behind OGD: Traversal.
But it wouldnt be a problem even if Traversal would not exist:
the whole schematics, artwork etc pp will be GPL'ed so that
you can build your own card if you want to (ok, it will be
then a bit more expensive, but at least you are not cut off)
> * Support: for the chip itself, the docs look quite nice. For the
> board, questionable support, but with the limited applications (unlike
> purpose-built general purpose boards) the board is understandably less
> complex, so likely requires less support. However, if you *have* got
> any user-tweakable components (open sockets for extra oscillators seem
> very popular) or interfaced components that need special instructions -
> details of how to use them (both from the FPGAs and manually via dip
> switches or headers) is essential.
Yes and no. The schematics are open. The manuals for the FPGA
available online. So even if there is no documentation from
our side, you can still infer how to use it. But i see your
point and yes, we have to take care of that.
> Xilinx stuff itself can be incredibly overpriced, but the market they're
> targetting is big enough to support that kind of money. Unless your
> board does a lot of stuff, you can't afford to ramp up the cost to
> compare to them. Your board has, understandably, a small feature set
> and is not useful in different ways to different people.
No idea what i should respond here. I don't have enough
knowledge about the market.
> In my opinion you cannot compete with these people and even thinking of
> comparing your product with specially designed general-purpose boards is
> folly of the highest order. You need to aim yourself at the home
> hobbiest / specialist research groups, because that's how you've started
> this endevour - with that in mind, US$1000 is a lot of cash for a
> hobbiest. If you try and aim for general research or education, you
> will fall flat on your face - your product does not provide what they
> need. The home hobbiest, however, would love nothing more than an FPGA
> in a PCI slot ... if for no other reason that *that is cool!*.
But that market is even smaller. Especialy at the price
we are dealing.
> If you can make testing and tinkering risk free (having an easy way to
> flash the chips back to their factory shipped state ... ie: a working
> PCI controller!) then suddenly these things are more accessable.
That's the reason why we have a CPLD and an FPGA. The CPLD is
there to programm the FPGA. I did not check yet how easy the
CPLD is to flash, but that shouldn't need more than one small connector.
> Finally, let me say that much of this is rhetorical, I neither expect
> nor desire responses - you have better things to be doing!
Too late ;)
Attila Kinali
--
wer soviel schoggi isst, kann sowieso nicht dumm sein ;-)
-- Sandra
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
