UPGRADE YOUR BROWSER

We have detected your current browser version is not the latest one. Xilinx.com uses the latest web technologies to bring you the best online experience possible. Please upgrade to a Xilinx.com supported browser:Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer 11, Safari. Thank you!

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Scholar muravin
Scholar
6,592 Views
Registered: ‎11-21-2013

IP Packager does not properly parse Enablement Dependancy

This is a follow-up to the following posting of mine:

 

http://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Synthesis/synthesis-fails-with-no-valuable-explanation/td-p/490424

 

The reason the submodule has been optimized away is due to the improper settings on the interface.

 

Sorry, there is no way to keep this posting short, but it looks like another IP packager / IP canvas / IP etc problem

 

Short form, I did enhannce our proprietary VDMAs to interface with the user, and one can choose a radio button on the IP customization gui and pick one of the following:

1. AXIS

2, RXVID  (a DisplayPort like interface called VLNV:dp_vid_rtl or something like that)

3. HDMI

 

We have 2 modules using such definitions, our proprietary VDMA and our proprietary Vx1 receiver. Correspondingly, they have 2 string parameters C_S2MM_INTERFACE_TYPE and C_RX_INTERFACE_TYPE.

 

One our project uses DisplayPort and another Vx1 and therefore it is useful to have a VDMA with the proper S2MM adaptation layer.

 

Moving on, and here is the problem!!!

 

1.I have to write the Enablement Dependancy for the Vx1 receiver, as following:

- C_INCLUDE_RX == 1 && C_RX_INTERFACE_TYPE == "RXVID", i.e. note the quotes

2. I DO NOT have to write the Enablement Dependancy for the VDMA, as following:

- C_INCLUDE_S2MM == 1 && C_S2MM_INTERFACE_TYPE == RXVID, i.e. note the quotes are not there

 

The Dependancy values are select through the combo box, and are in both cases restricted to AXIS HDMI RXVID.

 

I know this may sound very weird, but this is a reproducable problem where one IP has to be defined in the IP packager differently than another. Can anyone suggest what could cause this? Looks like something fundamental to me, I checked the data types are string, the values validation list is identical.

 

Thanks

Vlad

Vladislav Muravin
0 Kudos