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: 
Highlighted
2,715 Views
Registered: ‎04-26-2012

DSP48 post PAR simulation error

Jump to solution

Hi

I'm having problems with DSP in my design. I've implemented a large (27 DSP, just the multipliers) combinational block that performs some math's and it works great (with no clk) both in behavioral and post PAR simulations. The problem arise when I try to add some FF to the design (e.g. to feedback the output), in this case the behavioral simulation goes fine but the post PAR doesn't. The combinational block has a different output for the same input.

 

If now I test the system with the option dsp_utilization_ratio in 0, then everything goes fine in post PAR. So I think the problem is in the inability of XST to manage both a large number of DSP and a large number of FF at the same time.  I can't figure out how is posible that the comb system works in a different way in post PAR simulation , I try with the issue named here: http://www.xilinx.com/support/answers/22314.htm because looks very similar but I've got nothing.

 

There are no warnings in the whole process. And the clk I use when I add the FF is enough for the comb system to work properly.

 

I'm working with ISE 12.4 , Isim and the bigest spartan 6 

 

Which kind of implementation options can I use to deal with this problem ?

 

Thanks !!

 

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
3,242 Views
Registered: ‎04-26-2012

Re: DSP48 post PAR simulation error

Jump to solution
I lay with the no warnings, there is just one: Unable to preserve the ordering for port bus X on block XX
0 Kudos
1 Reply
3,243 Views
Registered: ‎04-26-2012

Re: DSP48 post PAR simulation error

Jump to solution
I lay with the no warnings, there is just one: Unable to preserve the ordering for port bus X on block XX
0 Kudos